Abortion: an “Essential” Service in the Corona Economy

If there still remained any question about the insanity of the Corona Thing, the issue of abortion should resolve that. Our society has gone full-blown mad.

Since the rationale for the heavy-handed lockdown by governments everywhere has been touted and promoted as necessary for our “safety”, a person could be forgiven for thinking that the killing centers known as “abortion facilities” would also be shuttered. After all, how can anyone maintain a “social distance” of at least six feet and still invade the womb of a woman in order to destroy the unborn human being growing with that womb? Or conversely, how can the woman “social distance” if she allows very close, intimate, and physical contact with other persons? The obvious answer is that she can’t. They can’t. And yet, if you were to think that the procedure should be, at the very least, postponed until the virus runs its course, you would be mistaken.

In Texas, a federal judge in Texas with a long history of siding with abortion advocates ruled that Texas abortion centers can defy the governor’s order to stop non-essential medical procedures instead of helping coronavirus patients by conserving medical resources during the pandemic.

Alabama: Alabama stopped abortions under its non-essential order until April 13th but a judge ruled the state can’t infringe on the so-called “right” to abortion. The judge also ruled that killing babies is somehow “essential” if abortion centers think so. Alabama is appealing the decision.

Apparently, even though state governors have shut down virtually all “non-essential” commerce and activity, some judges have decided that abortion centers can be exempt from that. After all, if a woman wants to abort her unborn child, then to postpone that action is to create undue “hardship” on her, since it might cause complications. Complications to the woman, that is, it says nothing at all about the baby.

Let me get this straight. Our economy has been shut down. We have gone into, basically, a system of house arrest for much of the country and the world. All this is done preemptively because some people might die from the corona virus. Supposedly, the focus of the whole exercise is to save lives, regardless as to how much inconvenience it causes to those who have been subjected to it. We’re all in this together, right? Well, not exactly. The killers of unborn children have been given carte blanche to continue as usual.

Work in a restaurant, bar, hair salon, exercise gym, clothing store, gun shop, etc., to support your family? Stop! Right now!! The world needs your sacrifice in order to win this war!!! Work in an abortion facility? Carry on! Abortion is an “essential” part of life and it is necessary that a woman’s “rights” be preserved intact.

Question: If all our other “rights” can be abrogated so easily, then why does the “right” to an abortion have to be maintained? Answer: Because it fits an agenda. It doesn’t have to be logical or correct, but it does have to follow the narrative.

It would seem proper that, since the focus of all the recent events has been to save lives, then the most vulnerable among us would also be included. The fact that they are not simply underscores the depths of our depravity.

Debt is a Four-Letter Word

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…”–Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

Actually, it really was the best of times for a while and many of us thought it would go on forever. When you’re dealing in economics and politics, though, nothing goes on forever and when the situation finally turned just a few months ago, it echoed Ernest Hemingway’s description of going bankrupt — “…gradually, then suddenly.”

We may have seen ‘the best of times’, but it is fairly certain that we have not yet begun to plumb the depths of ‘the worst of times’. It is quite possible, probable even, that we are only beginning to experience the consequences of decades of living large on a debt binge, fueled by annually growing government deficits, ever-increasing “fiscal stimulus” injected into the economy by the Federal Reserve, and the average person in hock up to his eyeballs as he tried to maintain his lifestyle of keeping up with the Joneses.

We have a rough and rocky road ahead of us. Our economy is not going to bounce back and revert to “normal” once the Coronavirus pandemic has run its course. The far larger threat is financial, economic, and political ruin on a truly massive scale. It would be easy, but not accurate, to blame the virus for what is happening. The truth is, however, that Corona only acted as the pin which pricked the Federal Reserve caused bubble. It may have been the catalyst which started the action, but the bubble had been building for a long, long time—searching for a pin and an opportune time to brush up against it.

Normal? If what we had before was normal, then we are going to experience something far worse—major recession and even Greater Depression, widespread unemployment, hyper-inflation, the death of the US dollar, authoritarian and autocratic rule, martial law, chaos, destruction, wars, and a loss of life on a scale we’ve not seen before. Is that abnormal? It’s going to become the new normal and we’re going to learn how to live with it and, potentially, to die from it. When it’s over, everything about us as a people, society, culture, country, and world will be different. Completely different.

I am confident, though, that somehow, someway, most of us will manage to survive and come out on the other side—poorer, stronger, and wiser. And I think it is safe to say that for the vast majority of people, the word ‘debt’ will once again become a four-letter word.

As it should.


I wrote this article on March 27, 2020. It was first published as a Letter to the Editor in the Bitterroot Star, Stevensville, MT.

Corona Reactions and a Reality Check

The essay below is my response to a comment posted in the conversation at one of Bionic Mosquito’s recent blog posts, Shaming the Wise. This concerns the Corona virus hysteria and the reactions of people to it. You will have to go to the Comments section to pick up the thread. I will not reproduce it here. If you are not reading Bionic Mosquito, you should be.


This can be broken down into subsets.

1. Those who created and fed the narrative.

2. Those who bought into it and panicked.

3. Those who resisted and kept a clear head.

It can be assumed that those in category #1 will never admit to any wrong on their part. If justice were to prevail, many of those would be hauled into court, confronted with the evidence against them, convicted by a jury, and punished severely. It is also safe to assume this will not happen. There is nothing to be done except to resist them in every way possible.

Those in category #3 will have to admit any wrong on their part ONLY if the Corona Thing actually does become a full-blown, extremely deadly infection on the scale of medieval bubonic plague, which really was a killer. Should that happen, they will be left with nothing except to confess their sin to their neighbors and their God before they die. If Covid-19 fades away (as it looks like it will) and some semblance of normal life returns, they can stand firm in their convictions and beliefs. They should take advantage of the confusion and disarray by promoting the truth about the matter.

It is those in category #2 who will have to make a choice:

I. Admit to being gulled and giving into the hysteria.

II. Refuse to admit anything, no matter how much evidence is piled up against the narrative.

Those of the first part (I) will mimic the Grinch. “Whew, really lost my cool there. Carry on!” They may or may not change their mode of thinking and will probably have numerous excuses for acting the way they did. Some of them may look deep into their souls, not like what they see, courageously face the sordid facts about themselves, change their ways, and make significant strides along the path to freedom. For those, one particular Bible verse applies:

“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” – 1 John 1:9 (NKJV)

On the other hand, there will be those who will admit to being sucked in, but will laugh off any personal change as unimportant, preferring instead to carry on in the same manner they did before the crisis. The repercussions to that attitude can be captured in one thought:

“Then he said, ‘This is what I will do: I will tear down my barns and will build bigger ones, and there I will store up all my grain and my goods. Then I will say to myself, “You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take it easy. Eat, drink, and be merry!”’ But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be required of you. Then who will own what you have accumulated?’…”–Luke 12:18-20 (Berean Study Bible) (see also Ecclesiastes 8:14-15)

Those of the second part (II) will adamantly assert that Corona really was (and is) an existential, deadly threat which was averted ONLY because of the heavy-handed actions on the part of governments world-wide. There is little hope that these people will ever see the truth. They are blind, willfully blind, and will march in lockstep according to whatever decree Caesar issues. There is nothing to be gained by attempting to persuade them otherwise. They will die in their chains, thinking themselves safe. They have no wish to be free. Pity them, but don’t waste your time, breath, or peace on them.

P.S.–I concur with Bionic that Lew Rockwell has done an incredible work in methodically promoting the other side of the argument. He is to be commended. Thank you!

Hype and Reality in the Corona World

On April 15, this article appeared in Zero Hedge, with the headline below blaring that:

US Coronavirus Death Toll Passes 30,000 After Doubling In A Week: Live Updates

I’m going to dissect that number further down, but first I want to draw attention to the way the CDC and “officialdom” have been inflating the number of deaths due to Covid-19.

Today, April 16, this article by David Brownstein was published in Lew Rockwell. In the article, Brownstein mentions that:

 “…the CDC stated that COVID can be a valid diagnosis of the death of someone whether there is positive testing or not for COVID. If the doctor suspects COVID is part of the reason why the patient died, COVID can and should be listed as the cause of death. That only serves to inflate the death numbers of COVID.” [Emphasis in the original.]

In other words, if someone dies and it can be proven that he had contracted the virus OR if the doctor merely suspected that infection, then it should be reported that Covid was relevant to his death, whether or not it actually had anything to do with his demise. A person might suffer a massive heart attack and die while the EMT team was trying to stabilize and resuscitate, but the coroner could (and probably should, according to CDC guidelines) list the cause of death as due to COVID. In other words, he died from contracting the virus.

This is fraudulent reporting on the part of the medical staff and it is being openly encouraged by the CDC in order to, as Brownstein says, “…inflate the death numbers of COVID.”

But, enough about that. Let’s jump back to the headline at the top of the page.

30, 000 deaths is a lot of people. There is no question about that. Taken by itself, this could be cause for alarm, however, when you interpret this in relation to the total number of people in the United States, it takes on a whole new meaning.

Consider that there are 340, 000, 000 people living in the US. If you learned in high school how to cancel zeros, you can see that the ratio of deaths to live people is 3 per 34, 000, or breaking it down into fractional form—1/11, 333. That is, for every eleven thousand, three hundred and thirty three (11, 333) people living in the US at this time, one (1) person has died from (or with) the corona virus.

Ask yourself. Is one person dying for every 11,333 living worth shutting the country down, tanking the economy, and destroying the lives of countless millions of people who depended on “essential” jobs to support themselves and their families?

No, I don’t think so either.

