Donald Trump, the President of the United States since January 20, 2017 (from here)

The news media constantly finds new ways to tell us that Presidential Donald Trump is an existential threat. However, the biggest threat Trump seems to pose is to the news media’s credibility. Unfortunately, there are still people out there who believe the news media. Here is an example, a comment from the previous post.


If you don’t like this country and it’s government, why don’t you do what Trump said, and go back to the country that you came from? 😏

But of course, the Misogynist-in-Chief, your party leader in open racial warfare, wasn’t actually referring to strangely disaffected white Christian men of privilege, now was he? No, just women who happen to be any shade darker than whatever shade of pink-orange that Trump happens to be on any given day.

Fun facts:

1. Trump and convicted pedophile Epstein used to pal around together, and at one point Trump invited a bevy of young female contestants to a “meet and greet the big wigs” party at Trump’s resort. When the eager beauty queens showed up, it turned out that Trump and Epstein were the only other guests and the young women were actually on the entertainment menu exclusively for them.

2. Just last week, one of Trump’s for-profit second White Houses planed a “charity” golf event where local all nude strippers were to be auctioned off as caddies, including package deals for private shows at the strip club. This Presidential model of Christian charity was only called off last week after news hit the press and the charity pulled out.

3. During the campaign Trump illegally paid hush money to a porn star, and reimbursed a tabloid to kill the story of a porn model just to hide from voters his illicit affairs with these women. This would be the third wife that Trump cheated on. No, of course there is no reason to worry about Russian influence when Trump can be blackmailed by a porn star and then repeatedly lie to the public about it.

4. Just a couple weeks ago another woman (what is it – 20 some women now?) credibly accused Trump of another rape. Trump essentially responded that she wasn’t pretty enough to meet his “grab em by the p*$&¥“ criteria.

5. The former owner of a massage parlor exposed as a prostitution ring that the Kraft family patriarch was caught up in is now being investigated for selling the Chinese influence with Trump by saying that they would get to meet the president at Trump’s Mar-a-lago Resort and tax dollar promoted Florida White House.

And all of these examples are just a few of the endless undisputed misogynist corruption instances about your predator President. His numerous pandering of racist tropes and statements are at the core of his MAGA campaign messagING starting with Birtherism. And this is the leader of Evangelicals who say they believe in Jesus’ Good Samaritan message of helping and welcoming the stranger?

Can you really claim that your Republican views are inspired by the Bible and a concern for teaching of Christian morality to children when this is leader of your movement? This is the moral example of your leadership that you honestly want for your grandkids to emulate? Your knowledge of the reality of the modern democratic state is stuck in the 18th Century, but even if it had any intellectual merit, your movement’s choice of this blatantly corrupt and incompetent leadership-by-racist/misogynist-tweets damns it of any moral credibility.

What am I suppose to do with this comment? Well, tsalmon obviously thinks I am suppose to be shamed into supporting Hillary Clinton for president. I am suppose to walk over to the White House, boot Trump out, and install Hillary so Bill can start chasing around White House interns again.

Does anyone miss Bill and Hillary? I don’t. So I guess I will start down tsalmon’s list until I get bored with it. tsalmon obviously doesn’t get the other side of the story.

0. If you don’t like this country and it’s government, why don’t you do what Trump said, and go back to the country that you came from? This one is so dumb it’s funny. Consider a previous comment about AOC from tsalmon.

Ultimately, I think that who most of us vote for, even supposed intellectuals like you and I, is more emotional than rational, more “Duck Dynasty” than “Frontline”. Those prejudices you talk about infect us all. How else could we end up with a reality TV President. You may gloat now, but Donald Trump is just an savant opportunist who jumped on this new bandwagon for a buck or two – AOC is a true ideologue who was bread into this game. God help us all brother. (from here)

tsalmon doesn’t have anything nice to say about the leader of “The Squad”. So why is he mad at Trump? Just read Trump’s tweets. They are not racist or hateful of woman. Trump has specific complaints about what these women have said. So in defense I have copied his tweets. Note I have also linked to the original tweets (#1, #2, #3,… contain the links.).

Since Twitter is confusing, the order below is a bit confusing. What I did is put the six sections below in chronological order. However, the tweets within each section should be read from the bottom up. That is because Twitter posts the latest tweet at the top of the list.









So what do I think? I think Trump did what he said. He tricked the rest of the Democrats into embracing “The Squad”. Why? See ‘The Squad’ Hits Back at Trump’s Racist Tirade: ‘We Will Not Be Silenced’ ( The Democrat leadership — Nancy and Chuck — would love love to disassociate themselves from “The Squad”, but they are too popular with the other radicals in the party.

The fact Trump’s tactic worked is funny. The fact the Democrats have become so terribly, insanely, radical is sad, and it is about time tsalmon admitted it. Trump did not say anything about The Squad that is any worst than what other Democrats have said. They are just mad Trump said what he said.

1. Trump and convicted pedophile Epstein used to pal around together. Jeffrey Epstein use to pal around with lots of people, including Bill Clinton. Apparently, Epstein is a charming fellow, but not to be trusted, and Trump figured that out a long time ago.

Epstein was a Democrat donor. If any politicians need to explain unsavory connections with Epstein, it is Democrats not Republicans, and Bill Clinton is at the top of the list.

Will Epstein name names. Probably not. He can afford some good lawyers, but some of his victims may pursue the matter. Since there is lots of money involved, we can expect lawyers will track down every possible lead.

Anyway, I have other things I need to do, like sleep. However, I welcome anyone who wants to amuse themselves at the Democrats and the news media’s expense. Have at it. tsalmon had lots of questions.



  1. “These people were ripe to listen to any idiot who told them who to fear and they were entitled to some brass ring. These people are not at fault… it was their elected officials, who for some in-explainable reason failed to understand the neighborhoods they were living in.”

    I live in one of poorest states in the nation, the absolute poorest in many categories. However, the only issue one candidate is running on appears to be his great courage to fend off “out-of-state liberal atheists” who want to take “In God We Trust” off only one of the myriad of license plate designs we have, including ones that promote the college football teams from neighboring states. The other enormous issue that the two Republican candidates are trying to “out Christian” each other on is their mutual opposition to being alone in any situation with any female not their wife, even in a professional situation.

    Apparently Doug, these biblically wise wannabe elected officials understand our prejudices and grievances all too well.

    1. I’d say you were fortunate to have candidates so well tuned to what’s important for the community. 🙂

    2. @tsalmon

      Yeah! That diatribe was well written. So I suppose you will like my latest post even better. It is more specific.

      Some talk is a lot less expensive. I will bet the cost of living in Mississippi is a whole lot less than it is in the state of Washington.

      1. Sure it is. The coat of living is less in many third world countries for the same reason.

        I make a comfortable retirement income thanks to what my country pays me for my military service, thanks to what my union negotiated and thanks to social security. However, just this Spring, I found out that I don’t pay a cent in state income taxes because they don’t tax retirement income here. When I saw my return, I thought my accountant must have screwed up. Because our age, my wife and I also pay a pittance in property taxes. I mostly pay no sales taxes (not that they are very high) because I shop at the military base here. So, under this regressive tax scam, unlike much poorer Mississippians, I virtually pay nothing for all the roads, beaches, police, fire departments and numerous other public goods and services that we all consume.

