When I started to write this post, it occurred to me that I would not likely be the first to call to make America America again. So I wondered what others might have said.

Perhaps the most recent call came in a speech at the Republican National Convention by Scott Baio.

Did Baio  say anything wonderfully profound? Not really, at least not apparently. Yet consider these words.

But for you first-time voters, it’s important for you to know what it means to be an American. It doesn’t mean getting free stuff.  It means sacrificing. Winning. Losing. Failing. Succeeding. And sometimes doing the things you don’t want to do — including the hard work — in order to get where you want to be. And that’s what it means to be an American. (from here)

Why would Baio say this is what it means to be an American? Well, America has never been what it promised to be and yet…

In his Essays on Political Economy, Frédéric Bastiat speaks of the Unites States (or America) as a good example. Nevertheless, even in his day Bastiat (1801 – 1850) had to admit that Americans perverted the Law and used it to engage in legal plunder. Continue reading “WHAT WOULD IT MEAN TO MAKE AMERICA AMERICA AGAIN?”


soldierIf this article, Pentagon issues sex change manual, allows extended time off for process, were just a joke it would be hysterically funny. As it is, this is an occasion for sadness and shame.

Here is how the article begins.

The U.S. military has a manual for everything, from how to dress to how to wage war.

Now the Pentagon has sent out a detailed written instruction to commanders on how a service member can change his or her sex in a step-by-step process that allows for extended time off.

The directive restricts personnel from living their “preferred gender” lifestyle, or “Real Life Experience,” on a military base among peers until the sex change transition is complete.

The Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy must set up a bureaucracy — dubbed the Service Central Coordination Cell — to guide commanders overseeing sex change transitions.

A service member’s commander plays a big role in shepherding the patient through the sex transition. This starts with approving government-funded medical treatment of genital reconstruction surgery and hormone therapy, and then recovery, and then the final phase of determining the member’s fitness to return to duty after he or she receives a new official “gender marker.” (continued here)

The Federal Government primary job is to defend our country. So what are our military forces suppose to worry about? Paying for soldiers to have sex change operations?

Remember this?

Obama and the Democrats have different priority than the one that they tell us to our faces.  Their first priority is to rule us. So they bankrupt our nation buying our votes, and they neglect our defenses. While they conquer us themselves, they tell our enemies to sit tight and wait.

Perhaps, when they have a lock on power — when we are properly enslaved — the Democrats will worry about defending their property. Meanwhile, they remained focused on the conquest that most interests them, the United States of America.


he Minute Man, a statue by Daniel Chester French erected in 1875 in Concord, Massachusetts. (from here)
The Minute Man, a statue by Daniel Chester French erected in 1875 in Concord, Massachusetts. (from here)

To understand this post, dear reader, I am going to make an odd request. I would like you to read two posts on another person’s blog. So please be patient with me.

What is the subject? It is an important one. We have this strange idea being promoted by many of our leaders: people don’t kill; guns kill. Therefore, if we get rid of the guns, guns won’t kill people.  In a nation of people descended from pioneers, where did that nonsense come from? As odd as it may seem, I think the notion originated as a distortion of Biblical teaching. However, to put that notion into perspective, I think reading a couple of posts at
level_head‘s (AKA Keith DeHavelle) blog would help.

First check out Confiscation, a post about gun control. Make certain you digest these comments.

56 million people died as a result of gun control in the 20th century.

That’s the lowest estimate I’ve seen. Stalin was reputedly responsible for 55m, and Mao for another 80m or so. Not counting Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

Really? I always thought it was that number. :S

I’ve seen 160m to 180m.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

Oh wow. Regardless, gun control is a huge factor behind a number of genocides in the 20th century.

Then consider Conspiracy. That is a post about the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that truly is engaged in a massive conspiracy. In his post,provides a short history of our government’s attempts to tiptoe around the connection between Islam and terrorism.

Why do we refuse to make the connection between Islam and terrorism? In response to the following comment, I provided an explanation (following the comment).

I also noticed that every time there’s an Islamic terrorist attack, Muslims make themselves the “victims”. It turns from “this was a terrorist act” to “this has nothing to do with Islam, they’re just Islamophobes”.

I seriously believe that there’s a victim mentality among part of the Islamic community. Unfortunately too many of them are silent about what their fellow Muslims do. Where was their outrage from the Cologne NYE attacks or Orlando or San Bernardino? They complain about bigotry, yet they’re the intolerant ones. Merely carrying a Bible in many Muslim countries is unthinkable yet in many Western countries, they demand that everyone caters to them! One Canadian town refused to get rid of pork a few years back actually. One Minnesotan county’s Somali population demanded that their food stamp program adhere to Islamic standards.

