An informed choice 44

Obama’s courting of Castro, Putin, the Ayatollah Khamenei, and the King of Saudi Arabia; his appointment of  policy advisers who are members of the Muslim Brotherhood; his rude eviction of the bust of Churchill from the Oval Office, his bullying of the President of Israel, and his cold-shouldering of Canada over the Keystone oil pipeline are signs that he is – what? Could they be read as indications that he is biased towards Communism and Islam, and is not at all keen on the values and polities of the West?

They could not only be easily read as that; it would be difficult to interpret them any other way.

Yet half the voting population cannot see it. Or if they can see it, they must like it, since they twice voted him into power.

But what are we saying? Half the adult, literate, sane people of the United States of America prefer Communism and/or Islam to their own free republic? Surely that cannot be true?

So what else could account for what happened? Well, perhaps most of them simply paid no attention to Barack Obama’s ideologies – although they could easily have discovered them before his first election to the presidency – and voted him into power for the purely racist reason that he’s black and they wanted (paradoxically) to show they were against discrimination on the grounds of race? And didn’t that prove they were nice people?

Now they’ve seen what a terrible mistake it was not to take his ideas and affiliations into account, they won’t do anything like that again – will they? They won’t again choose a president for such an extremely poor “reason”? A candidate’s race, color, ethnicity, or gender will not be seen as a qualification in itself for supreme power?

And next time they’ll be sure to take a candidate’s ideology into account – right?

We quote from an article at Front Page titled The Arabian Candidate, by William Kilpatrick:

In The Manchurian Candidate, the son of a prominent right-wing politician is captured by the Soviets and brainwashed in a secret Manchurian location. His task is to assassinate a presidential candidate, thus ensuring the election of the demagogic vice-president. …

The film has several parallels to current events. The main difference is that in those days, Americans had to be brainwashed into serving enemy interests by psy-ops teams. Nowadays, they come self-brainwashed with some indoctrinative assist from the American educational system.

In the film, a scary lady with leftist sympathies who looks vaguely like Hillary Clinton manipulates her husband into high political office. In real life, a scary lady with leftist leanings [who is Hillary Clinton] … manipulates herself into high political office.

In her case, teams of brainwashers are not required, since she has brainwashed herself into believing that foreign governments are dumping truckloads of cash into her family foundation because she’s such a charming and intelligent woman. And also because Arab sovereigns like nothing better than to do their part to improve the lives of the poor, the hungry, the environmentally underserved, and kids who need braces — in short, the very causes for which the foundation was founded.

Another similarity is that in the film, the [scary lady] character has some sort of hypnotic power over her son, the unwitting assassin. Whenever it begins to dawn on him that something funny is going on, she flashes a Queen of Diamonds playing card and he falls into a catatonic state of complete obedience. In the present situation [Hillary Clinton] has merely to flash the gender card and, presto, skeptical voters fall back into line.

There are parallels to other movies as well. Today’s Queen of Diamonds has a secret server in her home so that her exchanges with foreign dono- I mean “diplomats” can’t be traced. I’m not sure if the server takes up only one room of the palatial house, or a whole suite of rooms. And who knows what’s in the cavern-like basement? It’s all faintly reminiscent of those James Bond thrillers in which the villain’s remote island estate sits atop a vast underground military-industrial complex.

At some point the analogy breaks down. You could still convince a sixties audience that leftists were willing to sell out the country. We, on the other hand, have convinced ourselves that we live in a brave new world where such things never happen — at least, not in modern Western societies. No one would dare to pull a fast one on us because we’re just too smart. … So if it were discovered that Arabs controlled the White House, we would shrug our shoulders and say, “At this point, what does it matter?”

The Clinton-Arab connection actually goes back to the time when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas and worked to secure a hefty Saudi contribution to a Middle-Eastern studies program at the University of Arkansas. But let’s skip all that and fast forward to relatively recent times when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed her longtime aide Huma Abedin as Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department. When it was discovered that Abedin’s family was deeply involved in the Muslim Brotherhood in Saudi Arabia, very few eyebrows were raised. After all, even President Obama had relatives in the Muslim Brotherhood. So it would have been silly to make something of it.

It’s probably just a coincidence that while working for the Clintons, Huma herself was the assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs which — you guessed it — is a Muslim Brotherhood journal. Before that, and while still interning at the White House, she was an executive board member of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) at George Washington University. The MSA was the first Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States and George Washington was the first Muslim president. Well, the latter hasn’t yet been firmly established, but it’s just a matter of time until those Saudi-funded Mid-East studies professors at the University of Arkansas and the Saudi-funded professors at Georgetown (Bill’s alma mater) discover the prayer rug in the attic at Mount Vernon. It’s also probably a coincidence that, like her boss, Huma conducted State Department business using her own personal e-mail address, connected, one supposes, to the same master server that served her master so well … er, mistress.

Abedin also worked until recently for the Clinton Foundation. Again, this is no doubt a pure coincidence and, as the old saying goes, it has nothing to do with Islam. … Today’s government officials seem curiously lacking in curiosity. In 2012, Michelle Bachmann and four other House members wrote letters to the Inspector Generals of several government agencies asking them to conduct an investigation into Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the government. They were particularly concerned about Huma Abedin in view of her family connections and influential position. They noted thatthe Clinton State Department had “taken actions recently that have been enormously favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood and its interests”.

The request was dismissed by numerous congressmen and senators as “offensive”, “insensitive,” and even “hurtful”. By that time the machinery of the “Islamophobia” industry was already in high gear and it was deemed prudent even by Republicans to defend Abedin and to damn her accusers …

Still, the case for an inquiry seemed strong. … Even if Abedin was innocent of any wrongdoing, the State Department’s own guidelines about foreign family connections would disqualify her for a security clearance for such a sensitive position.