        Meanwhile, our streets here are all torn up while we spend hundreds of millions in FEMA hurricane Katrina money redoing all the infrastructure – water, sewer, gas, drainage, streets, sidewalks, everything. Washington state, like your state, is a net federal tax contributor while virtually all the impoverished Red States like mine are by far net federal largesse beneficiaries. And yet Mississippi remains poor and this has a low cost of living.

        While Republican candidates here worship at feet of Trump, an avowed hedonist, and posture their own religious sanctity, they are quite happy to ignore that they have beggared their state to endlessly suckle off the federal government teet that is financed by the wealthier higher taxed liberal states that they constantly demagogue against.

        You should move back here too. It’s quite a scam your Republican brethren have going here. Besides it would be nice to see you more often.

        1. On the FEMA federal government money, out of hundred and something million, you blue states sent us, apparently FEMA recently disapproved 15 million dollars in admin fees of some kind. Of course, we are suing.

          1. @tsalmon

            Here is another false dilemma. If I accept any benefit from our Socialist state, then if I don’t enthusiastically support Socialism, I am a hypocrite? Support Socialism or be a hypocrite? As I said, logic is not your strong suit. Yet you are highly intelligent. So what is the problem? Think about it. Only you can solve this problem.

            Virginia is purple. Our General Assembly is Republican. The statewide offices are blue, and our Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General have famously proven themselves hypocrites, but they are Democrats. So the news media has moved on.

            Hopefully the voters will remember, but who knows. Liberals tell us all the time about the unwashed masses. Yet these are the same unwashed they expect to elect our brilliant Democrat leaders. That’s why, I suppose, the news media has to work so diligently to guide the unwashed to the “right” decision.

          2. You sound angry.😉

            I see no hypocrisy in accepting the benefits that you pay into. The hypocrisy is in not only accepting them, but indeed depending upon them, and then biting the hand that feeds you.

            Look at Kansas. They tried to build your Ayn Rand Utopia. Even Republicans admit that Brownback’s little experiment failed, and that farm states depend on good roads and schools, perhaps more than other states.

          3. @tsalmon

            Angry? We go through life running a gamut of emotions. No doubt the minute you accused me of being angry I was. 😐😑😶😈👿😇

            You might find this post insightful.
   Your name comes up. It is about the problem of accusing people of thought crimes.

            I don’t know much about Brownback or what he supposedly did in Kansas. I don’t even know what Ayn Rand has to do with it.

            What a debate involves is a discussion of the validity of ideas. Because of our tendency to confuse the validity of people with the validity of their ideas, we rarely have debates. We are too busy pretending we can read minds.

            Here is an example. I say redistributing the wealth is stealing. Do we debate the moral validity of redistributing the wealth? Nope! Therefore, we fail to test the presumption that government has the moral right to do such a thing. Instead, I now have to reject the presumption there is something wrong with me for asking the question. Yet most of government spending involves taking money from the taxpayers and providing other people “free” money or services.

            For all practical purposes we have adopted Socialism, we have never debated the ethics. Why is it unreasonable to suggest that might be a problem? Because the debate over slavery started a war? Because we cannot handle the truth about ourselves? We sin, and we don’t want to admit it? Yet salvation requires us to confess our sins and repent.

            Oh well! At least I have a better idea of why Socrates drank that poison. In a small way I can relate to that.

            The death of Jesus on that cross,…. Well, it was not His questions that made people uncomfortable. It was His answers.

          4. “Here is an example. I say redistributing the wealth is stealing. Do we debate the moral validity of redistributing the wealth? Nope!”

            I’ve never objected to debating this. I just object to the way you frame the issue because it does not reflect legal or economic reality, much less any Christian morality that I know of. On numerous occasions I’ve tried to critically parse out each word, and you just demure with angry emotion.

            “Redistribution”. The whole concept of capitalistic economics is that wealth is constantly created, distributed, and redistributed (fairly or not). Through property law, contract law and corporate governance laws, government forms the playing field, the rules and the umpires for that creation, distribution and redistribution of wealth. Markets and government work synchronistically to imperfectly determine fairness (or not) of distribution. Take one piece out and the whole institutional systemic collapses. I’ve spent much of my graduate and post graduate doctoral life studying how this works. I can elaborate exhaustively, if you really want. But I think that I already have many times, haven’t I?

            “Wealth”. From a Christian point of view, everything belongs to God and we are just temporary stewards in a material world of what rightfully belongs to the Master. Again, however, the laws of men decide who practically owns God’s property (legally, the bundle of rights and responsibilities to use and exclude from use certain tangible and intangible real and personal property). The Christian righteousness (or morality) of wealth is based on stewardship for God’s purposes, not ours, if you just read the Bible.

            “Stealing”, Doug has pointed this out as well, is a legal construct that has to do with how we define property at law. Biblically, the sin of “theft” is when we fail to love as God mandated. Again the Bible is quite clear on this. You have to practice a form of pharisaic rationalization not to see it.

            When you say “redistribution of wealth is stealing”, you are only parroting meaningless jingoistic right speak, not a thing based on Christian moral, economic or legal reality. You can’t even realistically define the terms of your outlandish grievance. You just keep repeating it over and over again like a mantra to some weird angry god you wish to worship.

          5. @tsalmon

            How do we debate anything once you have redefined words to the point they lose meaning?

            Stealing is still something real. Even after Jesus died and rose from the dead, we can still steal.

            Does God own everything? Yes, but He give each of us stewardship over something. If without gaining your consent I decide to appropriate something God made you the steward of, then I steal from you. Does using the government to appropriate your property make it right. Jesus clearly thought not. He distinguished between what was morally right and what was legally right.

            What you have not done is demonstrate it is ethical to use government took take the property of the “rich” and give it to the “poor”. The Bible talks about personal charity, not government. All you have done is try to render the words we use to discuss the matter meaningless.

          6. Tom,

            “Property”, “redistribution”, and “theft” are words with distinct and separate legal (made made) and moral (God made) implications that are so interconnected that it is easy to confuse the two, and that is what you are doing.

            Take a patent right. When you apply for and receive a patent on something, at law (man made) the GOVERNMENT is granting you a limited monopoly (rights and responsibilities) to use and exclude others from use of certain government defined intangible intellectual property. In so doing, the government redistributes property (an idea) that actually belongs to God because God created all ideas and people just discover what God already invented.

            Do the government created patent rights and responsibilities reflect God’s intention of good stewardship of His property? If the government monopoly is excessively broad or long in duration, perhaps it is an unfair distribution of God’s property. Is it a theft then? From a man made legal perspective, if government defines the property right and its redistribution, it cannot by definition at law be a theft. It just can’t.

            If that is too confusing, then look at legal riparian rights. In the West, water was more scarce so state governments favored those who first put the water resource to good productive use, say watering cows or crops on their land. That means that if someone moves in upstream from the first developer of the water resource and that property owner downstream has already put all of the water resource to productive use, then at law that person does not actually own the water in the stream or feeder streams or even the rain that falls on his land. At law, government redistributed God’s water to the first steward of that water.