Existential Crisis: Panic or Perseverance?

Spring is here, although the weather in my part of the world is still cold. I watched a small ‘blizzard’ outside my window on Saturday, which piled up at least an inch of snow on the ground with it blowing horizontally for much of that time. Some of it has not melted yet, but the weather “prophet” predicts warmer temperatures by the end of the week. Winter is over at last, although it may not be evident yet.

Good times, good times!

So it is with The Corona Thing. All of a sudden we’re seeing and hearing about the “light at the end of the tunnel”, with the attendant proclamations from on high that we might, just might, be able to unlock the economy and society a little bit, allowing some to go back to work. Some, meaning those whose life-sustaining jobs were deemed “not really essential at all” by the Powers-that-Be—all of whom have a vested interest in scaring the general public into a hysterical panic.

Suddenly, we’re seeing and hearing reports that this whole episode was blown completely out of proportion, fantastically exaggerated, and deliberately manipulated in order to justify locking down the entire world. Or maybe to act as a cover for what is happening in the financial arena, in which the FED has utterly lost control of the system and is desperately throwing trillions of dollars at the catastrophe in the vain hope that some of it will stick. Or maybe throwing trillions of dollars in order that the Cronies will be able to maximize their gains and wealth before the entire fiasco explodes in their faces. Take your pick.

As far as the corona-induced panic is concerned, I am reminded of the Christmas movie, The Grinch, which stars Jim Carrey. I watch it numerous times every year in December and always enjoy the show. In one scene the Grinch is careening down the mountain in his homemade sleigh with his dog, Max. At one point, he loses control of the sleigh and panics, screaming out something to the tune of, “I’m going to die. I’m going to be sick and then I’m going to die!” Nevertheless, just a few seconds later, he regains control and begins to calm down. After wiping his face, he makes this admission, “Whew, almost lost my cool there for a minute.”

Yes, indeed, you did, Mr. Grinch and so did all the other people who managed to go berserk in the midst of what can only be described as a ‘seemingly’ out-of-control situation in which many of us were certain we were going to die a horrible, untimely death. Now, all at once, we find ourselves still alive and, as a society, are going to have to admit that we just really lost it for a few months.

Crazy! It’s been crazy, but now it’s time for our “leaders” (politicians, experts, talking heads, financial manipulators, and corporate CEO’s) to get out of the way and let us get on with the task of picking up the pieces and starting to rebuild. However, that may not be as easy as it sounds, because this cycle of destruction is probably just beginning and, if so, still has a long way to go before it plays out.

Of all the movies I’ve ever seen, Fiddler on the Roof is my favorite, standing head-and-shoulders above everything else. I watch it over and over, often going to sleep and waking up only to shut it off at the very end. In one scene, Tevye’s daughter, Tzeitel and her new husband Motel are celebrating their wedding, during which the local police force shows up, wrecks the party, and terrorizes the celebrants, causing them all to scatter and flee. At the end of it, Tevye speaks to the only ones left, his immediate family, “Why are you standing around? Clean up!” Yet, at the end of the movie, all the Jews of Anatevka are forced to leave their homes and vacate the region with only three days warning.

The first part of the modern version of this has just played out. Our social celebration of the “greatest economy ever” has been destroyed, not by the corona virus pandemic, but by the heavy-handed manipulation of it and the accompanying collapse of society and self-control. There was continuous fear-mongering and hysteria, resulting in everything which was good and right about social relations being frayed and broken, broken to bits in the futile attempt to save ourselves from what will, in all likelihoof, be proven to be an engineered crisis—engineered by those who stood to gain immensely by destroying the rest of us. Now all we can do is pick up the pieces and go on, suspecting that there is more to come without understanding the form it will take or what we can do to avoid it. We may, like Tevye, his family, and his friends, simply have to abandon everything we have lived and worked for and move on to something else in the hope that somewhere things will be different and better.

Wishing for the Good Old Days: An Act of Futility

“By the rivers of Babylon…”–Psalms 137:1

When all this corona panic pandemic hysteria and craziness is over, everything about our lives will be different. It may be that we’ll be using our thumbprints, retina scans, or tattoos to pay for purchases instead of dollar bills or credit cards. Who knows?

It’s funny, though, that every generation looks back on earlier times and remembers them as ‘the good old days’. My guess is that within a few short years, the people who are still alive will look back on the time just prior to the Corona outbreak (and the accompanying financial and economic breakdown) and wish they were back there. Just like the Jews did after they had been carried off to Babylon. Well, all right, they weren’t actually carried, they had to walk the entire distance. Any who couldn’t keep up were promptly dispatched or left to die by themselves, somewhere in the desert without pity.

Every generation blames the one before, as the song says. In this case, the coming generations will have ample reason to blame ours, that is, mine—the baby boomers, who thought nothing of borrowing trillions and trillions of dollars to finance a lifestyle which was unsustainable—and putting the burden of paying that unbearable debt squarely on the shoulders of their children and grandchildren. Oh, yes, the ones who were unlucky” enough to be born, not aborted, will have the grand pleasure of picking up the pieces from our selfish, irresponsible, immature, society and trying to make something out of it. They will have the opportunity to change the system in such a way so that something similar to what we are just beginning to experience will never, and I mean, never happen again. The only question is this. Will they remember what it was like and make the necessary adjustments or will they have to learn the lesson all over again. Time will tell.

Ah, yes! Nostalgia is a wonderful thing. It allows us the luxury of remembering a time when our lives were, at least in our minds, so much better. Our childhoods, adolescence, teen-age years, young adult-hood were clearly superior to what we are living with now. Heck, even the music we grew up with is better than what is being created and distributed today—if you can call it music. To one who listened to Classic Rock from the 60’s, it is impossible to have appreciation for the noise of today. And so on…

Yet, life goes on and the taste in music changes. So does economic thinking and I am willing to bet that an indebted life for the sake of keeping up with the Joneses will go out of style, although it will probably take years of intense hardship to convince people of that. It is far preferable to live within our ability to pay, even if that means that we do without, rather than mortgaging our future (and our children’s futures) so that we can live the good life today. It really will be a great day when that attitude has played itself out and we can all remember how good we had it before it was taken away.

Oh, and to make sure that it never happens again. This is the best thing we could leave our children.

“By the rivers of Babylon, There we sat down, Yeah, yeah, we wept, When we remembered Zion…” —Boney-M.

Note: Please understand that much of this has been written from a tongue-in-cheek perspective. Do not attempt to read more into it than is intended.

Corona and the Politics of Financial Hypocrisy

David Stockman gets quite long-winded at times, but his thoughtful and provocative analysis is usually worth the time it takes to read. See, for example, this article which just appeared in Lew Rockwell, concerning the fact that Republicans are just as eager and willing as Democrats to spend mind-blowing, insane amounts of money to bail out the country due to the general lock-down caused by the panic and hysteria over the corona virus. Stockman doesn’t pull any punches and is not afraid to name names.

“…you can kick any so-called conservative Republican on Capitol Hill and you will get the same brain-dead eruption of fiscal incontinence, such as this budget buster from one of the recently minted Republican Senators from Missouri:

The circumstances are just overtaking us here in terms of the depth and scope of the economic fallout of this public health crisis,” said Sen. Josh Hawley (R., Mo.), who has been pushing a plan to restore workers’ paychecks by having the government cover 80% of employers’ payroll costs, up to the national median wage, at all firms affected by the crisis, and provide incentives for rehiring workers laid off last month.

Is he kidding?”

A person could be forgiven for believing that measures like this are necessary, prudent, and wise in dealing with the fallout, especially if he listens non-stop to the hysterical nonsense spouted 24/7 by the media, the politicians, and the “official” bureaucrats who have been tasked with keeping the country safe.

Yet, when it comes right down to brass tacks, the figures don’t add up and show a completely different situation. Again, from Stockman, emphasis in the original.

““…here are Missouri’s corona-facts as of April 8. The state has had 3,327 positive cases and 58 deaths to date, which amount to 54 cases per 100,000 and 0.94 deaths per 100,000.

Yet this compares to annual death rates in Missouri of:

  • All causes: 1,008 per 100,000;
  • Heart diseases: 241 per 100,000;
  • Lung cancer and other lung diseases: 124 per 100,000;
  • Diabetes: 26 per 100,000;
  • Pneumonia & influenza: 20 per 100,000; and
  • Suicides: 19 per 100,000

No matter how you slice it, Missouri is not the subject of a deathly pandemic in any way, shape or form. Yet this pathetic rookie GOP Senator [Josh Hawley] can think of nothing better to do than to thrust his snout deep into the Bailout Trough along with all the rest of the Dem pols and Republican lifers in the Imperial City.”

Let’s face it, folks, this corona episode has never been anything except to mask the ongoing financial and political destruction of America and the world. Money, in other words, vast amounts of money. The bubbles blown by the Federal Reserve to placate and finance Wall Street, major banks, and huge multi-national corporations, have been getting larger and larger, resulting in more and more distress and hardship on Main Street. The latest, called the “everything” bubble, has simply been popped and the debris is now raining down on the economy at large. Covid-19 is not the cause, it was the pin that pricked the bubble.

We need to be honest and thinking clearly about this. Our (so-called) leaders, such as Josh Hawley, R-MO, are doing nothing more than the bidding of the people who really control the purse strings of finance. In this respect, Republicans are no better than Democrats. Republicans are simply more hypocritical about it.

There was absolutely no good reason for shutting the country down. There is, however, a very good reason for rooting out the men and women who have allowed it to happen. This, too, will happen… eventually, and some of us will live long enough to see it come about.