But then, again, a lot of people in sensitive positions don’t seem to qualify for a security clearance. For example, if all your closest relatives were leftists or communists, if your chief mentors were, respectively, a member of the Communist Party and a radical left-wing preacher, and if you used to hang out with known terrorists, you probably couldn’t get a job as a night watchman at an auto parts warehouse. On the other hand, if someone with the same background throws his hat into the presidential ring, he can become Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, and get to set foreign policy.

He also gets to appoint Secretaries of State. It shouldn’t be any surprise if they turn out to be the kind of people who can’t be bothered with security checks. Such people seem to live in an ethereal realm that puts them above suspicion and above conflicts of interest. Normally, when a Secretary of State receives tens of millions in donations from countries that support the spread of a radical ideology, it would be a sign that something is terribly wrong. For an analogy, ask yourself if you would keep someone on at your firm if she had access to sensitive trade secrets and yet received huge gifts from rival corporations while conducting company business on her private server.

You would probably get rid of her pronto. But that’s only if you apply the normal rules of logic — which apparently don’t apply to Secretaries of State appointed by President Obama.

Now comes a surprise – or at least, a surprise to us. We did not know that  John Kerry has family connections in Iran. How much does it explain?

If you applied such logic, you might also think there was something awkward about the fact that current Secretary of State John Kerry’s daughter is married to an Iranian who has extensive family ties in Iran. …

The FBI usually won’t grant security clearance to “individuals who are married to nationals of an enemy nation or have family members living in that country, for fear of divided loyalties or, more simply, blackmail”.

Of course, you would have to be some kind of conspiracy nut to think that having vulnerable in-laws in Iran would in any way compromise Secretary Kerry’s negotiations with the representatives of a country whose leaders routinely indulge in “death to America” rhetoric.

Undoubtedly, the President consulted with his senior adviser Valerie Jarrett about the matter. Since Jarrett was born in Iran and spoke Persian as a child, she would, by current standards of expertise, be assumed to have deep insight into the Persian mind. She could have assured the president that “Great Satan” and “Death to America” are typical of the rhetorical exuberance that characterizes the rich and vibrant Iranian culture. Moreover, she could have allayed any concerns about blackmail. Anyone who has studied Cliff Notes on Islam knows that blackmail runs counter to the deeply held beliefs of the mullahs.

Jarretts’ family left Iran when she was five, but apparently those five years were enough to qualify her as an expert on Iranian affairs. According to Discover the Networks, it was revealed in 2012 that for several months, Jarrett “had been leading secret negotiations with representatives of Iran’s Supreme leader … in an effort to normalize relations between the U.S. and Iran”.

The mind spins at the – what’s the word? — the audacity of it all. But the curious thing is not that there are people in high places willing to put self-interest ahead of the national interest. Such people are always with us. The curious thing is that the American people and the American press accept it with such equanimity.

During the Obama-Clinton-Kerry-Jarrett-Abedin years, Russia seized the Crimea, ISIS seized large parts of Iraq and Syria, the Taliban re-established itself in Afghanistan, allies stopped trusting us, enemies were emboldened, the Middle East was set on fire, and the Army was drastically reduced. Oh, and the way was cleared for Iran to have nuclear bombs. Future generations — if there are any — will wonder what we were thinking.

What we were thinking, they may discover, goes something like this (in shorthand brain language): “Mustn’t think that! Mustn’t say that! Not nice! What will people think!” You’d have to go back to the Victorian era to find another society with so much concern for propriety of thought and speech. … A sort of suicidal etiquette that chokes off common sense has grown up in our society. Under the rules of the new etiquette, we aren’t allowed to say that the Emperor has no clothes. We dare not even point out that the Emperor and his ministers appear to be throwing open the gates to the enemy.

Let’s see: The people of the United States elect as president a man they know very little about. When it becomes obvious that he has deep leftist sympathies combined with deep Islamist sympathies, they elect him again. He, in turn, appoints one Secretary of State who is beholden to Arab largesse, and then, after she steps down, he replaces her with a man who … has close family ties with Iran.

This time at last, in the coming election year, the Republican candidates whose broadcast debates will have the attention of millions of voters must take advantage of their opportunity to break through the protective wall the mainstream media have put round the Obama administration and the Democratic candidates. They must make all this – the ideology, the motivation, and the practices of Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and the rest of the gang – so well known to the electorate that no one who can read, watch TV, listen to radio, attend a political rally, or receive news through any medium, will be able to avoid knowing it. Or avoid knowing how perilous it is to their freedom, their safety, and even their survival.

Then if most voters choose Hillary Clinton for president …

  • Don L


    Let’s try this. I will present my thoughts on MINIMUM WAGE. You take your shots at my ideas…BUT…you then have to present your ideas about the issue too. Deal?

    Here’s my ideology…principles and laws of economics:

    First, a wage (salaried to hourly & managerial to labor) is a price. It is a price like any price like for a refrigerator, a car, meat or produce. And, prices, in my ideology of a free market capitalistic system, are set by consumers. In my ideology, consumers allocate wealth. They decide what satisfies their needs and wants, from all alternatives, based on quality and values, subjectively as they perceive value…

    consumers then hand their dollars over to the vendor which best satisfies their self interest. It is a two-party system where both seller and buyer freely and willingly agree on the exchange…a win/win situation.

    In my ideology, a seller must satisfy consumers in order to attain wealth. In fact, wealth can only be acquired through the productive means of satisfying the consumer…

    production also includes employment (managerial to labor) where the better the skill and productivity deliverd by the employee, the higher the wage commanded. Dollars acquired through government favoritism, subsidy, et ceteras is not wealth but plunder whereas it is not earned: corporate welfare, crony capitalism (nothing to do with capitalism), government investment, public-private program…by any name is plunder.

    The history of wage and price manipulation by government intervention is clear…it fails and creates tragic consequences. Yet, strictly for feel good political motives and dangerous ignorance, government wage and price intervention persists. IRREFUTABLY, UNQUESTIONABLY, FACTUAL and PROVEN…when you raise the price of a commodity or service, less of that commodity or service is consumed!!! The converse is also true…lower the price and consumers consume more of whatever it is. And, again, a wage is a price.