            Are the government created riparian rights and responsibilities redistribution a theft at law from the person upstream? No. Is it perhaps bad stewardship of God’s water? It’s debatable, and that’s the problem because the moral justice of that question is a difficult weighing of what is the most loving thing to do on both a personal and a grand societal scale. By first developing the water resources, the first land owner assumed the risk and produced essential goods to feed the whole community. In a big picture sense, is it loving then to take away the water he relies on and destroy what he invested in in contribution to us all?

            Is the legal and moral situation static? Of course not – it is constantly changing, not just economically, technologically, but because the world situation is in constant change and flux. If massive rain starts to fall in the West and turns the land into a Rain Forrest, aren’t both the legal and moral issues subject to revision?

            There is no easy moral answers to these complex moral questions of how GOVERNMENT defines and distributes property rights and responsibilities, but the government role is practically inseparable from how we balance those moral questions, and you are pretending that isn’t. This makes no sense legally or biblically.

          7. @tsalmon

            It is all so complicated only people in black robes have a right to an opinion? Then why vote. We don’t know enough. We haven’t been to law school.

            There are two sexes. That is a biological reality, but we can complicate matters by introducing the notion of gender, which is a social construct. Next thing we know we have 70 different genders and an excuse — rationalization — for doing any damned thing we “feel” like doing.

            Supposedly, sex doesn’t mean anything. Gender, the social construct does, and gender doesn’t mean anything because it is just a feeling. If gender is only a feeling, and we love, then we can do anything we feel like doing. After all, doesn’t love excuse any damned thing we want to do?

            Property and the moral prohibition against stealing are not that complicated. So don’t go off on a tangent, dredge up the most complex aspect of the law and then pretend you are debating the issue. You are just complicating matters to avoid debate.

            If you can’t come up with a moral justification for government taxation and spending, It doesn’t help to complicate matters. You still won’t have one.

          8. Tom,

            Advancing simplistic emotional absolutes when actually dealing with rational and moral complexities is one of the definitions of demagoguery. If you don’t have a rational response, just say so. Don’t deflect to demonizing stereotypes of “men in black robes” as if it makes more sense for laws to be written by people who know nothing about those moral and legal complexities. It may play to our prejudices but it’s disingenuous of you, and you should know better even if your audience falls for the ploy.

            Current property law is written more by legislatures than “men in black robes”. We have a republican form of government which means that hopefully voters elect representatives (more often than not, lawyers) who understand the practical and moral complexities of the laws that I am talking about rather than just demagogues who pander to their worst prejudices.

            Continuing with the example of riparian rights, let’s say a demagogic candidate makes the emotional “What do you mean that we can’t keep the rain water that falls on our own roof?” He will certainly have emotional suasion because the actual reasons for the law are counterintuitive and complex to explain. So this demagogue gets elected and changes the law so that everyone can capture their water upstream. Suddenly, the investment, the labor and the productive community benefit of farmer or rancher downstream dries up and disappears. Is that either moral or practical. We all lose more than we gain because we elected a dishonorable demagogue rather than a leader with knowledge, experience and moral judgement.

            You constantly inveigle against such ignorant, emotional mob rule, but by choosing emotional populism over actual wisdom aren’t you giving in to just these same worst instincts that every democratic system is susceptible to?

            Go ahead, give me a rational rebuttal to the ration legal and moral arguments that I have made and the real world examples I have given. If you can’t then be forthright and concede that we don’t know everything and that’s why we try to elect leaders who are knowledgeable enough and honorable enough attempt to do the better thing, both morally and practically, in a complex, ambiguous and dynamically changing imperfect world.

          9. Just to add. You seem to think that I am not also addressing “taxation”. However, most lawyers and economists agree that every government law and regulation is a practical taxation in that by such regulation, government is redistributing wealth between the parties hopefully for the public benefit.

            By regulating land owners upstream from utilizing the water flowing through their land because the land owner downstream developed the resource first, government is essentially taxing the upstream land owners of their water and giving it to the downstream land owner. This taxation may become more apparent to you if you realize that it does not matter who owned the land and the water on it first, but instead who “developed the resource for productive use” first.

            The taxation aspect also materializes in the public benefit apparent in the phrase “developed for productive use”. For example, let’s say that the downstream land owner simply captured the water in a lake but did not utilize the water to any productive benefit for himself and his community. In this case the law would not afford him the riparian property rights because he had not complied with his riparian property responsibilities. Property at law is a bundle of both individual rights against others and also responsibilities to the community at large.

            All taxation in whatever form it takes assumes a balancing of equities in responsibilities to the community as well as rights to be left alone. The morality of a given taxation has to do with how well the law (often imperfectly) balances those equities, but regardless of how imperfect the balancing materialism of property distribution is at the practical level, it is always, whether in direct taxation, through defining of property rights and responsibilities, or other regulation, a function of governmental redistribution. You simply can’t have a government that defines and protects property rights that does not also tax you by defining and regulating your property responsibilities with regard to community. Property, for all practical purposes, is by legal and economic definition a bundle of both.

          10. @tsalmon

            If you can’t come up with a moral justification for government taxation and spending, it doesn’t help to complicate matters. You still won’t have one. You will just have a better chance of disguising the fact that your feelings are all the matter to you.

            Look at what you are doing. You are calling me a demagogue. You are throwing in every complication you can think of. You are taking common terms and extending their definitions far beyond the normal use.

            Not allowing a property owner water rights someone else is already using is a tax?

            Your feeling are not a logical, reason based moral justification. I cannot feel your feelings. If you cannot take your feeling and explain the principle you are using, how am I suppose do to it. Calling me a demagogue does not justify your feelings. It is not even reasonable. Is it demagoguery to insist that you provide a moral justification before you threaten someone and take their property from them?

            NOTE: Very few people ever bother to ask themselves what the moral justification for government taxation and spending might be. So don’t be surprised you have no ready answer.

            Since we went to government-run schools, our teachers never considered the matter, and I doubt many private schools do. Nevertheless, Thomas Paine had his take and John Locke had his, but they wove the moral justification for taxation and spending into their justification of the need for government.

            What differs today from what Paine and Locke wrote? Socialism, as we try to apply it today, is a relatively new idea. Some people talked about it, but no one took them very seriously.

            About the earliest example I know of Socialism is what the Pilgrims tried when they landed in America. After half of them had starved to death, they gave it up. To support their Socialist programs, most of our politicians realize they need the private economy. So we have not yet gone bankrupt, but I don’t see the new generation of Democrats having even that much sense.

          11. Is this your “I know you are, but what am I” rational?😊. I accuse you of making a singularly emotional appeal so you must somehow accuse me of the same?

            My “feelings” are irrelevant and nothing in my comments here are based on them. I’m just giving you the true facts and the true rational of our current system in which morality, law and economics interplay. I don’t “feel” that property law works this way – it simply does, and I’ve got a law school student’s mental scars to prove it.