Have faith, my friends, and live well!

Courage in the face of Corona

“What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?”–(Mark 8:36, NIV)

Generally, this verse in the New Testament book of Mark is interpreted as a person so focused on gaining wealth that he (or she) loses sight of what is really important—their relationship to God and other people. What benefit is there really in being like Silas Marner, Ebenezer Scrooge, or Uncle Scrooge McDuck? Or, as the pop band ABBA puts it, “…money, money, money…”

In the context of the time we are now living, however, there is at least one other way in which we can lose our soul while attempting to become rich. Consider the corona virus pandemic which is sweeping the world and our insane reaction to it. It (the reaction, not the virus) has caused unbelievable chaos and havoc in our modern, ordinary, everyday life. In order to save the lives of a few people, we have managed to destroy our economies, our freedoms, and our social connections. We have, in short, become afraid—a world of wimps.

Why? Disease and epidemics used to be a regular part of life, ushering countless millions into the arms of the Grim Reaper. Death used to be understood as part of life. We are born, we live, we die used to be a concept which everyone knew and accepted as normal. Today, however, we are obsessed with the idea that life must be prolonged as long as absolutely possible, even using extraordinary measures to keep someone “alive.” We refuse to allow someone to simply die, even though everyone will go through the experience. We are, in short, afraid of death. We are afraid to die and anything which comes along to remind us of that certainty, such as a corona virus, just throws us into a fit of madness, denial, and hysteria.

The world has become accustomed to getting richer. The good life has become an end in itself. People seek out and live for prosperity, comfort, and ease, but cannot handle the current situation in which we find ourselves. What good, indeed, does it do a world of men if we all become rich, but lose our courage, strength, and common sense in the process? What benefit is there in becoming wealthy if we lose our freedoms in a mindless fantasy that we must be “safe” at all times from one of the vagaries of life?

Tough times make tough men. What we are just starting to go through will do one of two things:

1. It will cause us to be fearful and cowardly, amplifying the message that the sky is falling and that we are all going to die.

2. It will cause us to be strong and unafraid of what life can throw at us, knowing that we are here for only a short while, but able to live life to the fullest, no matter what.

Our focus needs to be, not on what might kill us, but on how we can survive AND prosper in spite of it. US President Franklin D. Roosevelt said that “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Those words have never been more true and appropriate than right now. We do not have to give in to the panic and hysteria, neither do we have to be stupid and blind. With our eyes wide open, we should recognize that this situation IS serious, but there is no good reason to be so afraid of it that we rush blindly into the soul-crushing embrace of absolute safety, which is promised to us by those whose only desire is to control us completely.

“For God has not given us a spirit of cowardice, but of power, and of love, and of self-control.”–(2 Timothy 1:7, Berean Literal Bible)


Yeah, I like it.

Trying to make Sense of it all.

I had my truck radio tuned into my local rock station this afternoon on the drive home from work. During a commercial break, an announcement was made concerning the latest statistics in the US about the corona virus outbreak. I’m not sure how accurate these numbers are. This is only what I heard in the report.

In the US, as of today, there are over 347, 000 persons who have been confirmed to be infected with the virus. Also, as of today, more than 10, 000 of those persons have died. Of course, the announcement stated quite emphatically that these people died from the corona virus, but then this can be taken with a grain of salt, since many people who have died may have had the disease, but didn’t necessarily die from it.

Regardless, whether they died from corona or only were infected but died from another cause doesn’t really matter here. What I want to bring out is that there are 340 million people in the US, while only 347, 000 of those are infected. To anyone who can do basic math, this means that only one person in a thousand has been confirmed to be infected. Get that! One person in a thousand is known to be infected and out of that number, only one in 34 (10, 000 out of 347, 000) is likely to die after confirmation. Combine these two statistics and you get the startling conclusion that in the US, only 1 out of 34, 000 persons has died after infection.

There is also the near certainty that many, many other people contracted the disease and either showed no symptoms or developed what can only be described as a minor cold. The chances are quite good that I have been infected or that you have, perhaps without even knowing it. These have never been counted nor included in the official statistics. If they had been, the percentages associated with the virus would have dropped significantly.

To be sure, there are a lot of others who have been very sick and many of those might have died if prompt medical attention hadn’t been given to them, but the above numbers do not justify shutting down the entire economy. Neither do they give credence to the ‘official’ narrative about constant hand-washing, staying indoors in close quarters (probably the worst place to be if others around you are sick), face masks, 6 foot distancing, restricted shopping, and all the other ‘safety precautions’ foisted on and readily accepted by a gullible public.

When this is all over and some semblance of sanity returns to us, we are going to have to face the facts: Corona, while coming out of nowhere and extremely infectious, is not and never will be the existential enemy it has been promoted to be. We have been lied to, repeatedly and often, not only be politicians and health ‘experts’, but also by the media, which has done more to whip up 24/7 hysteria and panic than any other institution. Sensation sells and they have sold every bit of it they could for as long as they could. Maybe that will be some consolation to them when the general public wakes up, realizes that it has been greatly deceived, and demands that things be made right.

Or maybe this is all wishful thinking on my part.

Corona, churches, and Easter

April 12th, 2020 is Easter Sunday. It is considered the most important date in history by the Christian religion. It is universally celebrated as the day on which Jesus Christ rose up out of the grave in which he had been placed after his death the Friday before by crucifixion. He had been declared dead, was entombed, and came back to life immortal. This is the message that has been proclaimed for 2000 years.

Today, in America, that message will be muted considerably because churches have been ordered by the State to close their doors because of the Corona virus panic, er, I mean, pandemic.

If the State can tell churches to shut down over a ‘bug’, then this can happen for any reason at all. In fact, history shows that the more totalitarian a State becomes, the more prone it is to shut church doors. America is not immune.

In defiance of this order, churches everywhere ought to throw open their doors, welcome everyone in, and get on with the joyful worship of the One Who was dead, but now lives. Pastors and church boards ought to ‘gird up their loins’ and tell the State where to get off. After all, as the Apostle Peter said so eloquently when called up before the Jewish Court, “We ought to obey God, rather than men.”

Will this happen? Not likely. Today, in America, worship of the State has trumped worship of the King. God help us!


Note: The above was submitted as a Letter to the Editor to the Ravalli Republic, in Hamilton, MT on April 4, 2020 and printed April 5.


I fully expect to receive blowback because of this, but it makes me angry that the US government, our government, can simply issue a ‘guideline’ (thinly veiled threat is more like it) to churches and other places of worship, which is then taken as law by those same assemblies. It is not my intention to disparage or minimize the danger posed by Coronavirus, but I will not be quiet when a governing official (whoever that might be—elected or bureaucratic) orders a church to close its doors. No government should be able to dictate which church can practice its faith, when it can be open, when it must close, how many people can attend, who can attend, how much distance there must be between attendees, etc., ad infinitum.

Most churches today are more concerned with maintaining their 501(c)(3) tax exempt status than with proclaiming the truth. Threaten the run-of-the-mill pastor of today with ‘sanctions’ for disobedience of State rules and he will probably cave, thus watering down the message of the Good News. More than likely, he will trot out the argument that, according to Romans 13, we are supposed to obey the civil authority in everything we do, without ever considering that Christians in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia were under the same mandate and subject to the same standard.

Where will we draw the line against the encroachment of the State? If the various churches refuse to stand up to its edicts and dictates, what chance do any of us have?

We must not be quiet or we will be silenced.

Coronavirus and Accumulated Wisdom

Today is Sunday, March 29, 2020. I have this premonition that I will go to work tomorrow morning and be greeted with the order to put on a face mask, ostensibly to limit the spread of Coronavirus (Covid-19).

Being that I am a rebellious, independent sort of person, my initial reaction will be that I am not sick, that there is no reason to wear a mask, that I will not be bullied into wearing a mask, that I do not care one fig about another person’s opinion of me, etc., and will culminate in the declaration that I am not going to wear a mask. Period. No matter the consequences.

In that case, this is how it will play out. My boss, a no-nonsense type of person, will give me a choice: either wear the mask or go home without pay and the potential loss of my employment. Since I am hard-headed, stubborn, and independent, I will choose to go home and take my chances with my job. After all, there are other employers.

When I get home…oooh, Momma! The shit will hit the fan. My wife, never known for mincing words, will tell me in no uncertain terms, what her opinion of my decision is. Being the stubborn, hard-headed, argumentative type of person I am, I will try to convince her that my actions are appropriate and that she should appreciate the fact that I stand up for my convictions. She will tell proceed to tell me her opinion of that! Tempers will flare and words spoken which will have to be corrected later on. At the end of it all, I will reluctantly admit that it would have been better to simply put on the face mask and shut my mouth. In addition, I will have to crawl back to my boss, admit my sin, and beg for my job back.

This is stupidity! Stupidity!! There is no other way to describe it.

Sixty plus years of life and its attendant experiences have taught me a few things, perhaps more than I realize.

1. It is futile and detrimental to argue with my wife.

2. It is not beneficial to argue with my boss about something which is not important.

3. Five of the most important words I’ve had to learn the hard way are these: It is what it is. It is useless, as Jesus Christ said (Acts 26:14) to kick against the pricks (goads). In other words, there are some things about which your effort is in vain, so you might as well simply shrug your shoulders and live with it. In fact, the more strenuously you oppose them (the goads), the more it’s going to hurt you. There are times when a person has to recognize this, shut his mouth, and go with the flow, regardless of his stubbornness, hard-headedness, and rebellious, independent nature.