Not only that, but the Obama administration has helped made it “racist” to report anyone that’s suspicious who also happens to be Muslim. Not only that, but despite the government knowing about the Orlando and San Bernardino shooters being radicalized, they did little to nothing about it.

Citizen Tom

2016-06-22 01:13 am (UTC)

 Based upon what I have read in the Koran, what the Islamic terrorists are doing conforms to Islam. That is most certainly what they believe.

I think our problem is that we suffer a different sort of extremism. Consider what happened during the Protestant Reformation. Christianity began splintering. The idea of warfare for the sake of Christianity faded when people began reading the Bible in their own language. Jesus never supported any such thing. Even the Old Testament does not approve of warfare to spread the faith. In fact, the Bible frowns on warfare throughout. The Bible explains the conquest of the Promised Land was a special case. Look what happened to the Jews when they started behaving like the Canaanites.

Nevertheless, among Christians we have pacifists and socialists who try to justify their beliefs based upon the Bible. Catholics even insist priests and nuns must not marry. Wherever people find the least ambiguity the Bible, someone will take that ambiguity and run with it.

What has been the most destructive misinterpretation of the Bible? Here is my candidate. Jesus kept church and state separate. In fact, the Bible frowns upon rendering very much authority to Caesar (see Matthew 22:21 and 1 Samuel 8). The secularists in our society, however, have taken this separation of church and state to an absurd extreme. To prevent being annoyed by the subject of religion (or having their plans for big government thwarted), they seek to confine the practice of religion to private closets.

Hence, when confronted by Muslim extremism, secularists don’t know what to do. War against religion? To a devout secularist, religion is not suppose to be important. We are all supposed to be the same and just get along. So-called Multiculturalism is the religion of the secularist. Thus, secularists classify terrorists as mad men and seek to ban guns. Guns kill, not people devotedly practicing their religion. Therefore, Obama is incapable of dealing with the problem, and he is even willing to invite all the Muslims who want to come into the United States.

Therefore, I ask. Is my theory correct?


Pilgrims John Carver, William Bradford, and Miles Standish, at prayer during their voyage to America. Painting by Robert Walter Weir.
Here is an example of what people once thought of when they spoke of fellow travelers. Pilgrims John Carver, William Bradford, and Miles Standish, at prayer during their voyage to America. Painting by Robert Walter Weir.

Recently, I got this comment from a fellow who calls himself “The Night Wind.”

The Night Wind

That’s just the tip of the iceberg:


Sputnik? Aside from the fact the news content was atrociously anti-American, I was suspicious of the name. What does sputnik mean?

sputnik (n.) Look up sputnik at Dictionary.com
“artificial satellite,” extended from the name of the one launched by the Soviet Union Oct. 4, 1957, from Russian sputnik “satellite,” literally “traveling companion” (in this use short for sputnik zemlyi, “traveling companion of the Earth”) from Old Church Slavonic supotiniku, from Russian so-, s- “with, together” + put’ “path, way,” from Old Church Slavonic poti, from PIE *pent- “to tread, go” (see find (v.)) + agent suffix -nik. (continued here)

As this article indicates, Russia launches ‘Sputnik’ media offensive to counter US propaganda, sputniknews.com exists to promote Russian propaganda. It is similar in nature to rt.com.

The name “sputnik news” is ironic. The word “sputnik” first gained familiarity in the West when the USSR launched a series of satellites named Sputnik. Since  artificial satellites generally orbit the earth, most satellites are in fact a “traveling companion of the Earth”.  oxforddictionaries.com, however, describes a slightly different origin for term “sputnik” which adds a bit of perspective.

Russian, literally ‘fellow-traveler’. (from here)

What is “fellow-traveler”?

fellow traveler noun
1. a person who supports or sympathizes with a political party, especially the Communist Party, but is not an enrolled member.
2. anyone who, although not a member, supports or sympathizes with some organization, movement, or the like.

Read The Night Wind’s comments defending (here and here) sputniknews.com. The Night Wind is something of a fan of Vladimir Putin. Thus, the Night Wind’s comments suggest that that old KGB agent’s propaganda is having some success.

Are The Night Wind’s complaints about the Western news media legitimate? Sadly, the answer is yes, but reading Russian propaganda hardly constitutes a solution.