            You accuse me of avoiding the issue you propose when it’s obvious that I have addressed it rationally and methodically at some length, including providing actual illustrative real world examples. I can provide you with authoritative references to everything I’ve written if you want, but I don’t think you are interested because you don’t really want to make a rational or moral rebuttal to any of it, do you? Why? I know it’s not because you are incapable of doing so. When logic and facts are on your side you can be quite brutal in rubbing it in your opponent’s face.

            I can only assume that the actual reality that I’ve presented does not comport with the fantasies that you have avidly embraced over the years. It’s just too much of a shock for you to try to understand these realities, much less to accept them. So instead you throw out some childish nonsense about feelings, accuse me of not doing what I quite obviously just spent too many words exactly doing, and then deflect. Maybe I’m asking too much of you by exposing you to so much sunlight after you have embraced your darkness for so long. It is a lot to ask of anyone.

            So I’ll just let it go and you can mull on it for a while until you’re ready to let some of it sink in. Maybe then we can have an actual debate. I always enjoy discussing this stuff though. Thanks for letting me.

          12. @tsalmon

            I ask for a moral justification, not a list of special case legal nuances that avoid the question. None of those special cases change anything anyway.

            We define property rights in terms of labor. Money is largely a measure of the value of labor. The story of the little red hen illustrates the principle => John Locke and others have reached similar conclusions.

            We give inventors patent rights because they earn those rights with their labor. God may be the source of all knowledge, but He still expects us to work to obtain knowledge.

            We give the people who first make productive use of a resource like water a right to that resource because of the labor they spend making use of those rights. With respect to water rights, you said as much yourself. Does that stop others from stealing those rights. Well, Turkey is in the process of building damns that will deprive Iraq of water. It isn’t right, but people tend to do whatever they can get away with. That’s why I did not ask a legal question. I made the question one about morality.

            Are some of the ways we define property rights arbitrary or inconsistent with the story of the little red hen? I suppose so. Shrug! It is not a perfect world filled with perfect people, not since Adam and Eve sinned.

            I did not accuse you of anything. I just pointed specifically at what you had written. The only thing personal about it is that you wrote it.

          13. Now, we are making some progress in that you are at least addressing some of the points that I made.

            As usual, however, your argument is reductionist. One wonders why people get doctorates in the dismal science and they give out Nobel prizes for it for when all they have to do is read a child’s fable.

            You know that with the Industrial Revolution, the Information Age and Globalization, a few things have happened since the 18th Century. In a modern capitalist economy, labor is only one small but important part of our dynamic multifaceted system.

            If all money is only a value unit of labor on one supply/demand graph then I guess all those other graphs are unnecessarily? What about increased productivity due to technological innovation? What about money that is made off of capital investment, speculation, ingenuity, knowledge, interest spread, and on and on? What about the effect of externalities, transaction costs, asymmetric and imperfect information, free rider problems, and on and on?

            As to taxation, both conservative and liberal economists agree that every form of government regulatory action is effectively a tax. In fact, many radical libertarian conservatives label every regulation (including the riparian rights regulation you approve of) as a form of Socialism. The real disputes, however, are not over whether governmentsal taxation in its many forms in and of itself is immoral. The issues among economists and legal scholars are which government taxes are most equitable at putting scarce resources (including labor, capital, natural resources, knowledge, etc.) to their highest and best uses, thus generating and most fairly distributing wealth. Read up on some of the economic disputes and theories that have resulted from varied interpretations and applications of the Coase Theorem and you’ll get a taste of just one area of the numerous and complex legal, economic and moral disputes regarding government’s most efficient and moral involvement in bargaining.

            And this just lays the predicate for an informed discussion of which goods and services most morally and effectively should be somehow provided by the government.

          14. @tsalmon

            I am not going down into the weeds with you. C
            We can’t see anything. Won’t discover anything.

            We can discuss economic theory in immense detail, but what is the point? If you are not discussing something related to property rights, it has nothing to do with our discussion.

            Are other things besides labor costs responsible for price? Price results from supply versus demand. So when price goes up people respond by working to produce that which most rewards their labor. What is scarce then become more abundant, and the price drops.

            Are there items that we produce where labor is only a small part of the cost? Yes, but we still trace ownership through the producer, the people who make the stuff. People produce things for people. When we are not working to satisfy our own desires, that is involuntary servitude. Then our work belongs to someone else.

            People barter with people. Each of us is tries to get what we cannot as easily produce ourselves by making use of someone else’s labors.

            We accumulate things by bartering for things that do not readily perish. That is capital.

            So are property rights all about labor? For most part. We either earn the right to property through labor or someone gives us what they have earned.

            Since God owns us, He is the one who gives us the privilege of stewardship. Since most of the world is not Christian, most don’t speak of stewardship.

            Does government arbitrate property disputes? Yes, but government arbitrates those disputes based upon moral principles. Codifying those principles in the law does not change that.

          15. @tsalmon

            Take a patent right. When you apply for and receive a patent on something, at law (man made) the GOVERNMENT is granting you a limited monopoly (rights and responsibilities) to use and exclude others from use of certain government defined intangible intellectual property. In so doing, the government redistributes property (an idea) that actually belongs to God because God created all ideas and people just discover what God already invented.

            God invented the moral law, and we just discover the best ways to enforce the moral law. When we just make up our our own law because we think things ought to work the way we want them to work, we make a mess.

            From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. –Karl Marx

            Does not work when we apply the force of government. Just makes an awful mess.

          16. “God invented the moral law, and we just discover the best ways to enforce the moral law. When we just make up our our own law because we think things ought to work the way we want them to work, we make a mess.”


            I agree that God’s Law is the foundation for morality. However, man, specifically a government, actually imperfectly creates property law by that government’s defining, arbitrating and enforcing property rights and responsibilities. In so far as this man made law comports better with God’s morality, then property law will be more just, but in a finite and fallen world, that justice will always by aspirational rather than perfected.

            Jesus summed up the basis for God’s morality in these statements from Mathew 22:

            37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

            In so far as man made law, including property law, most closely comports with this God mandated standard, it will be more just. The problem is the assumption that there is always a right and a wrong way to do this. Why is it so difficult to match God’s Will perfectly with man made law?

            1. Complexity. Made made law in a modern state is situational to the facts, and the number of possible fact variations in any given area of the law is almost infinite. The law seeks to build therefore on a long history of legislation and juris prudence to apply and adapt that controlling law to each new set of facts in each new situation in an almost endless number of possible variables. In so doing, the law also seeks to apply the latest knowledge in equally complex fields like sociology, psychology, science and economics. Patent law is just one complex example of this complexity.
            2. Ambiguity. No matter how much we think we know, no matter how fast we learn and predict, there is infinite more that we are blind to. God also created this universe with a random quality where the coin can land either way. This makes even those best made plans of mice and men fraught with unintended negative consequences to be constantly contended wit, and the law must constantly be reformed and adapted.
            3. Dynamism. We and the universe are in a constant state of flux, and because of leaps in science and technology, change is happening faster rather than slower.
            Furthermore, as soon as we pull at one string the whole web of the law changes.
            4. Imperfection. In a finite and fallen world full of near endless dilemmas of competing and conflicting rights and responsibilities, there are very often simply no perfectly right solutions. More often property law is simply trying to balance competing equities for the least imperfect answer.
            5. Sin. This is related to all of the above. The source of every other virtue is love, but the loving choice is not always clear. Virtue often precariously lives between competing vices. The most courageous action lies between foolhardy folly and cowardly fleeing. The most prudent action lies between the impulsive spendthrift and the uncharitable miser. And each situation is different. People’s self interest often is not enlighten. Coercion may be necessary but genuine love has to be voluntary. Just property law appeals to the voluntary better angels if our nature but angels also carry swords to keep the demons at bay.