Tomorrow morning, if I am directed to put on a face mask at work, I may voice my opinion, but I will follow orders. After all, it’s not really that bad and I have worn them before, especially in very dusty conditions. Besides, if my co-workers are nervous and afraid about the potential transmission of the virus, then what better way to show them my love than to subdue my own selfishness for their health and well-being—physical, emotional, and spiritual–even if they are being irrational.

I will not shave my beard, though. Final answer! That is a line in the sand which no one dare cross.

The End of the World. I Feel Fine.

“Bad news on the doorstep, I couldn’t take one more step.” That line from Don McLean’s 1972 smash hit, American Pie, sums up the current world condition quite well.

Today, there is such an abundance of bad news—corona virus, stock market meltdown, layoffs, quarantines, lockdowns, threats of martial law, etc., that anyone could be forgiven if it seemed that another step was impossible. Yet, life goes on, in spite of everything which appears to be destroying our accustomed and familiar way of life.

How do we go on, then? What changes will we need to make or be made for us? How will we adapt to those changes? What will be different in the future? These are all valid questions for which answers are needed and which everyone must seriously consider. There are a lot of things which we don’t know and can not answer, but there are some which require nothing more than common sense to understand.

1. You are in control of yourself and the way you respond to the situation around you. Maintain that.

2. Don’t panic or give into the palpable fear. Keep a level head about you. Stay calm. This alone will allow you to maintain some semblance of normality in your day-to-day living.

3. Don’t believe everything you read or hear, especially about the corona virus. There are so many conflicting stories, reports, “expert” opinions, and official declarations readily available that it is difficult to determine what is true and what is false. Use your own good judgment about what is best for you. Corona may be an existential threat. It may be much ado about nothing. Or somewhere in between, which I suspect, but I do not know where to draw a conclusion.

4. It is not the end of the world, especially as concerns the stock market and the economy. Humanity has experienced financial collapses like this before and survived. Somehow, someway, we will work our way through the current one as well and another generation will be born to carry on.

5. Keep a positive attitude. While the situation may seem disastrous (and disaster is likely to happen), it is important that we maintain a positive outlook about the future. Depression, anxiety, and fear will drag you down. Don’t allow your circumstances to get the best of you. Remember, you are in control of yourself and the way you respond to your situation.

With all that said, it is important that we face some truth honestly. Our world has drastically changed within the last few months and, in spite of all the talk about a return to “normalcy” once the Covid-19 pandemic subsides, it is quite sure that many things we took for granted yesterday will not be in place tomorrow. Things will be different, some dramatically, some less so, but the equation has had another factor introduced into it and the implications of that are still to be seen and worked out.

Get used to the idea that the old system we are familiar with is being dismantled and another one will be erected in its place. There will be major changes along the way, both positive and negative. One positive change we can look forward to is the willingness to rely more on ourselves and our families, neighbors, friends, our faith, and our local community. If this actually happens (I believe it will), we will learn to depend less on distant, authoritarian governments, large faceless corporations, and bureaucratic institutions to provide for what we need in our daily lives. We will also learn what is really important and what is not.

All of us are going to participate in this, whether we like it or not. We have the opportunity to assist in shaping the economy and society which will rise out of the carnage and destruction happening around us. Everyone can participate in bringing this about, wherever we are, by changing our attitude from “Somebody ought to do something!” to one of “What can I do to help?” Look around you. There is plenty to do. Find a place where you can make a difference and get to it. Start close to home, branch out from there.

A better world awaits.

The End is in Sight–Four Years Later

I wrote the following article almost exactly four years ago in March 2016. I may have submitted it to a local paper as a Letter to the Editor, but am not sure of that. Nevertheless, while browsing my computer, I came across it and decided that, due to today’s circumstances, it needed to see the light of day. I have not changed my mind about what I wrote then and, if anything, am more convinced that this is going to happen.


My wife and I moved to the Bitterroot Valley in western Montana from Jacksonville, FL, in the fall of 2010 and have learned to love this area and its people. It is so much better than NE Florida, or anywhere else in Florida, for that matter. We lived in Jacksonville for almost ten years and experienced both the boom of the early 2000’s and the bust of 2008, which saw the demise of Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, the collapse of the real estate market, and TARP, which bailed out the large financial firms against the express wishes of 90-95% of the population. At that time, I took a 10% pay cut in my salary and my job was looking increasingly shaky when we took a “leap of faith” and moved 2500 miles to this location. It was a good decision.

Today, I have a feeling of déjà vu, like I’ve been here before. I can’t shake the sense that the current financial climate we’re in is reminiscent of 2007. I believe that we (and the rest of the world) are right on the edge of a cataclysmic disaster, the likes of which the world has never before seen. There is no turning back. The forces built up by 100 + years of fiscal mismanagement and the widespread, deeply-held belief that we can borrow our way out of trouble are, quite simply, too great to overcome any longer. Peak debt is here, both for the individual and the conglomerate. We have sown the wind. We are going to reap the whirlwind.

If I am right, we will see the end of many, if not most (or all) of the huge multi-national banks, the disappearance of debt-ridden corporations (large and small), the popping of financial bubbles all over the landscape (including sub-prime auto loans, college tuition, and real estate again), the sheer inability of the Federal government to pay its bills or finance its operations in the manner we are accustomed to, and many other unmentioned or unforeseen changes in the way we live. The stock market will shrink dramatically, hedge funds will disappear overnight, derivatives and other fiscally unsound scams (Social Security?) will completely collapse. The casino known as Wall Street will be seen for what it really is and the Federal Reserve, which is the main driver of current monetary stupidity will be called on the carpet and, hopefully, put out of business forever. And there will be wars, wars, and more wars, up to and possibly including nuclear war(s), because when societies and governments become desperate they lash out at anyone deemed to be a threat.

If I am wrong, then no one has anything to be afraid of and I will be made to look like a fool.

Which is it? The next few years will tell the tale and everything will be different. Of that, I am certain.


To Comply with the Law–or not!

There is a small shop alongside Hwy. 93 in Lolo, MT, which has a sign posted with this message. “Slow cars to the right. It’s the law!” It has not changed in a long time. Evidently someone has a problem with vehicles in the left lane which might slow him down a little. Considering the traffic accidents which occur in that area, slowing down a little wouldn’t be such a bad idea.

Daisy Luther has recently posted an article on her website, The Organic Prepper, which claims that the state of Virginia is considering passing comprehensive “gun control” bills and entertaining the possibility of calling out the National Guard to force local communities to cooperate with the state in enforcing them. The result of this is that a vast majority of counties in the state have either declared themselves “gun sanctuaries” or are leaning toward that status. Democratic Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly told the Washington Examiner [concerning] local county police who may refuse to enforce future gun control measures. “The law is the law. If that becomes the law, you don’t have a choice, not if you’re a sworn officer of the law.”

Apparently, the potential of such blatant disregard of the LAW is not to be tolerated.

In Nazi Germany, citizens were ordered to report and identify any persons they knew to be Jewish. It didn’t matter that they also knew what would happen to such people. It was the LAW!

In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order declaring that every person in America who physically held gold currency or gold bullion had to relinquish it to the federal government. This action was expressly unconstitutional, but it didn’t matter—it was the LAW and thousands, perhaps millions of law-abiding citizens promptly broke their piggy banks in order to follow the law.

These instances could be multiplied many times over. The point I am trying to make is that once something has been legally codified into law, an extreme psychological, social pressure is placed on everyone to comply with it. Whether the law is morally right or not doesn’t matter, it is the law and, as a consequence everyone must submit to it—even if they get hurt in the process.

We should also consider one other situation which would have had world-wide implications if the LAW had actually succeeded in accomplishing its goal.

“Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men.”–Matthew 2:16, NKJV

Over 2000 years ago, in order to eradicate any possible threat to his rule, Herod, the ruler of the province of Judea in the Roman Empire, ordered that all, that is ALL, male children under the age of two years in the city of Bethlehem and its suburbs, were to be immediately killed. This directive was carried out without mercy, causing untold anguish among the civilian population. However, due to a dream, Joseph, the father of Jesus, had earlier taken his wife and newborn baby out of the area and moved to Egypt, thus avoiding the slaughter.

Where would Christmas (or Christianity) be today if Joseph had not preemptively taken action to ‘disobey’ the law? What would have been the result if he had the idea that “the law is the law, therefore I must obey it?” What if he had given up his son to be destroyed simply because it was the LAW?

The answer, for anyone who wishes to see it, is obvious. What should be just as plain to see is that if a law, any law, is unjust it should be held in contempt. Or, as Martin Luther King put it,

“”One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

In all the above examples, only the first one has any sense of morality to it and that is because there is nothing right or wrong about driving in the left or right lane. It is just a rule of the road. All the other laws can be seen as morally wrong and hurtful to innocent persons. Whether it is the State breaking your door down to take your guns or breaking your door down to kill your newborn son is irrelevant—it is wrong and because of this, it needs to be resisted.

Ultimately, everyone must determine for himself which laws can be followed and which ones must be rejected. There is no hard and fast method for making this decision. It must come from what you know, what you believe to be true and right, and how far you will go to hold to your beliefs.

Choose wisely.

Conform or Desist: the Bozeman School Controversy

In an article I posted yesterday, I laid out the reason why a club (a group of people who join together to promote a specific agenda) must, by its very nature, be exclusive. A club can’t admit nor tolerate those who advocate for competing ideologies. If it does, then it has lost its focus and become something different than it was. This is true no matter the type of club or what it stands for.