What makes us so vulnerable to such propaganda in this country? We need to think about that, and we need to formulate a solution. So let’s consider the nature of the problem.  What factors make it more difficult than it once was to discern the truth in the news?

  • The mechanics of our government have changed drastically. When it originated, the Federal Government had little power. Except for a few items, those actually enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, most government operations — what little there were — in the United States were state and local. Then we could see for ourselves what was going on and speak to our leaders face-to-face. Yet the Federal Government now spends nearly twice what our state and local governments spend.
  • Why has local government diminished? To make local government work, we must be engaged in our local communities, but power-grabbing politicians have nearly torn our local communities apart. Unlike previous generations of Americans, we are not skilled in the art of community organizing. We would not even use such a phrase the same way. Our forbears would have thought of organizing to perform a charitable work. We think of community organizing getting the government to spend other people’s money.

Our forebears spent most of their day engaged within their local communities. They worked, educated their children, went to church, and played (even the adults) with their immediate neighbors.  Today not many of us do that. We spend our days tens of miles from home at our jobs, and we waste hours traveling on government-run roads that don’t work. Then we compound the damage. We educate our children in poorly managed government-run schools that discourage parental involvement. We may not go to church, and most of us spend hours a day escaping our “problems”. We “play” on a TV or Internet, or we just commiserate with each other by boozing it up with friends.

What do I think we should do? Well, turning sputniknews.com or rt.com for information is not going to help us. We know these people are trying to deceive us. Instead, we need to decrease the power and importance of government. We need to diminish the vast wealth our government controls. We need to make lying to us less attractive and less profitable; we need to bring government closer to home where we can keep an eye on it.

  • We need to stop giving politicians OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY to pay for public infrastructure. The worst kind of politicians sell access to OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. When we pay for our roads, for example, with OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY, in return for campaign donations and various “favors”, politicians put the roads where developers want them. Then, in return for more for campaign donations and “favors”, politicians strangle what they had the gall to call a parkway with stoplights.  If we want decent transportation system, then we have to pay with our own money. We have to pay tolls. Then, developers will have to pay for their own roads.
  • We need to stop giving politicians power to redistribute the wealth.  Politicians use the power redistribute the wealth to buy our votes.  That has nothing to do with true charity; such charity is just stealing. Yet we have based our education system, our retirement systems, and our health care system upon such notions of charity. Because true charity is based upon love, government cannot effectively provide charity. Whenever government tries to provide charity, larceny will result. Human nature is such that any government system that spends OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY for the sake of OTHER PEOPLE must become corrupt, too costly, and eventually useless.
  • We need to put the kibosh on the identity politics. What just happened in Florida illustrates the gravity of the problem. Because of the fact they tend to vote Democrat, some of our glorious leaders want to import all the poor, dark skin people they can into this country. That includes Muslims. Yet as events keep demonstrating, our leaders have no way whatsoever of screening out Islamic terrorists from a peaceful Muslims. So why then is the LBGTQ crowd voting for Democrats? Consider their choice, our choice. Is it more important to force our views on others or to be left in peace to pursue our own definition of happiness?

Why do we have to drive so far and spend so much time traveling to work? Everybody wants to live in the country in a big house with a big yard.  So politicians have subsidized what we wanted with OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY (so-called parkways), and they have protected big yards with zoning laws.

Why do we have expensive schools that don’t work? Everybody wants a fabulous education for their children. So politicians have subsidized what we wanted with OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. They have built costly schools and staffed those schools with expensive teachers and administrators, members of public employee’s unions who kindly contributed to and worked for their reelection. Therefore, since those schools must be run by the government and secularized, we have created socialist institutions promoting the glories of Big Government.

Why don’t local communities provide charity, and why is our country going broke? Everybody wants a fail-safe financial safety net.  So politicians have subsidized what we wanted with OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. Thus, we have food stamps, Social Security, Obamacare, and dozens of other programs that cost too much.

Why do politicians keep insisting that it is a small world and diversity means everyone must be politically correct? Everybody wants the assurance that everyone else likes them just as they are. We want everyone to think like us, and we don’t want anyone better or worse off than we are. That is, because every little community would be different, we cannot get by with local government. Otherwise, we actually would have diversity. So we have to nationalize every problem and make everyone think about everything and do everything the same way.

Therefore, as the result of too much government, we don’t have time to spend in our local neighborhoods, we don’t have much reason to talk to our neighbors, and we have trouble believing anything the news media wants to tell us.

You don’t believe me? Then please explain why we have to choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton for president.