          17. @tsalmon

            You seem to be at the point where you are starting to make my argument for me. Think about what I want, limited government. I think redistributing the wealth is stealing. So government should not be engaged in an activity so fraught with moral issues.

            Instead of acknowledging the fact that redistributing the wealth is stealing, you are preaching the gospel of sacrificial love and complexity. We need to love each other, but government is terribly complicated? So what then? We are suppose to embark of upon activities that are likely to corrupt us and our government officials.

            “First do no harm” is not part of the Hippocratic Oath, but it seems related (=> It seems to me that dictum is appropriate for both doctors, judges and lawmakers.
            1. We voters cannot keep up with all the nonsense our government does, and we don’t elect especially good people. The news media is so partisan half the population does not trust it. Therefore, we will never be as informed as we ought to be.
            2. Our elected officials are constantly squabbling and bickering. They waste money by the billions. They are constantly trying to hide stuff. They cannot be trusted, and they cannot agree on anything. What is the point of giving them more to do?

            Add those bullets to what you just wrote, and we have a great argument for limited government. Thanks.

          18. As I’ve said, everybody is for limited government if the choice is between all government and no government. I too would have no more government than is necessary, and I agree that government can grow beyond what is necessary to take on a corrupt life and wasteful purpose of its own. You are right to point out where that is happening and to demand accountability, greater efficiency and reform.

            However, my points above are an explanation using the example of property law for why government by necessity has become more complex and larger in scope in response to dynamic change and expansion in technology, knowledge and markets to national and then global levels.

            Think of the market economy like a highly competitive game that constantly changes and grows. As it does so, there must be whole new institutions that advance and regulate the game, the playing field must be kept uniform, safe and fair even as it grows, the rules must also change and expand to keep up, and the number and expertise of the referees must follow the demand.

            Take patent law as just one example where as it grows and adapts to technology we have to define whole new classes of laws along with the institutions to arbitrate and enforce those laws, now on an international scale.

            Look how big our military has gotten since the days when many of the Founders saw no need for as standing army. Why would the rest of government be any different?

            In some ways, as the world changes and all these areas grow, it’s like a Red Queen Game. We have to run faster and faster, grow larger and larger, just to maintain the same equilibrium. We either do that or be smashed and left behind by the competition.

          19. @tsalmon

            Patent law has nothing to do with redistributing the wealth. Redistributing the wealth has nothing to do with new technology, and it just screws our economy. National Defense is not part of this debate.

            Redistributing the wealth is strictly an ethical issue. Ostensibly, the goal of redistributing the wealth is to take wealth from people who earned it and to give to needy people who did not.

          20. The definition of economics: “of, relating to, or based on the production, DISTRIBUTION, and consumption of goods and services”

            You need to be more specific about what you mean by the government not redistributing wealth.

            Markets are all about redistribution of wealth. Governments define the laws, arbitrate the disputes and endorse the rights and responsibilities of the market parties thus providing the paying field, the rules, the umpires and the regulatory institutions that allow markets to even exist. Just by setting those rules, such as in patent law, government affects and effects market redistribution of scarce resources to their highest and best use. The lines between what is government and what is private in our market system are more blurred than you may imagine. A corporation itself is a creature of government such that in actuality, it is more of a government/private hybrid. If the game of capitalism is to create and distribute wealth the government is the playing field, the rules and the umpires in that game. Capitalism is a team sport and government is a necessary part of the team.

            Also the government itself more directly creates and distributes when it builds the infrastructure that allows for more efficient and productive commerce. For example, a rich person would be willing to pay more for the benefit that he receives for a given road than poorer persons. If the cost of the road is less than each person using the road would be willing to pay, and therefore each person is then progressively taxed for the road at a rate lower than each person was willing to pay, then the government enabled an efficient transaction where every tax payer received a benefit of the bargain. In the positive difference between what each person was willing to pay and what that person actually paid, in economic terms, wealth was created.

            So the question is not whether government distributes wealth. I does as part of its essential purpose. The question is whether it is doing so as efficiently and morally as it should, and whether some other organizing principles could do it more morally and efficiently. And those are tough questions that are not as clearly answered as the ideologues on both sides would have us believe. When something is a public good or service that is best provide led by government, or granted to regulated private monopoly (like most power companies) or corporations or charitable organizations or just greater regulation is not always black and white.

            I agree with you that government redistribution of simply taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is the least moral nor efficient government action. Nothing productive comes from people just standing in line to get money. Those programs, however, are actually kind of rare and are usually justified on extreme exigency.

            On the other hand, government can work closely with labor and business to make both more safe, versatile and competitive. The most worthwhile social safety nets benefit everyone, including businesses. Rich people tend to move to cities that have great public parks, superior infrastructure, great public schools and universities and an entrepreneurial spirit, and rich American are willing to suffer higher taxes to get these government goods and services (think silicone valley).

          21. @tsalmon

            I think I am going to have to read “Alice’s Adventures in WonderLand.” I can’t remember how she climbed back out of that rabbit hole.

            Even Obama knew what that plumber was talking about. Spreading the wealth about is good for everyone.

            My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s going be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody, and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody. (

            Of course, as Obama quickly discovered, talking openly about his real objectives did not play well. His fans wanted to imagine a more complicated scenario, that the appearance of money in the Federal treasury is just a matter of magical complexity.

            I could say more, but it is time I started climbing out of this rabbit hole.

          22. Hey. Unfair! I was the one to use the “Alice in Wonderland” illusion first (Red Queen game).

            But seriously, who really is fooling himself here? You haven’t actually disputed anything that I have written. You just offer slogans, cliches, and memes. “Joe the Plumber”? Why not Honey Boo Boo too?

            Give me a modern successful, democratic country where your concept works? Russia? Explain to me how major roads get built without any government involvement to at least plan out the project, choose the monopoly owner and condemn the land? Do you really consider such private road ownership and maintenance a “market” – like patents, it is a limited government granted monopoly at best. Like private prisons, it is less accountable and mediocre at best.

            The best you give is sarcastic derision of government, but I have yet to see your vision of a modern democratic state that actually would work, much less is working. I try to give you a thoughtful analysis of why I think the successful mixes of government/capitalism in modern democratic states in the world work well, and your best response is Joe the Plumber wants to keep his money? Joe the plumber also wants his kids to go to good schools that he can afford, he wants good streets and stop lights and police and fire to keep him safe. He wants a safe work environment and playgrounds that aren’t polluted by the factory down the road. He expects his military to protect him and his federal government to come to the rescue when his city is hit by terrorism or natural disaster. Joe the Plumber, God love him, is a symptom of a certain social malaise, not a solution to anything.

          23. @tsalmon

            Toll roads work fine. When infrastructure bonds have to be paid off with user fees, politicians cannot borrow money for a road no one wants.