Specifically, I addressed the situation in Bozeman, MT, in which certain high school students had “challenged” the FCA, a school-recognized Christian athletic club because the club was not “inclusive”. I argued that the club had every right to maintain its position because everyone has the absolute right of association (disassociation). If people must associate with others they don’t want to, then people with power and backing can force viewpoints on others who might disagree with them.

There is, however, also the very distinct possibility that the students who are making the complaint really don’t want to join the club. It is entirely plausible that this whole brouhaha is designed to literally quash the message that is “offensive” to them. In fact, I’d lay odds on that the real intention here is not to persuade the club to accept members who have variant lifestyles, but to force it to change its base message or to drive it out of existence entirely.

This is a common tactic used to stifle opposing viewpoints. It can be summed up like this.

“You have said something which I don’t like and find objectionable. I do not want to consider what you said and refuse to make any personal changes if I find your statement valid in any way. Because I find it objectionable and refuse to consider it, I am left with only two choices: withdraw from the conversation and disassociate myself from you and/or attempt to use force to shut you up so that I don’t have to hear what you are saying.”

It is not my intention here to make any moral judgments about the issue of homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, or what constitutes a marriage. Although I do have strongly held beliefs about these issues, I don’t consider them to be the issue at stake, instead they are the narrative used to avoid addressing the core of the issue, which is the liberty to speak what you wish and to associate with whomever you want. This is the point which has triggered the complaining students.

From reading numerous news articles about this controversy, it appears that the students could join the group if they wanted to, even if they disagreed with its message. It appears that they did not make the effort, instead went to the school authorities to effect a desired outcome. It appears that they have been successful, winning a ruling that the club must either drop the offending language and become “inclusive” or lose official status if they keep it. However, if a lawsuit is brought against the school over this issue, it will probably be forced to recognize the club as legitimate—regardless of the club’s policy.

I will say it again. Freedom of association and the freedom to speak one’s mind are probably the two most important rights we have. In that order, I might add. We should be able to choose who we associate with (disassociate from) and we should be able to say what we think without having to be afraid that someone is going to use force against us because they don’t approve. Unfortunately, the Bozeman students who started this ruckus don’t understand what that means.

Ironically, the students may have shot themselves in the foot, since there has been considerable interest shown in the club after this controversy began. From the Chronicle:

“Statewide FCA has about 350 student members in college, high schools and middle schools. After the controversy broke in Bozeman, he said, about 48 kids showed up at the FCA meeting, a huge increase.”

Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

Clubs and Inclusiveness: A Mutual Incompatibility

I was watching NBC News (KECI) out of Missoula, Montana, this morning (11/14/2019) when I noticed a tidbit on their news feed scroller. I may not have the words exactly right, but it’s close enough for anyone to get the message.

“Bozeman High School students are challenging a Christian club (FCA) for not being inclusive.”

A news article from the Bozeman Daily Chronicle can be seen here.

It would be easy to lose focus here by condemning this club for discriminating against the ‘disaffected’ students. It would also be just as easy to excoriate the students for attempting to impose their own agenda onto the club. It would be futile to try to produce some type of common ground between them so that all the participants could be happy and satisfied.

A club, any club, has to be exclusive, prejudicial, and discriminating. Every club, no matter what its religion, philosophy, purpose, bent, or goal MUST ABSOLUTELY determine what it will be and who will be part of it. By its very nature, a club is an exclusive group of people who band together to accomplish a certain pre-defined task. It simply can’t be any other way.

Think about all the myriad things that individual people have an interest in. Immediately relevant to this discussion are religion and lifestyle, not always mutually compatible. Sports, gardening, social activity, philosophical thought, guns, sewing circles, etc., etc., and on and on and on. The list is endless. However, no matter WHAT the club is involved in, it always has one purpose: to promote the interests of its members.

Let’s look at one easily defined category—chess. Chess is a game unlike any other and there are millions of people around the world who are fascinated by it. Innumerable clubs have been set up in order to bring people together who are interested in playing and have a desire to improve their skills.

World-wide, the one thing in common among all the groups, however, is that they are all dedicated solely and completely to the game of chess. Nothing else. It is an exclusive club. Non-devotees need not apply.

Imagine the consternation and chaos that would ensue if someone from outside the club wanted to join, but was determined to force the club to allow members who wanted to play Tiddly-Winks. Both are games, after all, so there shouldn’t be a problem. Except for one thing—when a chess club starts importing other games into its structure, it no longer is a chess club. It has morphed into something different which might satisfy some people, but will repel the true believers, who will likely tender their resignation from the club.

Every club has ground rules about who it will accept, what the focus is on, how that focus will be accomplished, how the rules will be enforced, why someone will be asked to leave, et al. These rules may be written or not. They may be formal or not. They may be set in stone or subject to constant change, but the one thing which can’t be denied is that they provide a structure so that the club can operate under its original charter.

As pertains to the situation in Bozeman, if the excluded students actually succeed in joining the club, they have two choices—change themselves to fit the parameters of the club OR change the club to fit their own preferences. In the case of the first, they will, by conforming to the rules, become part of the club as it was originally designed. In the case of the second, the club will become something else.

As far as the club is concerned, it also has two choices—either continue to exclude certain persons and thoughts from its structure OR to allow and accept competing ideologies which will inevitably dilute its message. In the case of the first, someone’s feelings are going to be hurt because they are not given access due to their refusal to conform. In the case of the second, the “Christian” part of the club will simply disappear and something antagonistic to it will appear.

Regardless of belief and opinion, the right of certain people to disassociate themselves from others ought to be ironclad and unassailable. No one person or any group of persons should be required to associate with anyone else who promotes or holds an incompatible viewpoint. Freedom of association (or disassociation) should be the preeminent right accorded to everyone. Otherwise, we become a society in which personal beliefs and opinions become weapons to force others into submission to ourselves and our agendas.

The True Nature of Politics: Part 2

A few days ago, I posted an article which began with this statement. “Hypocrisy in political life is not uncommon. In fact, most people pander to it in one form or another.”

In the article, I made some general statements about the way the two main parties attempt to use either the federal or state governments to get what they want. If the federal government will be more accommodating, then that is the one supported. If the states are more agreeable, then they receive the backing. This principle applies across the board. Both parties participate in the exercise.

Political hypocrisy also appears in individual form. Take, for instance, the recent revelation that Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada, wore ‘brownface’ and/or ‘blackface’ numerous times in his past. Trudeau, a master politician, reacted to the “outing” in the same manner as a young child caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

“I shouldn’t have done that. I should have known better, but I didn’t and I’m really sorry. I take responsibility for my decision to do that. I shouldn’t have done that. I should’ve known better. It was something that I didn’t think was racist at the time but now I recognize that it was something racist to do and I’m deeply sorry.”

This can be summed up in eight short words. “Mom, I’m sorry. I won’t do it again.” My question is why should anyone believe him when he says he has learned the truth and repented of all his sins. He is a politician, after all. Why did he suddenly become apologetic once he was caught? Had he previously been doing some deep soul-searching about the issues troubling his soul? Was he waiting for a good opportunity to unburden himself? Or is he simply playing the game as he has learned to do, hoping that this will all blow over and things will be rosy once more?

But I digress. The real target of this article is Don Lemon, CNN anchor, who never hesitates to get in a dig about Donald Trump if he can. Lemon has not missed a chance to denigrate, criticize, or condemn the president for any perceived social faux pas, misstep, or crime, since Trump began his campaign for the office. However he was quick to jump to the defense of Trudeau as seen in this from Zero Hedge.

“Wow, a leader apologizing. It seems odd, doesn’t it?” Lemon reacted. “Because we have one who doesn’t.”

The CNN panel also offered a defense for Trudeau, with commentators stressing that “context matters” and stressed that Trudeau’s photo was vastly different from Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s 1986 blackface photo.

Before wrapping the segment, Lemon offered more praise for Trudeau’s ‘heroic’ apology (he’s laying it on a bit thick here), and insisted that it “does mean a lot” to him.

“I do have to say this before we go: think about it however you want to think about it. When someone apologizes- wow!” Lemon said to the panel. “We don’t often see that here, especially in a world leader who is saying ‘I should’ve known better and I’m sorry.’ You can feel about it however you want, but that, to me, that does mean a lot.”

Rather than looking at Lemon’s attitude toward Trump, let’s consider what he had to say about another liberal politician, Ralph Northam, the Democrat governor of Virginia, who did exactly the same thing as Justin Trudeau, but with different results. Lemon ripped Northam up one side and down the other, using words such as, “disgusting”, “offensive”, and “It deeply hurt people like me.”

Why was Trudeau’s “blackface” episode different than Northam’s? Why did Lemon accept Trudeau’s apology as sincere and heroic, yet he blasted Northam’s as disingenuous?

“There’s no way he didn’t know what he [Northam] was doing when he posed for that picture ― a picture that is a slap in the face to Americans of color ― quite frankly to every American,”

Don Lemon’s hypocrisy is showing. Badly. Inconsistency on this scale catches up—sooner or later. Eventually it gets to the point where no one believes anything you say.


I want to wrap this up on a good note, so I will say that Justin Trudeau really is pretty good at dressing up and playacting. He should have gone down that career path. Heck, I might have even gone to see his movies.

The Drive to War, Next Phase: Part 2

More questions concerning the bombing of the Saudi oil processing facility at Abqaiq. See my previous post for the beginning of this discussion.

If the Houthis, on whom the Saudis have been waging war for over four years, performed this operation, then there is no need for more speculation. It was a straight-forward military tactic to inflict injury on an opponent in a war. End of story. If it brings the Saudis to a point where they are willing to negotiate an end to the war, then more power to the Houthis. In fact, hit them again. Harder, this time.