    Why were the shelves bare in socialist countries? Because government held the prices down below cost to produce and below profit motivation…in order to have more goods available. Where it holds prices up, other products are not produced because the motivation is to produce the items offering higher reward. It is the same across the world and across all economies. Government intervention in a two-party system of free exchange negatively distorts the production of goods and services. PERIOD!

    There are certainly people who claim to not want anything more than they have, But, for the overwhelming majority of people…wants and needs are insatiable. The amount of work that is available to meet this insatiable demand is immeasurable…and yet, there is unemployment. And, in a society, not all, there is a significant percentage of people who will risk their wealth, an entrepreneur, to start an enterprise to provide consumers with a good or service that the entrepreneur perceives is a valid and viable opportunity for profit. The business plan may be as a sole proprietorship, were the entrepreneuer is the only employee, or it may grow into a multinational organization.

    The following principle is true in any and all cases of exchange, whether for commodity, service or employment: when seller (employee) agrees to sell (hire on) at an agree price and a buyer (employer) agrees to buy at an agreed price then a sale is made / an employment contract is entered. This is the way of the free market…the moral and ethical means to cionsumer satisfaction and wealth creation.

    An entreprenuer must acquire the resources to make the good or provide the service; hire the labor/mangers to provide the offering; purchase, establish, lease and maintain the facilities and equipment necessary to facilitae the enterprise and do all this within the constraints of what the consumer is willing pay and still make a profit. If he cannot do this…the business fails. Incidentally, data indicates that only 1 out of 500 new businesses succeed.

    An entrepreneuer must pay for all the resources, employee expenses, facilities and equipment…everything well in advance of the any sales revenue ever coming through the door. The cost of the use of this capital must also be incorporated into entrepreneurs price/cost calculations. Or, every employee is paid in advance of sales and the offered wage reflects the job to be performed, the employee skills & attitude, and the constriants placed on cost, expense, profit mix by the consumer. It is an absolute fact…no private business…General Foods, Campbell’s Soup…ever came to your door with a gun and forced you to buy anything!!!

    When the government imposes a minimum wage, it in effect raises the cost/expense of every business. And, it interjects itself into the perfecrtly functioning two-party free market exchange system. It negatively distorts it. The cost to employ someone has gone up. The idea of hiring and training is precluded. The employer must now contract with someone who has the ability worth the new expense. Or, government has just, essentially and effectively, made it illegal to higher tjhose with little or no skills or education…unemployment has just been made law. And, if the employer must raise his prices to meet the new minimum wage law…revenue drops and, historic fact, employees are let go (This happens everytime a union demands wages higher than marlket determined wages too). One only need look at the unemployment data for the uneducated and unskilled and the rate of unemployed for the skilled…THER IS NO LIMIT ON THE AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE WORK TO BE DONE!!!!!!!!!!!

    Add to this the impacts of the FED inflation of the currency and the effect on prices and the effect of lowering wages accordingly….all of a sudden, mothers have to leave the home and enter the marketplace because one wage no longer covers the families needs…less things bought…more companies fail…more unemployment…more government intervention and on and on and on. Once government intervenes…it intervenes again to correct the last stupidity and the cycle never ends until total collapse…socialism…all for the puiblic interest.

    Always, the cry for a minimum wage is for the dignity of the employee. ZERO wage is the greatest indignity.

    Now, Non-idelogue….it’s your turn!

  • Don L

    The Kerry-Iran connection is a surprise. None of this ever gets mentioned.

    Great article…just wonderfully depressing! LOL

  • Don L

    Just received this eMail…author is anonymous. Interesting analogy:

    The pilot was locked out of the cockpit.

    That phrase finally revealed the full horror of the crash of Germanwings flight 9525. Co-pilot Andreas Lubitz waited for the pilot to leave the cockpit, then locked the door to prevent his re-entry. After which Lubitz, for reasons unknown and perhaps unknowable, deliberately steered the jet into a harrowing 8-minute plunge ending in an explosive 434 mph impact with a rocky mountainside. 150 men, women and children met an immediate, unthinkably violent death.

    Lubitz, in his single-minded madness, couldn’t be stopped because anyone who could change the jet’s disastrous course was locked out.

    It’s hard to imagine the growing feelings of fear and helplessness that

    the passengers felt as the unforgiving landscape rushed up to meet them.

    Hard … but not impossible.

    Because America is in trouble. We feel the descent in the pits of our

    stomachs. We hear the shake and rattle of structures stressed beyond

    their limits. We don’t know where we’re going anymore, but do know it isn’t good. And above all, we feel helpless because Barack Obama has locked us out.

    He locked the American people out of his decision to seize the national

    healthcare system. Locked us out when we wanted to know why the IRS was attacking conservatives. He locked us out of having a say in his decision to tear up our immigration laws, and to give over a trillion dollars in benefits to those who broke those laws.

    Obama locked out those who advised against premature troop withdrawals. Locked out the intelligence agencies who issued warnings about the growing threat of ISIS. He locked out anyone who could have interfered with his release of five Taliban terror chiefs in return for one U.S. military deserter.

    And, of course, Barack Obama has now locked out Congress, the American people, and our allies as he strikes a secret deal with Iran to determine the timeline (not prevention) of their acquisition of nuclear weapons.

    Was Andreas Lubitz depressed, insane, or abysmally evil when he decided to lock that cockpit door and listen to no voices other than those in his head? Did he somehow believe himself to be doing the right thing?

    The voice recordings from the doomed aircraft reveal that as the jet began its rapid descent, the passengers were quiet. There was probably some nervous laughter, confusion, a bit of comforting chatter with seat mates, followed by a brief period in which anxiety had not yet metastasized into terror.

    It was only near the end of the 8-minute plunge that everyone finally understood what was really happening. Only near the end when they began to scream.