            Read Philippians 1:9. Let’s make that prayer for each other.

        2. @tsalmon

          You move a state where the cost of living is low, and then you complain. Why don’t you just take the money you wish you were making other people give the government to decent local charities and leave other people in peace? You think I would move there after you ruin it?

          Like to move there, but Sylvia is difficult. She hates the cold, but she hates moving. I may suggest the Mississippi Gulf Coast to her and see how she reacts. She has fond memories of Texas, but that area is extremely vulnerable to storms.

          1. You’d be in your element here, and we could annoy the Hell out of each other on politics until our wives made us stop.

            We do have an increasing number of hurricanes though. Although we are only about a block and a half from the beach, our home has never flooded. With global warming we may even some day have waterfront property someday.

            Come on down!

          2. I would love this. Tell Sylvia I will be good if you will. I make no promises for Kate as she scares the heck out of me, but in the end I think our wives may join forces to easily outnumber us. I think ultimately that we both married beyond ourselves, which is perhaps the fate of most men, whether they know it or not.

  2. @Citizen Tom

    You commented: “How does the Bible teach wisdom? “

    Your explanation is a great basis for school vouchers to allow parents to choose what they believe is the most important discernment in life.

    How to live in peace, joy, and harmony in this life, and the next.

    Everything else being taught, may or not be of value in comparison.

    for wisdom is more precious than rubies, and nothing you desire can compare with her. Proverb 8:11)

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

  3. @Doug

    You commented

    “There’s going to be no socialism in America. Social programs? Of course. We have those now. Nothing new. Big deal.”

    I am curious what socialism programs do “ We have those now.”

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

      1. W Doug,
        Social security iwas not designed to be socialism. People working and their employers paid into the fund same as an insurance policy.

        Politicians were supposed to manage the funds and being government managers, managed to turn it into a social welfare fund.

        It is not socialism, just bad government management.

        The same outcome will happen with Obamacare, Green Deal, Free Schooling, etc.because most politicians have law degrees or social study degrees instead of business degrees.

        Regards and goodwill blogging.

        1. I didn’t say “socialism”, I said “socialist”… which is a matter of perspective based on what it’s compared to. It’s Trump who is applying socialism to simply socialist-concept programs to present some impossible fear of the Constitution going adios. Contrived fear is what is motivating you.

          1. @ doug

            a person who advocates or practices socialism.

            synonyms: left-wing, Fabian, syndicalist, utopian socialist; More
            adhering to or based on the principles of socialism.
            “the history of socialist movement”

            Source Merriam-Webster

            Regards and goodwill blogging.

          2. And that changes what? You are suggesting that if someone favors a social program.. in essence it becomes a socialist program, they are by nature socialists who favor socialism and by that conclusion we can surmise they want to make America a socialism nation? Get a grip. Life isn’t that black & white (regardless of the racial overtones)

          3. @ Doug

            Social Security was originated as a government run insurance not by a socialist who believed in Socialism.

            Regards and goodwill blogging.

          4. What am I missing here.. someone besides Bernie (who is a social democrat and does not want to replace the Constitution and tear down the government) wants to chuck the Constitution for a socialist government??

          5. W Doug,

            What you are missing is Bernie is suggesting a program that has no way to be funded, unlike an insurance policy.

            So if Bernie wins, in time, his Socialist idea will bankrupt the country same as it did to Russia.

            The only way Socialism survives is by force which is opposite freedom.

            Check in the history of Socialism and tally up the millions of people murdered by force.

            If Socialism did not work before anywhere in history except by force, why will it work now in the USA.

            Regards and goodwill blogging.

          6. I don’t want socialism any more than you do. The difference is that I have faith in the Constitution and our institutions and I don’t fear that anything else is going to replace it anytime soon… even with our current divide. Trump has told his followers they must fear loosing the Constitution… and vote for him to defend everyone. Sorry.. not my demagogue.

          7. @ Doug,

            But you just said you have faith in the Constitution. same as Trump stated to warn fools who have no idea what Socialism is and are being bamboozled with the same promises made by politicians making the same promises and claims that Socialism is going to give them everything without paying.

            Regards and goodwill blogging..

          8. Surprising the number of Americans who truly just want to be led by someone if the story is believable. Truth doesn’t matter one bit because it can be manufactured to fit the need. So many are just looking for a convincing Moses to tell them what to believe and to lead them out. It’s just the infinite variety of human diversity… some are born to lead, some to follow; some are intellectual, some are workers. The “public trust” in someone to lead them can mean more to those who give it from pure hope than personal agenda, party affiliation, or some logical conclusion.

          9. @ doug

            That’s why we need to teach Wisdom in school to hopefully teach the future leaders and followers to discern facts, truth, and history.

            We seem to teach them every other subject under the sun.

            Regards and goodwill blogging.

          10. You can’t teach Wisdom.. it’s an acquired trait… and even by that, it depends on the situation that requires it. You respect the wisdom of Solomon, but in fact he was simply a guy who saw a greater picture than the one in front of him. Decisions have ramifications, and not all laws can be treated fairly across the board. Most important, wisdom is well beyond just leadership ability. Trump even has wisdom.. he is wise to the fact that acting as a business bully and using schoolyard posturing has worked for him.. and he continues to use it. It’s very obvious he has NO wisdom whatsoever in hiring the right people for the right job because delegation is not his manner… and relying on the input of others just muddies his bias-oriented decision-making processes.

            Certainly critical thinking skills can be taught more in the classroom.

          11. @Doug

            There are not a lot of business experienced people who will leave their high paying jobs to work in government.

            If you ever experienced running for office, you will find that the majority of people who help you seem to expect thet if you are elected, you will hire them in return.

            That is one reason I favor term limits, which to hopefully return to people serving short terms or timeouts from business to serve in government instead of being supported by government.

            Regards and goodwill blogging..

          12. Well, working for government is hardly a fast track to wealth and riches.. although many likely think it’s a fast track to getting paid for doing as little as possible… like it’s some union-tenure thing. Term limits are a good idea but one has to be careful in removing those with experience in serving for a length of time and not having mentors to influence the newbies. It’s a balance.
            I tend to favor a 6 year limit for the president. If nothing else, the person will concentrate on getting business done in all those years and not spend the first four posturing to get elected to the second four… and getting only four years of work for an eight years stretch.

          13. Doug,

            Frankly, except for police, and military, the entire mass of government agencies could be run by contracting with private vendors same as most Corperate do.

            Advantages is not having to pay exorbitant pensions and control over mismanagement by being able to end contracts when necessary.

            Regards and goodwill blogging..

          14. Back in “my” day you went to any military installation and non-essential services like the cashiers at the local BX/commissary of base gas station were civilian hires, generally spouses and family of personnel stationed there. You go to any installation now and there’s usually a large overall contingent of civilians employed to do what was traditionally the military’s job. Most notable, installation security.. gate guards, etc. are now provided by outside vendors to presumably free up military assets for other things. Vending out services only works IF there is specific management and processes in place to monitor performance levels… constantly and consistently. All too often jobs get assigned to outside vendors and it’s presumed everything will fall in place. Just look at the complaints and crisis at vendor-operated state and federal prisons.. and even the vendors being used for various services at the southern border… and even mercenaries assuming the role of conducting military missions. Outsourcing is NOT the end-all solution without proper monitoring.