But, if the Houthis did not do this, then why did they say they did? Why was that declaration immediate unless they knew in advance that it was going to happen? If they knew in advance that it was coming, then who told them? If someone else told them and they agreed to claim responsibility for it, then what was promised to them for their cooperation? Furthermore, if someone else was responsible for the attack, what was their rationale and purpose behind it?

Perhaps the Houthis actually did execute a high-tech, perfectly synchronized, flawless attack on an enemy’s territory which was supposedly “protected” by the most modern defensive weapons available. Or not. I am highly skeptical. My inclination is to think that another party is involved here. This has all the earmarks of a false-flag designed to persuade and coerce the US (and the American people) into waging yet another Middle-East war. So far, I haven’t seen any evidence presented which makes me think I ought to change my mind. I simply don’t believe the official narrative.

It is easy to focus on the question of who did it and try to pinpoint the perpetrator. The far more important one, though, is who benefits from the action. Cui bono? Merriam-Webster defines the phrase as, “: a principle that probable responsibility for an act or event lies with one having something to gain.” No matter what, the party which would gain the most by having the US attack Iran is unquestionably the state of Israel, with Saudi Arabia tracking closely behind it.

Politically speaking, it is not in Israel’s interest to have widespread peace breaking out in the neighborhood. If this did happen and the antagonistic parties started working out their disagreements civilly and peacefully, then the police state in power in Jerusalem would have less justification to maintain their policies of brutal repression and the continual drive for military dominance and superiority. Where’s the money in that? If the US attacked and destroyed Iran, Israel would have no viable competition left to challenge its dominance in the region.

Neither is it in the Saud’s interest to negotiate a cease-fire with the Houthis, since that would infer a catastrophic defeat of the Kingdom by a vastly inferior foe. This perception alone might be enough to cause a “regime change” and a course correction within the government of the House of Saud, something which the powers-that-be are not willing to tolerate. If the US attacked and destroyed Iran, the price of oil would go up astronomically, conferring an immediate financial benefit on the Saudis which they desperately need. That is, if anyone else could afford to buy it.

Considering this, it’s easy to imagine that either the Israelis or the Saudis (or both) orchestrated this singular event, in the hopes that the US would then jump in and destroy Iran or that it would draw attention away from the fact that the war in Yemen is going badly for Saudi Arabia. Neither of these is far-fetched. The kicker is that if the US doesn’t respond in the hoped-for manner and refuses to attack Iran, then the whole operation has been a colossal failure on the part of the perpetrators. One can hope.

I would like to believe that the Houthis actually did execute this attack and that they can use it (and more like it, if necessary) to drive the Sauds to the negotiating table. Ending the war in Yemen by inflicting severe injuries on the Saudi apparatus is a desirable benefit. My gut instinct, however, tells me differently.

The Drive to War, Next Phase

Who recently bombed the Saudi oil processing facility at Abqaiq, which purportedly cut Saudi Arabia’s oil production in half? Will this event become a catalyst for war with Iran, instantly blamed even though the Houthis in Yemen claimed responsibility for the attack? Since Saudi Arabia is not part of NATO nor does the United States have any mutual defense agreement with the Saudis, why is it necessary for the US to retaliate against Iran.

One thing which is not questionable is that if the US and the Saudis, with direct or indirect assistance from Israel, do attack Iran, the price of oil will skyrocket across the globe. Gas prices would spike as a result, perhaps increasing as much as four or five times the current amount. The possibility of gasoline costing $12-15/gallon or even as much as $20/gallon is not out of the question.

One consequence of such a scenario is that the average consumer would drastically cut back on the purchase of gasoline, making non-essential driving a thing of the past. Many, such as myself, would find it extremely difficult to pay for the additional cost of simply driving to work. It is quite probable, in fact almost certain, that world-wide commerce and industry would experience a massive shutdown, causing millions to either lose their jobs outright or going on temporary layoff. Temporary being subject to the system righting itself, of course. No telling how long that would last.

Will the US go to war with Iran? I have included links to five articles by analysts, here, here, here, here, and here, which attempt to explain what really happened. They are not in agreement as to who pulled the trigger. My own opinion is that there is more here than we are being told. Reach your own conclusions.

The consensus appears to be that an all-out assault on Iran will not happen over this incident. I tend to agree with that, but understand that there are particular individuals (neocons, Israel-firsters, war profiteers, power-brokers, etc.) who do want the war to happen, regardless of the cost. Even if no war occurs over this incident, the odds are that something else will happen in the near future to precipitate it. The whole region of the Middle East is virtually a tinder-box, just waiting for a spark of ignition. Or, as Alex Utopium might have put it, “If this was a cardboard box, it would have “Fragile” stamped all over it.”

The good news is that President Trump seems to be reluctant and averse to attacking Iran. Since he is a professional businessman instead of a professional politician, he probably understands the cost of such a venture far better than his “advisors”, who only understand the use of political power. Appearances are deceiving, however, and it’s best not to take him at his word.

The bad news is that he may not be able to withstand the pressure and might give in to the constant drumbeat for war with Iran. In many quarters, John McCain’s legacy still has a life of its own. “Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb, Iran.”

The upshot is that we simply do not know what is going to happen and are not able to affect the outcome to any significant degree. All that we can do is to continue living as we are and hope that this will all be sorted out in a way which is beneficial for the world as a whole.

The True Nature of Politics

Hypocrisy in political life is not uncommon. In fact, most people pander to it in one form or another. Both Republican conservatives and Democrat liberals are united in one thing—their shameless inconsistency whenever pet issues are brought up and their support for “righteous” or “virtuous” government whenever it is convenient. See Jacob Hornberger or Laurence Vance for examples of this. See my own articles here and here.

Let’s look at a few issues hotly debated today—abortion, drugs, immigration, and guns. Should these be controlled and regulated by the Feds or by the various states? Sadly, both factions believe that one or the other should hold the controlling reins, depending on what is at stake and the popular political opinion on that specific issue.

For the purposes of this article, Democrats will include anyone who is generally left of center, liberal, and/or progressive. Republicans will include anyone who is generally right of center and conservative. Keep in mind that these are only generalizations on a large scale and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint(s) of any single individual.

Democrats are in favor of the federal government controlling the abortion issue. Roe v. Wade cannot be tampered with or weakened in any way. Any state law which attempts to circumvent it must immediately be stopped. The federal blessing of abortion on demand must be maintained at all costs, no matter what.

Democrats are also in favor of the federal government controlling, regulating, restricting, and/or outlawing and prohibiting guns. In fact, as time brings more mass shootings, the calls for the Feds to “do something” only grow louder. For them, this issue, like abortion, is much too important to be left to the states.

However, when it comes to drugs and immigration, Democrats are usually quite vocal about wresting these issues away from the Feds and allowing the states full control over them. Quite often, liberal-leaning states find themselves at odds with Fed policy on these.

Republicans, on the other hand, tend to favor smaller, more local government when the issue is abortion (Roe v. Wade must be overturned) or guns (the ultimate state’s rights issue), but are in a hurry to grant the Feds a huge amount of power when the conversation turns to drugs (outlaw them all, especially the harder ones like heroin, cocaine, and meth).

For Republicans, immigration also comes under the purview of Federal control, not so much because it is Constitutionally mandated to the Feds, but because the states, especially the liberal ones, simply can’t be trusted to do what is “right” about the limitless hordes pouring across “our” borders.

There are countless others which could be compared in the same way, but I think I have made my point. Both factions adamantly favor federal control over some issues, while vigorously supporting state control over others. The only difference is which side of the political divide one stands on.

Best of Times, Worst of Times

About ten days ago, I started having trouble with my internet connection. Sometimes it would work just fine, the way it was supposed to. Other times, I’d have to fiddle with it, restart the computer, reset the modem, etc, to get it going. Finally, a week ago, it stopped completely and nothing I could do had any effect, so I called the ISP to rectify the problem.

It took a few days before a technician could get here, so my wife and I had a small holiday from the electronic demands of the Internet. Except for the fact that I couldn’t pay bills or juggle the money in my bank account, it didn’t bother me much at all. After the first shock of going ‘cold turkey’, I settled down with a good book (actually a large book of short stories by various authors) and managed to pass the time pleasantly reading. That’s something I haven’t done in a long time.

When the technician showed up yesterday, she swapped out the modem and the radio receiver at the antenna and, voila! Instant gratification again!! Back to the digital drug of looking at anything I want to!!! And my wife is able to view Pinterest at will, which she is happy about.

Nevertheless, I was born before there were computers, grew up with a black box on the wall called a telephone, never knew what the Internet was until the early 90’s, and while I have to admit the advantages of modern technology, I could just as easily go back to a time without all that new-fangled stuff. Being without it was an inconvenience, but it didn’t come anywhere near destroying my life.

If the electricity ever goes out for good, I’ll just start living like the Amish.

Failure of Prohibition: A History and a Prediction

There have been times when government tried, but failed, to remove from society certain consumer products.

The Prohibition era began with the passage of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution in 1919, outlawing all manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcoholic products. Prohibition of such “crimes” began on January 17, 1920 and lasted until December 5th, 1933 when the 21st Amendment repealed the practice. It did not eliminate the consumption or demand for alcohol, however, but only drove the supply out of public sight. Numerous people, otherwise innocent, were prosecuted, fined, jailed, or simply killed outright as a consequence of this policy.