    Like those passengers, a growing number of Americans feel a helpless dread as they come to the inescapable conclusion that our nation’s decline is an act of choice rather than of chance. The choice of one man who is in full control of our 8-year plunge.

    A man who has locked everyone out.

    If you aren’t screaming yet, you should be.

    • liz

      I saw this also – it’s a perfect analogy. I think our “pilot” in the White House is, in his own way, as insanely suicidal/homicidal as the pilot of that airplane.

  • liz

    Excellent article! Says plainly what has been taboo to say for too long.
    The brainwashing is real – the American people have been conditioned to pay attention only when the state controlled media TELLS them to – when they flash the queen of diamonds card. If it’s not important to our hypnotists the media, then it’s not worth worrying about…

    • How is it possible that the media is state controlled? If anything, it is controlled by economic pressures or capitalism, which the state is enslaved to via “campaign contributions” and other ‘legal’ forms of payment in the fee-for-service two-party system that governs us. There is no way that sources such as Fox News, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal and other hard core conservative sources are state controlled. The same applies to hard core liberal sources. Just listen to their rhetoric.

      What the American people are conditioned to is the two-party system, its endlessly fighting ideologies and the relentless spin (protected free speech) they spew on the public in service to their self- or special-interests. I bet that many or most Americans can neither conceive nor accept the idea that someone could be unconcerned with the ideology of policy choices compared to choices that best serve the public interest without regard to political or religious ideology. In view of the intellectual stranglehold the two-party system built and maintains, that species of patriot, the non-ideological pragmatist, is non-existent. Well, non-existent except maybe for me and a few dozen or hundred others, non of whom I am aware of.

      • Don L

        Wow, were to start? Let’s start with your name, Non-ideologue, and your ending thoughts on non-ideology. I would suggest that you do infact have an ideology. It apparently includes “…choices that best serve the public interest…”. And, your use of the term public interest implies and infers your ideology is what would be deemed leftist…socialistic. You blame free market capitalism for what’s wrong with media and fulminate about the two-party system as not having policies that serve the “public interest” (substitute common good – social justice – income inequality – et ceteras) also supports a leftist ideology. So, Non-ideologue, it appears, you would have government even do more than it is doing because you don’t see the “world as you perceive it” being attained. You don’t think media is controlled enough becuase it is still being pressured by capitalism. Now, given all that, I would go as far as to say you are a communist socialist. You would agree with government, made up of those who are non-ideologues (huh?), controlling the economy for the public’s interest. Tsk, Tsk…shame on you!


        You posted:

        “How is it possible that the media is state controlled? If anything, it is controlled by economic pressures or capitalism, which the state is enslaved to via “campaign contributions” and other ‘legal’ forms of payment in the fee-for-service two-party system that governs us. ”

        Unfortunately, this commentary reveals that you have a severe lack of knowledge of economics and how America actually works. Do you know what fractional reserve central banking is? You really shouldn’t venture any opinions about economic matters if you don’t. The entire…ENTIRE…
        American, indeed the world’s, economy is totally controlled and manipulated according to this otherwise fraudulent monetary scheme. It is best described as Centrally-Planned “Debtism”. And, when it was made legal and enacted into law in 1913…Free-Market Capitalism was effectively outlawed and all economic matters are currently planned by a cabal of cartelized bankers and duplictous career-politicians. The only thing you got right is that the two-party system is corrupt. But, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Capitalism.

        Centrally-Planned Debtism is socialism. There are two sides of the socialist coin: side one is communism (gov’t owns and controls all aspects of society and the economy) and the second side is fascism (individuals/corporations can own [name only] the enterprise but iindividual enterprises, and thus the economy and society, are controlled by gov’t through, regulation, license, tariffs, taxes, fees, inspections, certifications, statute, rules, etceteras). All you, and all Americans are taught in compulsory schooling is gov’t controll is necessary to manage the economy. You are not taught free market capitalism…so you can be told it is at fault for economic failures when it isn’t and it isn’t. That is the over 100 years of conditioning we suffer from. ALL ECONOMIC FAILURE IS THE RESULT OF GOV”T INTERVENTION IN THE ECONOMY…PERIOD!

        Media is controlled by license, frequency/transmission power/bandwith allocation, access to interviews and other favoritism techniques. FOX is fortunate that it has such a large audience whereas it can do without gov’t largesse. The other outlets have their hands out and tow the party line. FOX – perhaps fair and balanced but also intolerably religious and economically fascistic (ignorant). Yet, more forth coming than CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and other leftist staffed and central planner favorites.

        But, enough. I expect some nonsensical blow back from you. Eh. Yet, I provide gifts for you. If you really want to learn how America and the world works, here are some FREE pamphlets and booklets which will get you statred…Good luck:

        “Why Austrian Economics Matters” by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr

        “What is Austrian Economics?” –

        “Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow” by Ludwig von Mises —

        “Liberty and Property” by Ludwig von Mises —

        “How an Economy Grows and Why It Doesn’t” by Irwin A. Schiff — (his son’s updated version is available at Amazon) “How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes” by Peter D. Schiff —

        “Essentials of Economics: A Brief Survey of Principles and Policies” by Faustino Ballvé —

        “Economics In One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt —

        “Not a Zero Sum Game: The Paradox of Exchange” by Manuel F. Ayau —

        Economic Depressions: Their Cause and Cure” by Murray N.Rothbard —

        “The Origins of the Federal Reserve” by Murray N. Rothbard —

        “The Case Against the Fed” by Murray N. Rothbard –

        • liz

          Well said!

          • Don L

            I laughed my tuckuss off when I read the media responding to capitalistic pressure line. Then it dawned on me just how out of touch he was. The no ideology just serve public interest is really scary…ooWEEooo. LOL. I wonder if he’ll respond?

            • I usually respond as long as things don’t degenerate to name-calling and character assassination. That kind of “debate” is pointless. I am actively looking for individuals who can punch holes in my facts and/or logic. If there are errors in my assessments of reality (facts) or logic, I want to know about it and fix what’s wrong.

            • Don L

              I have read all your posts. Poppycock!

              Not important, but do you know who termed the word and concept “ideology’? He was Thomas Jefferson’s mentor, a student of Adam Smith and a predecessor of Austrian Economic thought. Count Antoine Destutt de Tracy.

              Non-ideologue, you are a seriously delusional fella. You ought seek some professional counseling. The ideology that is no ideology is disturbing. You are incapable of making decisions and contrive a world that only exists in your mind…a mind filled with anger and confusion. You distort, misconstrue, misrepresent and in all manner fail to see. Hint: Republicans are not conservatives…they are on the left too.

              Anyway, you are a pest. Most prople probably see you that way. Anyway, you have shown yourself to be addicted to non-thinking denialism. This is my last respnse to you.

            • Just as I thought. Another garden-variety ideologue shooting garden-variety blanks based on garden-variety ideological self-delusion. You raised points and said I would have no response. I responded so you wussed out because you have nothing in reserve other than your completely unjustified, hate- and intolerance-filled rejection of anyone who disagrees with you. I responded to you in good faith. I regret wasting my time trying to explain myself and my reasoning. But, you are not the first to pull this wuss nonsense.

              Fortunately for the public interest, the tide of societal change is on my side, not yours:

              Dude, we are done forever. Bye bye Don.

              I am more happy to let all atheist conservatives decide for themselves between your hate and illogic and my tolerance and logic.

            • Don L

     last reply.

              You’re Jim Carey right? Re-enacting your role as the cable guy? LOL. And, I thought you were my friend.

              “…you are not the first to pull this wuss nonsense.”

              I won’t be the last…you aren’t discussing…you are singularly and solely denying without providing anything other than non-ideology is the way to serve the public interest. Where are your concrete, specific, ideas. You have none.

              Now I’m done.

            • What??? You never at any time thought I was your friend. You hated me from the first second it dawned on you or you understood what I was arguing. Stop smearing pain-killing salve on your wounded ego. Face reality for what it is.

              I am a non-ideologue. You are not.

              If nothing else, now you know there is another point of view in politics. Welcome to the new world.

            • Don L

              My apoloies. You must be a female. A fella would have understood the Cable Guy movie reference and the friend comment.

              Captain Queeg: “Ahh, but the strawberries that’s… that’s where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with… geometric logic… that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I’d have produced that key if they hadn’t of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers…”

              Being a non-ideologue does not take guts…like Lieutenant Commander Philip Francis Queeg…do you have a pair of steel ball bearings?…it’s sociopathy.

            • I could not care less about your references. Where’s the beef? Show me your facts and logic.

              After reviewing it, your references to anything else is of zero interest to me. I responded specifically to 3 of 12 of your sources and you respond to zero of mine. You accused me of having no responses. I give just as much credibility and respect to your sources and logic as you give to me and my sources – zero. If you have the guts to respond, that’s a different matter. Do you have the guts to respond?

              No, I didn’t think so. Gutless, blustering ideologues are a dime a thousand. Again, I am happy to let everyone see your comments and mine and then decide whatever they want. Perfectly happy.

              And, you are sexist. What a total wuss you are.

            • Non-idealogue: Of course you don’t have to do this, but if you are willing – would you tell us how old you are and what your experience has been?

              If you do reply, please keep it short.

            • Why keep it short? You are confusing. Is this another right wing ambush?

              I am over 50, 4 post high school degrees, two of which are professional, all of which are technical biological/chemical science/law and decades of personal experience in federal law and federal bureaucracy, a few years as as a federal employee (left decades ago to rejoin the private sector), close relationship with a senior federal bank regulator (GS15) for over 40 years, not stupid and no longer fooled by routine political bullshit (lies, spin, whatever) from the left or right.

              Is that short enough, Jillian? Or, do you want it shorter?

              Who are you are what are your qualifications? Use as many electrons as your see fit. If you refuse to respond to this simple, respectful request, then we are done.

            • I am the editor-in-chief of The Atheist Conservative. If you want to know more about me, there is a Wiki entry on me which is accurate enough as far as it goes.

              I had a reason to ask you to tell us about yourself. You had come calling. I like to know something about people who visit our site without being in sympathy with it – if it is not obvious why, as in your case.

              I don’t know why you need to know anything about me beyond what I reveal at this site, but I have no objection to your knowing. Do you ask merely in a spirit of retaliation?

              Now that you tell us that you are of mature years, and are a scientist and a lawyer, I would like also to know why you have come to this site to tell us about your pragmatic approach to political questions. Is it to suggest that we are broadly in the wrong, and impercipient, because we call ourselves conservative?

              It is clearly not to debate any particular issue we have raised. So if you would be so good as further to satisfy our curiosity, please tell us what your aim is in tendering your comments?

            • Good grief! You are editor-in-chief and you actually said what you just said and asked what you just asked? What??

              Why come to this site? Did you really ask that question? Really??? My aim intendering my comments? Did you really ask that?

              With all due respect, I completely misunderstood this as a place where people could discuss politics, regardless of agreement or disagreement, ideology or not. Why not just state up front that the only thing you want to hear about is what religion, conservatism, you want to eulogize?

              OK, fine, now I get it. You only want to hear from like-minded people and are intolerant of dissent or inconvenient fact or logic.

              Fair enough. It is your website. Let me suggest you prominently post this as part of your posting rules:
              1. It is forbidden to promote or give any kind of support for parties other than the Republican Party, or candidates running against Republican primary, caucus, and/or convention nominees. Exceptions to this rule are granted when announced prominently on the front page of the site.
              2. The dissemination of talking points from the Democrat Party, or its politicians and allies, is not allowed.
              3. It is forbidden to attempt to discredit or bring disharmony to the site, the Republican Party, any of its candidates, or the conservative movement by pretending to be something one is not and
              posting maliciously. The practices known as “concern trolling” or “mobying” are included in this ban.

              Freedom of speech or thought? It’s obviously unwanted here. Is that “thought Nazi”? Guess so.

              No problem. I am gone and not coming back. I hope your perfect, serene feng shui has not been perturbed too much. Carry on with what passes for “political discourse” on this fragile, harmful site.

            • Don L

              Non-ideologue, you are a liar. It is impossible that you have a law degree. Your inablity to read and comprehend is unbelievable.

              Jillian ppolitely asked why you posted here since you have disagreed with every comment and have failed to explain just what a non-ideology ideology is. She has not interacted with you before…why the attack.

              You don’t like left and don’t like rigt but cannot put forth a coherent alternative. And, I have posted that I do not like left or right (meaning republicans). I presented my views, without recreating the wheel, through the writings of some of the most highly regarded thinkers in the world and you thought their ideas useless and not in keeping with the non-ideology perspective.

              So, tell us all. How does your world work. How, in your nonp-ideology world, would you resolve unemployment? income inequality? Do you believe in unalienable rights and how would you secure them? Or, as I have accused, you haven’t got an answer that is independent of liberalism/left/democrat.

              Bring it on…what are the principles and laws of non-ideology. What are your solutions to issues? Again, I accuse you of being a farce…you haven’t a clue.

              You’re an offensive. lying, pretentious pest and you owe Jillian an apology!

            • As I said before, when the discussion degenerates into name calling, I am done. You have nothing to offer except garden-variety ideological hate and intolerance based on fantasy and bizarre Alice In Wonderland logic. Your blind, constipated conservatism is your religion. It is sacred and infallible, right?. Your religion is based on pure blind ideological faith disconnected from fact and logic. Well, that’s your problem, not mine. You are free to worship whatever religion or ideology you wish.

            • Don L

              Find flaw in this logic: you are either for free market capitalism or you are for socialism (and then either fascistic or communistic, to begin, where both ultimately merge into tyranocal, totalitarian dictatorship and eventual system collapse). Those are the only choices. You claim another non-ideological choice. Impossible…prove me wrong and don’t employ any existing liberal (socialist – including established Republican ideology which is leftist) ideology or any, even as you perceive it, conseravtive ideological notions.

              You want your ideology of non-ideology tested…first you have to describe it and tell how it works. I asked how you would addres several issuers…go for it. Don’t want to be called names…then come on, bring it…you have failed for how many posts to say anything of substance. All you have delivered is disagreement with mine and others ideas and made noise about some non-ideology for the public interest. EXPLAIN.

              Here’s your opportunity to share all that knowledge and maturity. Are you a coward? How can anyone poke a hole or test your ideology if nobody knows what it is.

            • liz

              Good questions, Don. I fail to see “Alice in Wonderland” logic here, but I’d be willing to bet it would show up in the counter-argument.

            • Don L

              See my new posting invitation to her (I think it’s a woman). I’m trying to be fair!

            • Don L

              I come in peace.

              Please see my new full post (not one of these reply skinny column posts) above. I have presented a relatively complete view of my ideology on minimum wage. The offer is for you to look, poke and then – MOST IMPORTANT – present your theory, ‘pragmatic’ principles, about minimum wage. Then I, we, can compare. I think this is a fair compromise/offer.

            • The only purpose I could discern in your comments was that you apparently wanted to tell us that your approach to political issues is superior to ours. You did not raise any particular point on which you laid out arguments. You implied that you would not want to discuss the rival merits of big or small government. We often have people raising differences of opinion with us, and we enjoy discussion, but when someone simply tells us all about his own way of looking at the world, we wonder why he wants us to know about it. I think that is clear enough. We Republican (or Nazi) fanatics, who go in for “serene feng shui”, have a morally inexcusable extreme right-wing preference for lucid language.

            • I am sorry, I don’t see it the same way you see it. I told the guy attacking me that I am looking for flaws in my facts and logic. All I got from him was groundless attacks and epithets. I do not believe you enjoy discussion, except discussion you agree with.

              There are plenty of places to test my theories. This just isn’t one of those places. My mistake. Sorry to have wasted my time and yours.

            • Don L

              What theories? You keep claiming this theory. What is it…see my reply to your last reply to me. Take the challenge…We, I, cannot test a theory you fail to convey!!!

            • You may be flattered to see that you have inspired today’s front page post, “The principles of politics”. It is written in answer to your “ideology of choices that best serve the public interest without regard to political ideology”.

              It is more important to show what is wrong with your political philosophy than to argue with you on individual issues which you indirectly refer to, such as man-made global warming (which many of our posts debunk), or the criminalizing of gun ownership (so that only criminals will own guns, and no law-abiding citizen will be able to protect himself from criminals OR FROM AN OVER-MIGHTY GOVERNMENT). The environmentalists and the anti-gun lobby are both trying to limit freedom and put yet more power in the hands of a power-grabbing government. Which brings the arguments straight back to the vital questions of values and principles.

              You are welcome to comment under the new post. But please bear in mind that everyone’s time and attention span have limits. It’s a good idea to start with your bottom line, briefly append examples to prove your argument, and stop. That is our editorial advice and request.

            • Don L

              Ah, before I saw this post…I submitted another invitation to her. I will read the new page and maybe post my invite to her there too.

            • Don L

              Do your posts result in that name calling? I would call you pest. And there is no way to “punch a hole” since it’s a delusional world you have created and only you know the rules…it’s irrational and I’m not going to try.

              2nd to last reply to you. l

            • With all due respect, who is out of touch with reality (and logic) and who isn’t is in the eye of the beholder. In my experience, ideologues tend to be less connected to unspun reality and unbaised logic than people who aren’t that into ideology above all.

              If you think that is hogwash, consider this short comment:

              I may be in a tiny minority, but at least a few people are slowly waking up to the awful poison that ideology injects into politics.

          • Don L

            LOL…he’s back…and back and back and back…

            He has created his own world of indecisonal, non-thinking, narcissistic, denialism…an ideology of non-ideology 2.0. I cannot compete…it’s his world and only he knows the rules and he always wins to absolutwely no end except to declare only non-ideology is right. Phew.


            • Right. I notice you have no response of substance to my comments. Another ideologues is shot down by reality and logic.

              What is of interest is how much easier this becomes over time. I am beginning to think that my arguments are pretty much bullet-proof. It is about time. It has taken years to get to this point. Maybe it is now time to move on on to regime change in Washington, i.e., a sustained and increasing attack on both corrupt parties and their failed, poisonous ideologies.


            • C’mon. Put up. You can do it. I will cut you to pieces.

          • So, Liz, what do you think now? Am I an idiot, nincompoop, commie or whatever awful thing you want to call me? Or, can you see at least a little, tiny bit of merit in my facts and logic? You can think for yourself, right? Just let me know if you can accord me the courtesy of an answer. I am curious and looking for criticisms of my facts and logic. Preferably, intelligent criticisms, not the blind hate- and intolerance-inspired stuff coming from Don.

        • Thanks for your comments. Over the years, you are only the second person to have noticed that my self-label “non-ideologue” constitutes an ideology. A poly sci author at IVN ( ) pointed that out a few years ago. You are right about my “non-ideology” being an ideology.

          I would prefer the label “non-ideologial pragmatist focused on service to the public interest”, but that’s obviously too cumbersome. By non-ideologue, I just mean to imply that I am not conservative, liberal, centrist or anything else that is “normal” in terms of standard political or religious ideology as applied to politics. Liberals tend to think I am a hard core conservative and conservatives tend to think I am some bizarre far, far left freak. In fact, I am neither.

          The logic behind selecting my selected ideological approach to politics is simple: Ideology distiorts both fact and logic. After a couple of years of research, including a course in human cognition science (literally brain science) I am convinced of the poisoning but subtle (subconscious) effects of ideology. I now completely reject “normal” ideology for that reason. Evidence of ideological distortion is everywhere in normal politics, just listen to the two sides describe fact or logic on almost any issue. The scientific research proving this is overwhelming and it affects politics as well as everything else, which may be OK for some non-politics activities, but it isn’t OK for politics. Ideology causes massive waste (hundreds of billions/year), intolerance, hate, distrust and political failure (congressional gridlock, corruption, etc). If you think I am full of baloney, please just skim these books online before coming to any conclusion:
          2. (partial explanation here: )

          Yes, I do have my own definition of the public interest. I understand that political “debate” is won or lost based on key term definitions, or more usually, no definitions at all. I realized that years ago and it is part of the reason that the left and right rarely really understand each other or that the logic of their positions is rarely or never accorded the weight that assessment from the public interest point of view would imply. In other words, neither the left or right has the courage to face unspun fact and unbiased logic for what they are. Ideology powerfully feeds that normal human weakness. I know I am human and subject to normal human biases. That is why my ideology is focused on (1) finding unspun reality on political issues to the extent it is possible to do so in an ocean of partisan spin, (2) applying unbiased logic and (3) assessing which policy choice seems to best serve the public interest. That is the best anyone can do to tamp down the powerful but subtle distortions that ideology injects into the process. My politics is the politics of fact and logic, not the normal politics of ideology and self-interest. I call my version politics v. 2.0. Everything else since the dawn of human politics is v. 1.x and it is inferior. That may sound arrogant or ignorant, but it isn’t meant to be. I do respect people’s sincerity and their right to believe what they want for any reason or no reason. That’s just how I see politics after years of careful thought and study.

          So, to directly answer your point, yes, I would agree with government controlling or regulating whatever seems to best serve the public interest, e.g., drugs and medical devices, but if and only if that appears to best serve the public interest. I am no longer interested in (1) the endless, ancient, unresolvable ideological fights over big, medium or small government or (2) the source of ideology, if any, that any political policy or law seems to correspond to. When “conservative” policies best serve the public interest, that is my definition of pragmatic and what I want. If a best choice happens to be “liberal” or something that neither side would choose, that is what I want. That is why I call myself a “non-ideologue”. Again, just consider this short comment – – it explains my point about as well as it can be explained.

        • Thanks for the links. I am starting to review your links – there’s a lot there. The first one by Rockwell at the Ludwig von Mises Institute contains this: “The trouble is this: the methods used by much of mainstream economists have little to do with acting people, and so these methods do not yield conclusions that have the ring of truth. This does not have to be the case. The central questions of economics have concerned the greatest thinkers since ancient Greece. And today, economic thinking is broken into many schools of thought: the Keynesians, the Post Keynesians, the New-Keynesians, the Classicals, the New Classicals (or Rational Expectations School), the Monetarists, the Chicago Public Choicers, the Virginia Public Choicers, the Experimentalists, the Game Theorists, the varying branches of Supply Sideism, and on and on it goes.”

          That makes my point about ideology. You seem to see economics as settled science and rely on your chosen economic theories to butress your political policy choices and ideology. The quoted passage makes it clear that economics isn’t settled science. Theories still compete. As the science of human cognition (brain science) and social science have progressed, it is now clear that humans are not the “rational man” of economic theory. The science proves, repeat proves, that humans can be and often are objectively irrational from an economic point of view. Rockwell’s statement quoted above explicitly acknowledges the huge disconnect between economic theory and real world human behavior. Humans aren’t perfect cognition or logic machines or even Vulcans like Spock.

          Humans evolved innate biology that easily distorts both fact and logic. My focus is on how to tamp that down at least somewhat to make politics more based on unspun fact and unbiased logic than it is now.

        • I just finished another article you recommended “What is Austrian Economics?” It appears that you are a big fan of Ludwig von Mises, which is fine and your choice. The article makes it clear that other economic schools of thought are competing with the Austrain School’s theories.

          The article notes that “While in Geneva, Mises’s wrote his masterwork, Nationalokonomie, and, after coming to the United States, revised and expanded it into Human Action, which appeared in 1949.”

          That was in the 1940s. The science of human cognition and brain research was barely in its infancy in the 1940s and 1950s. Essentially nothing was known compared to what is known now. The point is that von Mises did not have the benefit of the understanding and mountains of data that modern social and human biological science has generated since his time. In other words, von Mises theories were uninformed by modern understanding of human behavior.

          To the extent tat von Mises theories provide guidance that lead to policies that best serve the public interest, I support that. However, I am a big, big fan of competition in the marketplace of ideas, something that doesn’t exist in modern American politics. I don’t care if von Mises, John Maynard Keynes or the theories of anyone else best serve the public interest on any given issue. They all have to compete in a fair, transparent, brutally honest competition to win. Obviously, that is just my take on how things should work in politics. That competition, as I would conduct it, is nonexistent.

        • I am going through your last link, the 137 page ebook, “The Case Against the Fed” by Rothbard. So far, it is not even mildly persuasive.

          Over the top characterizations are rarely persuasive. To me they typically evince great weakness of fact and/or logic. Rothbard statements like (1) “This unfortunate turn of the legal system means that the fractional-reserve banker, even if he violates his contract, cannot be treated as an embezzler and a criminal; but the banker must still face the lesser, but still unwelcome fact of insolvency.” (2) “Whereas the government may take a benign view of all other torts and crimes, including mugging, robbery, and murder, and it may worry about the “deprived youth” of the criminal and treat him tenderly, there is one group of criminals whom no government ever coddles: the counterfeiters.” and (3) “There is only one way to eliminate chronic inflation, as well as the booms and busts brought by that system of inflationary credit: and that is to eliminate the counterfeiting that constitutes and creates that inflation. And the only way to do that is to abolish legalized counterfeiting: that is, to abolish the Federal Reserve System, and return to the gold standard, to a monetary system where a market-produced metal, such as gold, serves as the standard money, and not paper tickets printed by the Federal Reserve”

          If bankers are criminals, change the law and make it such that they can be hauled off to court and then tossed into jail. Your ideology and argument cannot effect that change because Americans don’t buy into it. If, by implication, the government is a bunch of counterfeiters, get your folks elected and change the law. That too, won’t fly, now or for generations, regardless of what Rand and Ron Paul might advocate here and now. Finally, advocacy of the Gold Standard? Really? That won’t fly either. From a non-ideological pragmatic point of view, it is sheer nonsense.

          Good grief, I thought I was an outlier by advocating unspun fact and unbiased logic and attacking standard ideology. By comparison Rothbard makes me look mainstream, especially in view of the rise of independents and deep distrust in both parties and the government they built and protect ( ). Libertarian ideology isn’t going to change that. I think my grasp of reality and economics is better than yours.

          But, if I am wrong about Rothbard’s tiny minority opinions, I would love to be proved wrong. Since I have no “standard” ideology to defend or justify, I can handle the failure of my beliefs far more easily than disappointed* Libertarians could handle the failure of their ideology. If Libertarians are right, they should get their ideas tested and honestly assessed.

          * Not really – disappointed ideologues never see failure of their infallible, sacred ideology and faith. To the human mind, strongly-held political ideology is just like strongly-held religious ideology – it cannot be wrong. Ever. Ideologues can and do simply deny or distort inconvenient facts or logic to ease the psychological pain:

      • liz

        “State controlled media” is not a literal term. It’s simply a sarcastic mockery of the mainstream media, who are “controlled” by their own voluntary submission to leftist brainwashing. They support the leftists in control of the government with slavish propaganda, while continually attacking and demonizing conservatives.
        What would you prefer to a two party system? A dictatorship?
        “Choices that best serve the public interest”, as Don points out, is a standard code phrase of socialists that always masks an increase of government control, and loss of individual freedom.
        Capitalism is the only system which promotes the freedom of the individual.

        • If there is a difference, I see the right as demonstrably more brainwashed* than the left, but both are seriously reality- and logic-impaired due to their ideological biases ( ). Because of that, I am neither left nor right nor centrist-moderate, except when any of those produces a policy choice that just happens to best serve the public interest. I am non-ideologically pragmatic, not ideologically biased.

          And, I disagree with you that the MSM is just brainwashed liberals. It includes many just as brainwashed or more brainwashed conservatives. As far as the number of parties, I don’t care. If there could be on party that is non-ideological, pragmatic, honest, transparent and focused on service to the public interest, that would be just fine. It couldn’t be worse than what we have today. And, I bet that most republicans would love it if the democratic party simply vanished overnight and never came back. Right? Darn right.

          By the way, I have no problem with capitalism. That appears to me to be the best intellectual framework for generating economic well-being. Government is there to protect the public interest and foster as much economic activity and capitalist efficiency as it can while protecting the public interest. Smart governance is a delicate, complex balancing act. My definition for public interest has nothing whatever to do with a basis in any ideology, socialism included. It is grounded in non-ideological pragmatism without regard to any political or religious ideology.

          * The right completed its RINO hunts years ago (, with few or no real moderates or liberals left in the party today. Ideological purity is mandatory for republicans, which in my opinion, makes them generally more unspun fact- and unbaised logic-challenged than democrats. Effects of relentless corrosion and intolerance of conservative ideology was accurately summed up like this: “Today’s Republican party,…is an insurgent outlier. It has become ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition, all but declaring war on the government.”

          • liz

            If the Republican party actually were as you describe it – “scornful of compromise…all but declaring war on the government”, it would be a great thing. We’ve had enough of them caving in to the leftist agenda. Pushback is long overdue.
            If you think, as you mention elsewhere, that government can control and regulate society “in the public interest”, without corruption, you’re in for a rude awakening. I don’t care how much more about human behavior we’ve learned scientifically, it doesn’t change human nature.
            Power still corrupts, and absolute power still corrupts absolutely.