          15. @Doug

            Back in yours and my day, the military was mainly comprised of draftees with minuscule pay.

            Since that ended, to entice military personnel, train, and convince them to stay, they are offered incentives.

            What you described is what government does wrong by hiring civilians as government employees instead of contracting with private enterprises.

            That why we have a National Debt of 33 trillion, and if you add pension it is over 100 trillion in future obligations.

            If Interested,


            Regards and goodwill blogging.

          16. @Scatterwisdom

            Generally, I agree, but so long as government spends so much money and exercises so much influence through tax rules, laws, and regulations, we are going to have a hard time stemming the fraud, waste, and abuse.

          17. @Doug

            An acquired trait is something that CAN BE TAUGHT.

            How does the Bible teach wisdom? Through proverbs and stories. Then we get to practice what we have learned, just like any other skill. Studying the Bible, accepting the counsel of the wise, life experience and prayer (the contemplation of God, our sins, what we have to be thankful for, and our needs) builds up our skill.

            Skill? Yes. The skill is learning to discern between good and evil and choosing the good.

            Why is wisdom difficult? Does wisdom require great intelligence and knowledge? If we want to be called wise, I suppose so, but too often we are motivated by pride. So we must learn the necessity of substituting God’s will for our own. We usually know what is good, but our pride and the weakness of our flesh demands the wrong choice. So I think wisdom is more about humility and trusting God than intelligence and knowledge.

          18. Whenever someone echos that old bromide.. knowledge is power… I usually differ with them and submit that.. knowledge by itself is NOT power, but rather it’s knowing when to apply the knowledge they have that gives one power, if we are presuming power itself means the influencing of others. The only way anyone would be able to know when to apply this knowledge, is the application of what we are calling here.. wisdom… which is just the application of one’s own knowledge and experience. Again, one person’s idea of wisdom could very much be another person’s interpretation of stupidity or ignorance.

          19. @Doug

            You commented: “You can’t teach Wisdom.. it’s an acquired trait…”
            I disagree. While wisdom can be acquired over time though good and bad experiences, it is no different a subject than for example reading writing and arithmetic.

            We send our children to school to spend time to obtain knowledge and understand of these subjects to be successful in life and avoid experiencing hard knocks in life because of lack of wisdom, knowledge, and understanding.

            If Interested,


            Regards and goodwill blogging.

          20. The application of wisdom is not simply being able to discern right from wrong because even that is relative to each person. We all were taught that it’s wrong to kill.. but it’s ok for our military to be deployed to kill and that makes it right… or at least, an exception to the rule, and all rules have exceptions. Wisdom is the application of trying to meander though the exceptions to our own rules.

            Again.. teach critical thinking skills.. problem solving skills.. and wisdom will follow.

          21. @Doug

            Then again, in reverse, teach wisdom and critcal thinking skills, problem solving skills and ……………a better government and life will follow.

            Regards and goodwill blogging.

          22. To set a uniform standard of social responsibility for basic education. I know you have objections to public education but if you truly want to see a gross economic and social disparity inside the entire population.. just leave education to the masses, who obviously know better, but they know better in 320 million ways.

          23. @Doug

            The government runs one part of our transportation system, and private industry runs another part.

            The government runs the roadways. It sets standards for using our roadways. Our roads get jammed up five days a week morning and evening.

            Private industry builds and sells the vehicles that use our roadways. There are lots of different types of vehicles, and thanks to innovation those vehicles keep getting safer and less expensive. That result from competition.

            Without any help from government, which could vastly facilitate solving the problem, private companies are even trying to design and build self driving vehicles. If government were willing to build a elevated rail system for commuters and shoppers, we could easily design and build a system of energy efficient self-driving vehicles, but government is awful at innovation.

            Innovation is just one problem with government-run schools. The big problem is that they are run by people no one trusts, politicians. Those people, not the parents, selected the instructors and the curriculum, and they do so based upon moral values many do not share. That is not right.

            So while I see the necessity of some government regulation, I don’t think government should run our schools. It shortchanges the children. It is why so many send their children to private schools or homeschool, and they get a much better education.

          24. The country has gotten to the the world power that it is using public education. So rather than throw out the baby with the bath water change the system to make more sense. I was deeply involved in our school district back in the day and the school boards, at least in my area, have a fair amount of authority… and board people are elected, albeit unpaid, but very representative of the residents. But the changes need to be made in D.C. and policy. Most of the gripes from the teachers were the state and federal mandates that seemed to tie their hands on local innovation. As far as I am aware, home schooling is valid providing your home school “students” test out to meet state and federal mandates. Other than that… public education is necessary because many parents should never have been parents, many legitimately are not geared to educate, and many simply don’t have the time due to employment requirements. There always is the choice to home school.. so what’s the issue?

          25. @Doug

            Public education started in the 1830’s. That is nearly 200 years ago. What we have today does not much look like what we had then.

            The system started locally. Then state politicians, seeing yet another opportunity to spend money offered to “help”. Now you want the Federal Government to step in and strengthen the monopoly, and that is suppose to improve innovation? 😯😨😕😞

            The last thing anyone needs are politicians taking over the education of children. If parents need help being parents, they should be getting that help from volunteers and nonprofits in their communities, not from spendthrift politicians in DC.

            Most private schools, to keep the parents as customers and to help with discipline, would try to involve parents. Ideally, churches would use schools to strengthen the community that each church tries to form. Families are the building blocks of communities, and communities exist to help families. The Federal Government was not designed to have a role in any of that.

            What would the unchurched do? If some people want to stay in the public schools, I don’t care. I just don’t think it is ethical to pressure everyone to use a monopoly. I don’t think an education monopoly run by politicians, politicians who insist upon a secularized education, is ethical.

            I also think the presumption that we need the public school system ends the debate before it has started. If we can make homeschooling and private schools work, we don’t need public schools.

          26. And there’s another example of villainizing a group.. politicians just want power.. politicians are spendthrifts… the federal government wants to control our minds… where does all this fear come from? Honestly, if you don’t like the politicians then you apparently have some deep concerns regarding the Constitution that created this environment you seem to fear. Have you lost faith in America, Tom? Nothing wrong having doubts.. but to appreciate a demagogue simply for the upheaval and chaos he spreads across the nation, and open defiance to our freedom-inspired institutions, doesn’t make a lot of sense… to me at least.

        2. @Doug

          Where is Social Security in the Constitution? That’s the real issue.

          At the time Social Security was implemented, the people did not realize they were letting the camel’s nose into the tent. They still thought of Socialism as something to do with the means of production.

          We have come to realize Socialism has more to do with wealth redistribution. That power is what allows politicians to buy our votes and corrupt everyone.

          1. If everyone is corrupt who determines that? Seems to me that’s an equal distribution of a common morality, or lack thereof.

          2. @Doug

            Truth is what it is. If someone steals something valuable from you, are you going let them get away with it because their truth says it belongs to them?