In April, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order outlawing private ownership of gold coins, bullion, and certificates. He prosecuted and punished a few people, using well-publicized methods, to ensure that everyone else got the message and relinquished their holdings. Ultimately, however, all that was accomplished was that privately held gold went underground. Eventually, in 1974, President Gerald R. Ford lifted the ban and allowed gold to circulate freely, as it has done since.

In the 1970’s, President Richard M. Nixon’s administration declared the ‘War on Drugs’ to eliminate all illicit drugs from private ownership and usage. Today, millions of people are in prisons and jails, not because they are criminals, but because they possessed and/or used certain items which the government had disallowed. Like alcohol and gold in the early part of the century, however, illegal drugs did not go out of existence. They simply went underground and disappeared from public view. Currently, marijuana is legal in some form or another in a majority of states throughout the country and will eventually be legal everywhere, probably regulated like alcohol is.

So it will be for guns if private ownership is outlawed, prohibited, or regulated in an extreme manner. Guns, like alcohol, gold and drugs, will not simply disappear from society, instead, they will be driven out of sight. People who own them will be vilified, prosecuted, jailed, and fined, perhaps even killed, not because they used those guns against others violently, but because they possessed an item the government decided they shouldn’t have. If gun control is ever seriously legislated, scores of millions of Americans will be forced to choose between giving up what they consider to be their rightfully owned property or run the risk of heavy-handed punishment, up to and including the loss of their lives and freedom.

Government can regulate any consumer item out of the visible, public market, but it cannot destroy the demand for it. There always will be a market for alcohol, gold, drugs, guns, and many other items, which people consider valuable. The demand for such items is private and individual and can only be eliminated by private, individual choice. It cannot be extirpated from society by collective will or force, but may only be suppressed for an indefinite period of time, during which the relevant demand will be met–illegally, undercover, and quite often, violently.

Diabetes and Gun Violence: The way we treat disease.

As America grapples with the menace posed by mass shootings and (seemingly) random violence, it is worth noting that the phenomenon can be considered an indication that our society is sick. Sick, getting sicker, with no way to heal the body except for a dramatic transformation in the way we live. This is similar in scope to many physical diseases prevalent today, for instance, diabetes.

Think about the way modern society treats illnesses today. A person gets sick, goes to see a physician, gets a diagnosis, a prescription for a drug, an assurance that this will put her right, and goes home, trusting completely on the pill to cure the problem. Depending on the situation, the drug might or might not restore her to health. Quite often it only masks the symptoms.

In the case of diabetes, she contracts the disease, perhaps as a result of years and years of gorging herself on fast, junk food and a lack of exercise to work off the excess. There may be little or no attempt at all to lose the obesity or a change in diet to bring it under control. In situations like this, the medication is expected only to treat the symptoms by keeping the blood sugar at a tolerable level, but it is not meant to cure the underlying disease. It is essentially nothing more than a bandage over a hemorrhage.

(Note: Diabetes can be contracted by people who are serious about maintaining a healthy lifestyle through strict adherence to diet and exercise. This article is not meant for them. They have my respect and I wish them well.)

The approach to mass shootings is pretty much the same. Feed society on the idea that young men and women can join the military and shoot other people they don’t know. Feed society on Hollywood movies which glorify gun violence as a means of solving problems. Feed society on video games marketed to young children which depict gun violence as a pleasurable game. Feed society on the idea that if you wind up pregnant, you can make the problem go away by killing the unborn child. Feed society on the philosophy that all morality is subjective to the individual person and situation. Feed society on political divisiveness and hatred. Feed society on personal irresponsibility and refusing to teach children about the consequences of their actions or to hold them accountable from an early age.

I could go on, but you get the idea. These things (and many more unmentioned) are the junk food that America gorges itself on daily, year after year, decade after decade. Then, inevitably, when a symptom (mass shootings) shows up, address it by prescribing a treatment (background checks, red flag laws, gun restrictions, etc.) which have the effect of assuring the patient (society) that the disease (violent behavior) is being treated effectively.

This treatment, however, will have as much lasting effect as that of an obese, inactive person taking a pill to counter and control diabetes, while refusing to change her lifestyle in a meaningful, positive way. Modern medicine treats the symptom of the disease, but does not address the cause. So too with modern society.

An obese, inactive person can overcome diabetes by adopting a radical change in lifestyle. It will be difficult, but it can be done. It will require, not only the obvious changes in diet and exercise, but also the attitude of personal change—the idea that unless personal action is taken to correct the problem, nothing at all will change. Nobody else can do it.

So too with America. Because society is composed of individuals acting personally, society can be transformed by individuals changing their attitudes and lifestyles in meaningful and positive ways. It will take time. It will not be obvious immediately, but in the long run, it will be noticeable. And well worth it.

I can’t do anything about the random acts of violence which are perpetrated in society on a regular basis, but I can make the necessary changes to minimize and eliminate violence in my own life. This will require, first of all, a change in the way I think about myself, my relationship to other people, and my relationship to God. After that, it is simply a matter of living it out.

Loans, Bad Loans, and Usury

I read Zero Hedge on a daily basis. I like to know what’s going on in the world without having to resort to mainstream or social media. Many of the articles are well written. Some aren’t worth the ‘digital paper’ they’re written on. However, this one concerning usury caught my eye today.

Obviously, the author has some experience in finance and did his best to make sense of the definition of usury. Unfortunately, I think all he did was to muddy the waters, so I made a comment, which may have made the matter worse. Who knows? I can’t say that I know exactly what usury is, but this is what I think. Whether it is correct or not is debatable, but many dictionary definitions attribute a moral value to the concept, as do I.


“Usury is a loan when the borrower is subtracting equity.”–Monetary Metals

This statement makes it sound like when you’re making money off the loan, you’re not engaging in usury, but if you lose money, then you are. In reality, this is throwing the unwise borrower under the bus, because it’s his fault that he didn’t make sound business decisions. Or maybe borrowed the money to take his wife on a vacation to Tahiti, with no way to pay it back when he returns. Stupid, yes, but not a legal matter.

No one is forced to borrow money at interest. There is always a time when the borrower can just say no. Borrowing at interest is a voluntary transaction and because of that, there are no limits to the amount of interest which can be charged–as long as the borrower is willing to pay. If he can’t, he suffers the consequences.

My definition of usury is that it is the practice by a lender to loan money at interest to a person who is destitute and desperately in need of help. Think homeless person today. He has no collateral, no property, no job, no income, probably sick and starving, at the end of his rope. We’ve all seen them.

To offer this person a sum of money on the promise that it will be paid back with interest is, biblically speaking (Old Testament) criminal. Any interest at all, even a very low percentage, would be outlawed. In fact, a loan under these conditions would not even be proper or wise since the payback would be impossible for the recipient to fulfill. Instead, the person with the money was expected to simply give the down-and-outer whatever he might need in order to survive–at that moment, but only at that moment. It was not a long-term welfare program. 

There is nothing wrong or immoral about interest in a normal situation, but interest charged to anyone who has nothing except his life and probably only a tenuous hold on that is usury. The people who commit it are those who do not hesitate to squeeze the last drop from anyone who is desperate, so that they can become richer. To put this in modern terms, it would be like taking away the shopping cart, the tent, the blanket, and the trash bags filled with stuff–all to satisfy a loan with interest added.

The practice of usury is a moral, not a financial issue. What is needed here is compassion and generosity. We can all develop those.

Killing and the Question, Part 2

To add to the article I posted yesterday, if you are interested in researching the issue of mass shootings, why they happen, what we can learn from them, and what we can do in the future to prevent them, then check out the following links. Zero Hedge, Lew Rockwell, James Howard Kunstler, Michael Rozeff, Warren Farrel, WND.

Each one of these authors is level-headed and reasonable. You will not find any hysterics here nor any sense of trying to whip the public up into a froth emotionally. Some arguments I agree with wholeheartedly, about some I have my doubts, but I will consider all of them. As should you.

Feminists For Life have a saying that “Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women.” If this is true in the case of abortion on demand, then a paraphrased version of it would also be true. Mass shootings are a reflection that we have not met the needs of young men. As a society and a culture, we should consider that both these are linked in one inextricable way—both situations exhibit a callous disregard for innocent human life.

We have to figure out a way to meet the needs of both pregnant women and young men. Our world’s survival depends on it.

Killing and the Question

Within the space of one week, there have been three mass shootings (see here, here, and here) across the United States which have killed more than 30 people and left many more wounded. Shootings like these are a shock to our system, which relies on trust and cooperation in order to function. After all, if you can’t go to a Garlic Festival or a Walmart without worrying about being shot, then there is no place which is safe.

Many people will be clamoring to strengthen and rewrite existing gun laws, with the professed intention of bringing this irrational violence to an end. Will this work? If history is any guide, probably not. Anyway, the argument over guns is a strawman which will have little or no effect on the violence which is playing out in our country and around the world.

People are killed in mass shootings, aggressive wars, the deliberate driving of trucks or delivery vans into crowds at an outdoor cafe, stabbings, gang warfare, police brutality, drug related murders, and abortion on demand, which killed over 600, 000 innocent unborn children last year in the US alone. All of these (and more) have one thing in common–the complete and utter lack of respect and honor for human life.

Jacob Hornberger has attempted to identify a cause of the violence we are learning to live with. His theory is that the war mentality America has inculcated in her citizens over the years is coming home to roost.

“I believe that America’s forever wars, sanctions, embargoes, and assassinations overseas are triggering some sort of mechanism within the minds of people who are bit off kilter mentally, which is causing them to wreak the same sort of violent and deadly mayhem here at home that the U.S. government, specifically the Pentagon and the CIA, is wreaking in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.”

Hornberger may be right, but he doesn’t go far enough.

Violence and the use of deadly force is as American as apple pie. It is endemic in our culture. It has been part of America from the very beginning. For those who are doing the slaughtering, human life is worthless. The sanctity of human life means nothing. It spans the spectrum of society from the streets of Chicago to the killing rooms of Planned Parenthood to the callous attitude of Madeline Albright, who, when asked about 500,000 dead Iraqi children as a result of crippling sanctions imposed by then-president Bill Clinton, responded that she thought the price was worth it. Throw in video games, psychotropic drugs, the Hollywood effect, and many other contributing factors and it’s no surprise that we are seeing individuals randomly acting this way.

The killing (in whatever form it takes) will not stop unless and until we grasp the concept that human life is precious, priceless, and not to be held in contempt. Human life, from the very beginning to the very end, must become something which is esteemed and valued. The lack of respect for it is a primary cause of all killings and, if we are ever going to bring this senseless violence to an end, we must absorb and live the understanding that human life is too valuable to simply destroy.

It won’t do any good to pass more laws or to increase the penalties. Giving the government more power will not help. This is a heart attitude and must be changed there, at the individual level, within the conscience of what is right and what is wrong. It has to begin with me. It has to begin with you.

A Conversation on Socialism

The following Letter to the Editor appeared in the Missoulian, one of the largest newspapers in western Montana. It is well-written, researched, and reasoned. I answered it. See below.

“All this current agonizing over the concept of “socialism.” Republicans cringe at the word and hold up their crosses to divert the horrors of it.”

“I got curious. What of socialism around the world? According to the United Nations, seven of the 10 happiest countries in 2019 are Finland, Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, Sweden, New Zealand and Canada. FYI: The U.S. ranked 18th.”

“According to the Peerform website, among the 10 most socialistic nations in the world today are Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, Norway and New Zealand.”

“Interesting overlap, do you not agree?”

“On thelibertarianrepublic.com website, the blogger listed the most socialist policies of the USA. They were Social Security, the Federal Reserve, endless wars, farm subsidies, public schools, corporate welfare, income taxes, Medicare/Medicaid/Affordable Care Act, public transportation, public security, and the Food and Drug Administration. Allowing for the obvious libertarian leanings in what got included in the list, which of the listed policies would you be willing to give up?”

“Maybe we can all agree on giving up the “endless wars”!”

–Linda Holtom, Missoula

(This is my reply. Note that the links I have posted do not show up in the paper, so the content below is not exactly the same as the version submitted.–RM)

Socialism. Republicans cringe at the word. I agree and consider them to be inconsistent. While they speak against socialism, they advocate for and enact socialist policies, including all the items Linda Holtom listed in a Letter to Editor, Missoulian, 7/28/2019. See here and here for an extended version of my opinion on Republican hypocrisy concerning socialism and government.

It is interesting that the blog post she referred to, Peerform, had a large graphic at the top of the article showing Lenin, Marx, and Engels—all of whom were instrumental in bringing about the ‘worker’s paradise’ known as the former Soviet Union, socialism taken to the extreme. She also neglected to mention that one of the most socialist countries, according to this blog post, is China, with the attendant photo of armed soldiers lined up, ready to enforce compliance with socialist law.

Holtom asked a question. It deserves an answer. I would give up all of them, starting with the FED, which finances every form of socialism in this country. This action, by itself, would inevitably change or eliminate every other item on her list, including the endless wars.

There is only one alternative to socialism—liberty, in which the freedom of people and their property is considered sacred and off limits to government. Everything else is socialist.

End of letter. I expect some pretty harsh criticism, from both the left and the right.

It seems that Holtom has equated socialism with happiness. After all, most of the most socialist countries in the world are also the happiest, at least according to the sources she mentioned. What she never said anything about is that the most socialist countries this world has ever known, the USSR, Maoist China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Nazi Germany, etc., have also been the unhappiest, filled with an immense amount of human suffering and misery.

All of the countries she listed have a few things in common. There are probably more.

  1. They are small, population-wise.
  2. Many of these populations are indigenous and closely related.
  3. They have no large military expenditures, relying instead on the United States to keep the “bogeyman” away.

One thing which should be obvious is that they are more similar to each other than they are to the US, which has a large, rapidly growing, rapidly diversifying population and is acting as policeman to the world. Apples to oranges. They are not the same.

Consistency: The Winning Factor in Politics and Life

I grew up in a conservative Republican home and learned early on that ‘liberal’ was a dirty word. It affected my political viewpoint for many years until the day arrived that I realized this wasn’t the whole story. Eventually I came to the conclusion that it’s pretty hard to throw mud unless you’re right in the middle of the puddle yourself. Or, as the saying goes, it takes one to know one.

There are two major wings of the statist party, Conservative and Liberal, with a third, Progressive, building up steam and set to demolish the Democrat Party. I have no use for any of them, but I do have some grudging respect for both the Liberal and Progressive factions. This shouldn’t be construed to mean that I accept and support their premises (I don’t), but only that, in my opinion, they are consistent with their stated philosophies and, consequently, will probably come out on top in the scramble for government control—at least for a short while until they manage to completely destroy the United States.

It is a known fact that both the liberals and the progressives call for wide-ranging policies which would require massively increasing the size of civil government in order to implement them. It is also known that both are willing and ready to accept this growth and even advocate for it. In this respect, they are honest. They are consistent. They practice what they preach.

Not so the conservatives. They are hypocrites, mouthing one thing, enacting another. They SAY that they are in favor of small government and lower taxes, but push for more all the time. They SAY that they are in favor of outlawing abortion on demand, but never make any concerted effort to end the slaughter when they have the power to do so. They SAY that they are in favor of free trade, but then work out deals which benefit large corporations and the people who control them at the expense of everyone else. They SAY that they support individual freedom, but work to bring everyone under the control of the State.

And on and on and on. I could do this for a long, long time.

George W. Bush was elected President, due partly to the belief among conservative Republicans that he was a decent, devout, Christian man who would do the right thing and Bush encouraged them to think so. He was not shy about professing his Christian faith in public, yet he never hesitated to abandon the principles he espoused when they came into conflict with his political policies. “Love your enemy”, “Do good to those who hate you”, and “Do not bear false witness” are maxims of the Christian faith, but Bush deliberately and repeatedly lied in order to take America to war against Afghanistan and Iraq, killing millions of people in the process.

I have more respect for Adolf Hitler. He knew what he believed in, he said what he believed, and he pursued his beliefs to the end, without conflict between his words and his acts.

Jack Kerwick recently posted an article on Lew Rockwell which said that conservatives could win the political battle against the liberals and progressives, except that they will not fight for what they believe in. He mentions Rush Limbaugh’s immense wealth and says that if that was put to good use, it would have a profound effect on society. This may very well be true, but why would Limbaugh do that? He makes his millions by exploiting the suckers who take his words at face value. Limbaugh and others like him are con men, using the gullibility of their followers as a cash cow to be milked, laughing all the way to the bank.

I don’t agree with Kerwick’s assessment. Conservatives don’t need to “fight” with the liberals and progressives to win. All they need to do is to be consistent, on a regular basis, with what they say they believe. That would be more than enough.

Socialism vs. Liberty and Freedom

Recently, a Letter to the Editor was printed in the Bitterroot Star by numerous members of the Montana Legislature, all of them Republicans, on the issue of Medicaid expansion and why this is a bad idea. My response is seen below or you can see it online here. And while you’re at it, check out the paper, a small, local rag which does quite well in this area.

Apparently, the authors of the article believe that Medicaid itself is good, because they state that, “Traditional Medicaid was created to lend a hand to our most vulnerable populations.” However, they argue against the “socialist expansion” of the program. Where do they draw the line? And how do they determine when we have stepped over it? And who gets to decide where the line is drawn? 

What is socialism, anyway? 

Socialism is the political practice of bestowing benefits on any certain class of people at the expense of everyone else. Furthermore, it is the belief that the ills of society and culture can be corrected by confiscating money and wealth from certain people and giving it to others. In this respect, every civilization in the world today is socialist because they all rely on taxation and government redistribution to create their own version of socialism. 

I’d be willing to bet that the authors have their own pet projects which they would vigorously defend against attack, all the while claiming that these are NOT socialist in any way, shape, or form. The fact is that EVERY single government program which has ever been created and implemented is socialist to some degree. 

The only alternative to socialism (left, right, or middle) is to leave individual people alone to live out their lives without interference. No government, no taxation, no socialism. In other words, individual liberty and freedom.

Yeah, that’s right. Just leave me alone.

***Update: Shortly after this letter appeared in the Bitterroot Star, a response was printed. You can read it here.It basically said that because I had expressed a desire to be left alone, then I had to stay home, stay off the (our) roads, stay out of the (our) stores, plan to work from home with what I had on hand, stay away from the (our) local medical offices and hospitals, not call the (our) local fire or police departments in an emergency, etc. In other words, completely disassociate myself from any and all local society. All because I said I wanted to be left alone.

I didn’t bother to respond.

Shameless Self-Promotion

I have been writing this blog off and on for years. My thinking has changed somewhat over this time, so some of these posts may not accurately reflect the way I believe now. That is important, however, since I am where I am now because of the decisions I made in the past. Because my thinking and philosophy change over time, I can honestly say that I believe I am coming ever closer to the truth.

The posts to this blog are sporadic. I have, however, been writing and posting to another blog, To Make a Difference more frequently. To Make A Difference is dedicated solely to the issue of abortion on demand. On that issue, my view will never change.

Check it out if you’d like. I’d be delighted to have you on board.