          3. Two things.. 1. It may be valuable to you but is it your right to have it and by what authority? and 2. By what claim and what authority does the person wanting it assert their desire to have it? Some level of truth exists for both, from their own perspective.

          4. @Doug

            If I were a greedier soul, I would have to find out where you live. 😉

            Truth exists apart from us. God creates it. We use logic, our senses, scientific methods, and such to learn what we can.

            Because they are not amenable to mathematical analysis, we find it difficult to agree upon moral truths, this or that is right or wrong. However, that doesn’t mean we can have our own moral truth. It just means we often have difficulty resolving our disagreement.

            In a free society, as much as possible we permit each other to live by the dictates of our own conscience. This is where I have a beef with Democrats. The claim all truths are equal, and they proudly proclaim tolerance, but they then immediately proceed to force their own moral truths on everyone else. Very illogical.

          5. Two things.. 1. It may be valuable to you but is it your right to have it and by what authority? and 2. By what claim and what authority does the person wanting it assert their desire to have it?

            And that thar above is why all this matters. Values shape environments.

    1. Oh, c’mon… that article was an editorial by someone that’s no better authority than you or I, on the site that’s of marginal credibility, and this is your “proof” that Dems want completely open borders?

  4. @Doug

    You commented

    “Those folks in the red states who lost their neighborhood factories did NOT lose them to cheap foreign labor and imbalanced trade practices. It was pure market changes”
    In my opinion, your comment indicates you have absolutely no conception of the absurdity of your comment.


    Regards and goodwill blogging.…

    1. In my opinion whatever alternative opinion you have on the same issue is very likely measured in the same way… because we exist in two different worlds of truth. But I’ll entertain it.

      1. Doug, There is no two different worlds on this issue. , nor in any way should the truth be entertained.

        Trump is right about the USA negotiators being fools, regardless of your sad opinion of Trump

        Regards and goodwill blogging.

        1. Trump has been right about everything apparently.
          (Sorry.. that’s your reality, not mine. My reality is that he’s not gotten a damn thing right… and is taking the country down with him… and evidence abounds.)

          1. @ Doug
            Can you provide me one example of what he has done, or tried to do, that differs from his campaign promises he made to voters..

            Regards and goodwill blogging.

          2. Just because he made campaign promises does in no way mean that those promises, 1. Made any sense based actual government figures, and 2. Did anything but sell fear to get him elected.

          3. @Doug

            It made sense to voters who elected him.
            Especially a lot of Red State families who you claim never lost thier lively hood because of bad trade agreements.

            We live in a Republic. Trump won the election. even though it does not please certain people for various reasons other than the premise of a Republic.

            Regards and goodwill blogging.

          4. No.. they voted for Trump NOT because of lousy trade agreements ruined their jobs. They were desperate enough to want to believe what Trump was feeding them as the evil villain affecting their lives, the Dems, when in fact, the real reasons were an evolving globalism, changing markets, automation, the general economy setting records and they were not feeling it. You want to know who really failed them? Their elected officials of their respective districts not raising hell somewhere. Their state governments for not raising hell about it. These people were legitimately part of a changing economy and they felt they were being left out. Government, state, federal, should have come up with certain.. here we go.. “social” programs that include some level of financial relief in the most desperate situations, re-training programs, and kick the butts of local government to make their regions attractive to more businesses to re-locate. It literally takes a village.. an interaction involving a number of levels of effort. These people were ripe to listen to any idiot who told them who to fear and they were entitled to some brass ring. These people are not at fault… it was their elected officials, who for some in-explainable reason failed to understand the neighborhoods they were living in..

            THAT’s the reason. All this other reasoning is pure garbage.

          5. @ Doug
            I believe you just explained why Trump, a business man on his first attempt to run for a government political office won the high office in the Nation.

            In other words, people recognized that they have been voting for empty suit politicians and needed someone to run the country who knew what to do.

            Or in other words he ended their fears instead of adding to their fears of electing the people you just described.

            Regards and goodwill blogging.

            Regards and goodwill blogging.

          6. Good gawd.I can’t go up against such logic. That’s not to suggest mine is any better… but in this case it is.

          7. @ Doug,

            My comments have nothing to do with logic, only facts, and truth based on history.

            The feature on my last post reads as follows.

            Fools talk, Cowards are silent. The wise listen.

            Problem we have in the USA in my opinion, is there is a lot of talk, a lot of silence, and no one listening to facts, truth, based on history.

            Most of the history being a repeat of King Solomon’s verses written 3000 years ago.

            Regards and goodwill blogging.

          8. You’re questioning the availability of truth at a period of time where truth is relative to the person interpreting it’s value? Bad timing. Funny getting my head around the idea that a Trump person would be searching for truth. Heck, even Biblical truth is now an aberration given all the debates I read on Conservative sites regarding interpretation. Your Christianism vs. my Christianism.

Comments are closed.

Blog at

Up ↑

Life Project Blog

Finding Clear and Simple Faith


Government, Economics and Figure Skating

The Culture Alternative

A Biblical Worldview. Jesus is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE


A site for the Glory of God

"From The Heart of A Shepherd" by Pastor Travis D. Smith

Daily Devotional Meditations and a Biblical Perspective on Current Events

Meerkat Musings

There's a Meerkat in all of us

Sillyfrog's Blog

"Once a pond a time..."

TOWER AND FLIGHTS (An AmericaOnCoffee Blog)

In The Beginning Man Tried Ascending To Heaven via The Tower Of Babel. Now He Tries To Elevate His Existence To A Heavenly State of Consciousness Thru The Use Of Hallucinogenic Drugs. And, Since The 20th Century, He Continually Voyages Into Outer Space Using Spacecrafts. Prayer Thru Christ Is The Only Way To Reach Heaven.

Christ in You

... Life and Love in Jesus

Mark 1:1

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; (NIV)

Jill Domschot

Joy in the Southwest


Here are some of the things I have learned from studying the Bible

BUNKERVILLE | God, Guns and Guts Comrades!

God, Guns and Guts Comrades!

Insightful Geopolitics

Impartial Informative Always

Libertas and Latte

Ramblings of a Disgruntled Patriot and Coffee Slave

A Blog About Healing From PTSD

Healing After Narcissistic Abuse & Multiple Traumas

Blue Skies and Green Pastures

All about Jesus, Peace, Love, and Running


From A Garden To A City - The Prophetic Journey

Philosophy is all about being curious, asking basic questions. And it can be fun!

Faithful Steward Ministries and FSM Women's Outreach

Christian Outreach Ministry to those Incarcerated, with Addictions and our Military

Jesus Quotes and God Thoughts

“God’s wisdom is something mysterious that goes deep into the interior of his purposes.” ~Apostle Paul

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture, while adding some gracious ferocity.”


Life through the eyes of "cookie"

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom. We are the masters of our own disasters.

The Recovering Legalist

Living a Life of Grace

Write Side of the Road

writing my way through motherhood

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

John Branyan

the funny thing about the truth

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Mount Vernon, Ohio.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Mount Vernon, Ohio.

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

quotes and notes and opinions

from a Biblical perspective




The view from the Anglosphere

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This site is Pacific War era information

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

%d bloggers like this: