Politics

What Thomas Sowell (and Libertarians) Get Wrong About Trump’s Tariffs

Standard

The point of Trump’s tariffs is to get rid of all tariffs.  I can feel the blank stares of my ideological and indoctrinated friends who are hyperventilating about a blip in stock prices and loses for billionaires.  

I get it, Libertarians, you really do not want the government to do anything and Thomas Sowell said stuff about tariffs being bad, so in unison you bleat: “Tariffs are taxes!”

But your sloganeering is not argumentation and—while I generally believe less is more in the case of government—I’m stuck here in the real world with Trump.

Economic theory has it’s place, as do ideals, and yet this isn’t a matter of Sowell said it, I believe it, that settles it.  

Marxists also believe their man’s theory will work if properly applied.  Ideological people can’t accept when their theory doesn’t work in reality, they will always insist “that wasn’t true [insert ideology here]” and continue on their merry way muttering that next time it will work—if they could just brainwash more children and eliminate more enemies of the revolution.  There’s never a reevaluation in light of the actual evidence.

True X hasn’t been tried.

So, without further ado, let’s dive into where free trade fails and Thomas Sowell after we do that…

Can Hell Be Made Worse?

After the devastating earthquake of 2010, I joined a group of young people on a trip to Haiti.  It was a Christian mission and hosted by a Haitian pastor.  This grandfatherly man had, at one point, been in business and ran a factory manufacturing clothes.  

While I’m not going to make a case against charity or giving, there is often a cost that is unseen and a greater dependency created in the end.  The Haitian pastor was forced to shutter his operation and lay off all of his employees after the combination of cheap imports and donations made it impossible to compete in the marketplace.

But the even sadder story was in a place in the country called “little Africa” where rice farmers tried to make ends meet.  No, they were never rich.  However, they had scraped a living out of cultivation up until Bill Clinton started to dump subsidized American rice on the Haitian market.  These people were desperate.  They mobbed our delivery of a bit of relief and aid.

I know, I know, this isn’t real free trade.  But it is the kind of situation we are in.  Putting our favorite theories and fandom aside, and ideals that could possibly work if all abided by the same rules or assumptions, we don’t live in that fantasy land.  In the real world, it is like Haiti where subsidized products are exported and some will disproportionately suffer consequences.  

Yes, in theory, Haiti still benefits, as a whole, from importing cheap or free stuff.  But we can also make the argument that this kind of unfair trade has undermined a situation that was already fragile.  A government that would protect Haitian industries would not let subsidized products be dumped without something stabilizing in return.

Thomas Sowell vs Donald Trump 

Sowell is a great economist and provides a good answer to ‘progressive’ theories.  His being a guest on the Rush Limbaugh show has made him a favorite of conservatives—wanting validation for their free market and small government views.

As an academic, Sowell’s work dealt mostly with economic theory and to argue against all tariffs he uses abstraction “protectionism hurts market efficiency” and that they don’t solve issues like wealth gap, that they favor special interests, and retaliation against tariffs hurts exports, and they lead to long-term stagnation.  And he may be right if we lived in a vacuum sealed petri dish.

Trump, by contrast, lives in the very messy world of politics and negotiations.  He runs on instincts and intuition, not by intellectual exercises or writing papers or creating a set of principles.  He comes in with the big ask, the threat or the bluff, trying to disrupt and even create a bit of anxiety in the other side, before eventually bringing this process to a resolution that makes all parties leave with a feeling like they’ve won.

This is how we got from the “fire and fury” rhetoric—with the political class and corporate media hyperventilating about this being a path to war—to Trump being the first US President to set foot in North Korea and then shaking hand of Kim Jong Un.  It is just his method of changing the conversation or moving the Overton window.  You can’t get from point A to point B without shaking up the old status quo a bit.

Trump isn’t ideological, like Sowell, or trying to live off a written in stone economic code of conduct.  No, when he has leverage, or sees an opportunity, he uses it.  There are many countries tariffing US goods.  And our trade deficit is enormous.  So why is it so out of line for our President to cry foul or use the threat of reciprocal tariffs in other to back these countries down and then get a better deal for his country?

Surely Sowell isn’t against pushing for the elimination of tariffs—which likely is the end game.  And, furthermore, Trump’s brazen actions are far more likely to get results than the fine professor’s best lecture on economics.  Already other countries are lining up to start talks about removing their unfair tariffs against the US.  It is a game of musical chairs and you don’t want to be the last one looking for a seat.

Power, Principles, and Persuasion 

Marxism is about the application of power, Libertarians are about strict adherence to a set of principles, but Trump is different.  He is about persuasion.

Marxism is a hammer—raw power of the mob, trying to smashing the old order to hand control to the workers, or so it claims. In reality, it’s a machine for centralization: seize the levers, dictate terms, and dress it up as justice. Think Soviet bread lines or Mao’s famines—equality morphing into control. Libertarians, by contrast, wield a rulebook, not a fist. Their creed—liberty, markets, entirely hands off—is sacred, rigid as stone. Tariffs? Sacrilege. Sowell represents this.  Marxism a power grab, and libertarianism a fortress of unattainable ideals—both are better to be left as theory rather than an approach to real world negotiations.

Marxism would’ve sparked a trade war, not talks; libertarianism would’ve let markets bleed out. Trump’s different—he’s making countries dance. China grumbles but hints at softening; the EU’s haggling too. Stocks have dipped, and Sowell’s costs loom, but the moves are now undeniable: Vietnam’s concessions, India’s play, Japan’s hustle. It’s not a system winning—it’s Trump, raw and loud, proving persuasion trumps power or principle. He’s bending the world his way, one bluff at a time.  He is about persuasion—messy, unscripted, a vibe that bends the room.  

Tariffs are the threat, but trade that is truly free and fair is the actual goal.  And Trump is further along in achieving this simply for his boldness alone.  Maybe he’s not doing it the ‘right’ way or by conventional means, yet who says that we can’t try a new approach to get some better results than we’ve been getting?  The people who have been leaving the American worker behind tot decades now?  As my 13-year-old son would say: Let him cook!

From Ruby Ridge to Gaza’s Ruins: When the Right Cheers Tyranny Abroad

Standard

The American right was outraged by Ruby Ridge when Federal agents killed a man’s dogs, son and wife and the deadly raid of the Branch Davidians that killed 76 in the cult—including 20-28 children.

And, indeed, Randy Weaver had basically been entrapped by the FBI and was just a guy who wanted to left alone. And there is no indication the Branch Davidians would have ever killed their own children.

But the ATF says they were saving children in the Waco, Texas incident. Here’s a direct quote of Janet Reno in her testimony to Congress afterwards:

We did everything we could to avoid loss of life… I thought it was the best way to save the lives of those inside, particularly the children.

So, since she said it, we believe it, right? We can blame Mr Weaver and David Koresh for what transpired. They broke the law and it is, therefore, their own criminal actions that provoked a Federal response. If you don’t want a deadly raid—sell all of your firearms and live at peace with the progressives that rule over you!

Many in this country would cheer bans on ‘assault weapons’ and celebrate as their ‘far-right’ neighbors were gunned down for failing to comply. It would be just deserts, a direct consequence of someone who was not keeping pace with civilization, and their blood on their own hands.

Of course, I would strongly disagree. The land and the rights therein belong to we the people, not the government. People have a right to defend themselves. And if you back people into a corner do not be surprised if they come out swinging.

There is an obvious lack of understanding about the plight of Palestinian people and their decades long struggle against settlers from Europe and around the world.

Zionism, supported by anti-Semitic British politician Lord Balfour, was essentially an equivalent to Hitler’s Madagascar plan. In that he wanted Jews to live anywhere but in his own country and thus declared that the Jews should have a homeland. The only problem being that the land chosen, called the British Mandate for Palestine, already had an indigenous population (of Muslims, Christians and native Jews) that were not enthused about being replaced.

Terrorism was initiated as a tactic by Zionists, who were absorbed into the Israeli state, and not Palestinians.

At first the fight between settlers and the Palestinians (meaning those who lived in that place before the Europeans arrived) was riots and evenly matched. But in time, with a brutal campaign of terror bombing and assassinations, including the murder of a Jewish settler later turned Anti-Zionist:

On June 30, 1924, Jacob Israël de Haan was assassinated in Jerusalem by members of the Haganah, a Zionist paramilitary organization. De Haan, born in 1881 in the Netherlands, had moved to Palestine in 1919 as a committed Zionist but became disillusioned with the movement’s secular nationalism and its treatment of the indigenous Arab population. He aligned himself with the ultra-Orthodox Haredi community, particularly under Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, and became a vocal anti-Zionist, advocating for cooperation with Arabs and opposing the establishment of a Jewish state. As a political spokesman for the Haredim, he worked to undermine Zionist efforts, including plans to meet with British officials in London to argue against Zionist policies.

The settler’s eventually got the upper hand in their conflict with the native population, declared statehood in 1948. Secured their claim with a Pearl Harbor style preemptive strike after Egypt closed the Straits of Turn in response to Israel’s downing of six Syrian aircraft. This Six-Day War is sold as being a miracle, but is really just a case of the most aggressive and ready to go side gaining an advantage before the enemy even had their pants on. The Zionist project has been very audacious from the start, relying on support of first the British Empire and now the US to keep alive, and there was never remorse for any hardship imposed or death caused.

So when I see yet another meme parroting Zionist propaganda, portraying settlers as civilized and all Gazans as monsters, it just makes me want to vomit. This is what I am talking about:

Prejudiced much?

It’s hard to know where to start breaking a statement like this down. Let’s start with just the facts: Israel has blockaded Gaza, since 2007, restricting the medical supplies, food, and fuel—directly endangering babies’ lives. The result is that 1 in 4 Gaza children under five faced acute malnutrition.  There has been no effort to “save every baby” in Gaza—despite precision guided munitions, and every advantage, tens of thousands of Palestinian children have been killed and many more grievously wounded.

Second, the Isreali Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant, is on record calling Gazans “human animals” and has even vowed to “eliminate everything,” which is obviously a plan being carried out when you consider all of those deliberate strikes on the Gazan healthcare facilities:

…there were at least 136 strikes on at least 27 hospitals and 12 other medical facilities, claiming significant casualties among doctors, nurses, medics and other civilians and causing significant damage, if not complete destruction of civilian infrastructure.

Then the recent attack on ambulances and EMTs, the IDF brazenly lied about the circumstances of this war crime (exposed by a video) where these first responders were found with hands bound and executed.  The IDF uses an AI system called ‘Lavander‘ to pick targets:

Two sources said that during the early weeks of the war they were permitted to kill 15 or 20 civilians during airstrikes on low-ranking militants. Attacks on such targets were typically carried out using unguided munitions known as “dumb bombs”, the sources said, destroying entire homes and killing all their occupants.

These are not the moves of a military or political establishment trying to save lives, that looks like a collective punishment or ethnic cleansing—because it is.

Netanyahu is a man who has sabotaged the two-state solution (by supporting Hamas) and there is little doubt he saw the October 7th attack as an opportunity to finally annex Gaza for Israeli settlers. There is little evidence that the Likud party even cares about their own casualties, other than to use them to paint Palestinians as monsters.

But what about those Gazans?

What if the shoe were on the other foot?

Surely these bloodthirsty terrorists who—did you hear about October 7th—went on a wild killing spree claiming the lives of 1,139 Israelis. See! Proof that they want to kill all the babies!

But let’s back up just a second. First of all, not everyone in Gaza participated in that—Hamas wasn’t elected nor does it represent all people in the strip. Second, how do we really know who killed who? There is ample evidence of friendly fire (I read Israeli news), you had IDF helicopter gunships unloading their ordinance on random traffic, panic, and also a possible implementation of the Hannibal directive or when the IDF will kill their own rather than let them become the bargaining chips for a prisoner exchange. In other words, political objectives are more important than human life.

Hamas made a calculated move. The only way they can get back people that the IDF took from them over the years is for them to have their own hostages. Israel has held about 4500 Palestinians. 310 in detention without any right to trial. And those who have gone to trial have about as much chance of fair treatment as Donald Trump does in front of a Manhattan jury—literally no chance.

So what would you do if your uncle, father son or brother were being indefinitely held by the Chinese occupation forces in Texas, wouldn’t you be tempted to find a way to get them back?

But what about the Bidas family?

The cute redhead boys?

What about them? How do you know they weren’t killed in an IDF airstrike? There was no independent autopsy to back the Israeli claims they were killed by their captors and this makes no sense whatsoever. Why would Hamas want dead bargaining chips? Why would they turn over the bodies if they murdered them in cold blood?  And why is the Bidas family threatening to sue Netanyahu for using their tragedy to sell his bloody campaign?

Anyhow, just listen to what Hamas hostages have said about their own experience after being released. They were fed well and their sanitary needs were met, obviously it wasn’t a five star treatment and certainly not free of abuse, but this is a comparison and compare it to the credible allegations of Palestinian boys being raped by their guards in Israeli prisons.

In the end, neither side is a monolith. Israel has good and bad people, as does Gaza—Hamas doesn’t represent the population of Gaza any more than Netanyahu represents all of Israel nor does Zionism represent every Jew in the world. There are millions of Palestinians. Some may want to kill every Israeli.  But then Netanyahu, the actual leader of Israel, has called the Gazans “Amalek” which is to say a people God instructed Biblical Israel to kill man, woman and child. So how is that not a call for extermination?

It’s just very strange to me that many who are so sympathetic to right-wing characters like Randy Weaver or those Waco cultists suddenly believe propaganda because it’s coming from Israel. Why are you carrying water for a foreign power that takes billions from us, sank one of our Navy ships in international waters, and gives us nothing in return?

We don’t need to pick a team here—let’s just oppose baby killing no matter who is doing it!

If Israel wanted to stop killing babies in Gaza it would.

Snow Woke—Disney’s Female Empowerment Fairytale

Standard

Apparently the Snow White remake bombed at the box office. We could just go with the standard “get woke, go broke” traditionalist assessment. Rachel Zegler comes off as the female equivalent of Andrew Tate—as being angry, entitled, selfish and toxic—which isn’t appealing to a broad audience.

But, before we get into the remake, let’s talk a bit about the original Disney animation of the fairytale. The character deviates quite a bit from the Grimm version. For a start, the fair-skinned protagonist is half the age (7 rather than 14) and there’s no “true love’s kiss” in this original version. Furthermore, she’s a sort of blank slate archetype—not some ideal 1930s homemaker mothering a bunch of dwarfs. In short, the adaptation then was not completely true to the source material and created an image of feminity relevant to that time.

The Grimm version was darker in tone and featured a prince weirdly obsessed with a dead girl in a glass coffin. The dwarfs did not have distinct personalities. And Snow White awakened when the poisoned apple is dislodged from her throat when a servant carrying her coffin stumbles. And it was at this point the prince professes his love and proposes marriage—which she accepts.

The latest Disney live-action takes liberties in a very different direction. It is even less true to the original (other than elimination of the Disney romance) and reimagines Snow White being a sort of feminist militia leader who leads a bloodless insurrection against the usurping queen. But the “mirror mirror on the wall” remains and a poisoned apple—despite the heavy edit of the script where an empowered woman replaces the worn damsel in distress trope.

Why People Don’t Like Snow Woke

People enjoy new takes on old genres, like Shrek or Furiosa and also powerful female characters such as Ellen Ripley in Aliens, Sarah Connor in Terminator or even Katniss Everdeen in the Hunger Games.  They were relatable, we saw them develop, circumstances made them tough to survive, and audiences loved them.  What they don’t like is preachy dialogue or lack of any real character development. A Mary Sue, a hero with no weaknesses, is unrelatable. It is the problem with Superman and with the many woke adaptations of stories.

We like the image of a woman against the machine.

Christian movies have a tendency to be bad for the same reasons. They can come off a little campy or forced. Sure, it may work for drawing your ideological camp, but it isn’t a compelling story for the unindoctrinated or the broader audience. Which is not to say that movies about Christianity can’t be great for entertainment.  I love gritty true stories like that of Hacksaw Ridge or profound, like Silence, will have anyone at the edge of their seats—the key being relatable characters.

Zegler is a bit much. Totally insufferable in the eyes of some. And she plays a part that is equally annoying. The departure from the source material is just too rude. Sure, there is room for an update, but you would never reinvent Rambo as well adjusted pacifist in a mission to avoid too much sun exposure. Disney dumped the essence of the original and replaced it with another tired ’empowered woman’ cliché. You wonder if Zegler herself wrote the script with lines like, “I’m not waiting for anyone to save me” or groaner, “The fairest isn’t about beauty—it’s about justice!”

Ouch.

Oh well, at least even apologists for woke seem to understand that it is just bad. They did not even bother accusing the audience of being racist or misogynistic this time around.

Smash the Symbolism!

What is truly lost is the symbolic depth of the original tale. Snow White was beauty and purity contrasted with the vanity and evil of the obsessed queen. They gutted what made the Grimm tale a significant message about the triumph of innocence over the destructive power of pride. This, obviously, is too nuanced for a superficial sexual organ obsessed militant far-leftist to understand. The producers of the new film replaced purity of motive against cunning with a banal competition for power.

It’s not even moral inversion. They totally lost the point. It makes me think they lack any layers to their being. It’s all about their grievance and getting back at those they’ve scapegoated for their own misery. Like the evil queen, with all the power, they envy the beauty and peace of others and attempt to kill it with their poisoned apple. Snow Woke is the toxic fruit. Zegler is an icon of their privileged ‘diverse’ female with an entitled chip on her shoulder and not the slightest bit of appreciation for all the good men who made her ignorance possible.

This is not to say those who are fixated on the literal whiteness of the actress are any better. Grimm was not writing about racial supremacy anymore than woke supremecy, if anything the original story was about our transcending politics and Zegler would be perfectly suited for the role if she were able to embody that spirit. But our culture, in a desperate need of critique, it dichotomizes everything—divides the world into friend or foe, as if life is a zero-sum game and there is never anything to gain through fusion of opposites.

Zegler is as Puritanical (and Pharisaical) as a religious fundamentalist. She reframes a rescuing prince as a stalker and romance as weird. More rigid than a patriarch, more domineering than the system she is taught to loath. A preacher rather than an actual protagonist. Basically, a young idealist who wields her moral certainty with a convert’s passion, and yet stumbling into hypocrisy under scrutiny—reaping benefits of every institution she claims to reject.

The Female Power of Beauty, Gentleness and Grace

A few years ago, I was in the checkout line and suddenly noticed the cashier. She was beautiful, pale or ashen-faced, with hair that was jet black, pleasant smile and yet there was something uncanny valleyish about her appearance. I could not quite put my finger on it. But then she spoke. This would send a shiver through me. Never before did I have that sort of feeling simply by hearing someone talk. There was a certain quality to her voice that was almost child-like, soft, pure, and really threw me for a loop. And it occurred to me that this young woman was a real life Snow White.  I had not thought this would actually be attractive in person, but it had me momentarily smitten.

As it would turn out, in a later conversation, I learned she was mixed race, Filipino mom and dad of some kind of European descent, which is likely what gave her this stunningly feminine appearance. Now, no doubt this gentle exterior was cover over a tough and capable individual. She drove an old pickup truck and lived apart from her family with a sister, and may well have been a teenager or in her early twenties. In many ways she is like Zegler (who is herself a mix of Colombian and Polish heritage), but this real-life Snow White wielded her beauty, gentleness, and grace as a quiet strength that captivated without preaching, Zegler’s strident zeal turns a timeless tale into a soapbox, losing the feminine power of subtlety for a hollow shout of self-righteousness.

This is what outspoken angry feminists fail to grasp, forcefulness isn’t the only kind of power. My petite wife could never command me to do anything. I’m 50% bigger than her and have twice the upper body strength, I would shrug it off. But she does not need to force me to do anything. She overpowers me by other means. For example, early on, before we were married, she convinced me to stop drinking so much soda, she told me water is a symbol of her love “pure and clean” and when I drink it I could feel her love. I didn’t need to be told twice.

When I look at my baby daughter I would do anything for her. She’s so vulnerable—there is a strong desire to protect and defend her—I’m drawn, not compelled.

So what does female empowerment really mean?

Is it empowering to a fish to be out of the water?

A visual representation of society telling individuals they need to be something else to be happy.

Humans are wired for their base biological and physical functions. Reproduction is a big part of this. It becomes clear after you see process through from courtship to baby in a carriage. Early in the pregnancy, given our financial goals, my wife had considered sending the yet to be both child to be raised by her mother. But as soon as the bundle of cuteness arrived, along with the appropriate hormones, it was never a question. Family is empowerment. My sacrifice, as a father, is more rewarding than the toys I could buy for myself as an independent bachelor.

We’re relational, not rational.

Therefore, the things we think will make us happy do not give us long-term fulfillment—the woke Zegler types are privileged, given preference as women or minorities, and yet always unhappy and looking at what others have and they do not. They are a paradox, enjoying female privilege—then miserable and wanting what men have.

It is toxic, it is their impurity of spirit, and it destroys their natural beauty and potential for true empowerment.

In all honesty, I don’t really have a problem with Zegler’s passion or outspokenness.  I guess I tend to prefer women with a real personality and feel she is right on the Gaza issue.  But what is wrong is that she’s not the right character to play what is supposed to be an embodiment of purity and the power of innocence against evil.  Snow White isn’t supposed to be Mockingjay or a story where physical force met with force—but of a different kind of power.

Ultimately, the 2025 Snow White stumbles not just as a film but as a misguided anthem, with Rachel Zegler’s shrill militancy drowning out the subtle power the Grimm tale once whispered. The original’s purity and even Disney’s 1937 grace knew strength isn’t loud—it’s captivating, like the cashier whose soft voice and uncanny beauty stopped me cold, a real-life Snow White wielding gentleness over force. My wife, too, overpowers me not with commands but with a love pure as water, turning a stubborn man into a willing protector, and just as our daughter’s vulnerability stirs my soul to shield her. Zegler’s remake, obsessed with preaching justice over enchantment, misses this: true feminine empowerment doesn’t need a megaphone or a militia—it’s the quiet, relational magic that binds us, a truth the poisoned apple of ‘Snow Woke’ chokes out, leaving a hollow echo where a fairytale’s heart once beat.

Holocaust Then and Now: From Hidden Gas Chambers To Children Burned Alive

Standard

The other day I saw a Facebook ad for a charity of some kind featuring a boy that was covered head to toe in burns.  His body quivered, his breaths short, labored, and he is clearly in distress. 

Thinking this was just some unfortunate accident being exploited for donations it was too much for me (as a father) to see.  My first thought was who is putting this ad on social media?  I posted a combination of my concern for the child and a question of the appropriateness of putting this video on social media.

But later someone responding to my initial comment told me the where and why—and it changed everything.  This baby was not just a random victim of a kitchen accident in a third world country as I had imagined.  No, this was a deliberate act.  It is part of a terror and revenge campaign being waged using bombs provided by our tax dollars.  It is acceptable collateral damage to those on the side of this state actor—which has kept their perpetual victimhood status due to an event before we were born.

Apparently now they have a blank check to do as they please because of the bad thing that happened to their people approaching a century ago on another continent.  Never again is only about their suffering then, protecting their own, and not a call to oppose all genocides or ethnic cleansing campaigns.  They would tell us that the cruelty against this baby in the social media post, and the tens of thousands like him, is all justified because of an attack over a year ago when nearly 1200 died in the chaos of a border incursion and 251 were taken hostage.

However, in the same way I had absolutely nothing to do with American slavery and have not profited from it, this young child is not responsible for what others have done and no less precious than the red-headed Bidas boys killed in the fog of war and are now used as part of a propaganda campaign to continue the bloodshed.  If your outage is selective and only based on whose child is being maimed or killed, then you lack true Christian compassion.

Are You Better Than Your Ancestors?

You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started! (Matthew 23:29a-32 NIV)

There are thousands—tens of thousands—of memorials to an event we call Holocaust and more continue to be built.  Presumably it is so we remember those who were killed and never repeat this horrendous slaughter ever again.  In the Nazi Germany all people who belonged to various ethnic groups and categories were made collectively guilty of trying to crimes against the German people, forced behind walls of concentration camps and then secretly killed by the regime.

The Nazis, despite all their propaganda and hate, took care to hide the reality they were on an extermination campaign.  From their literature, they were “resettling” the victims and that the “atrocity stories” were nothing but malicious lies.  They tried to keep most Germans in the dark about what was truly taking place.  Had they broadcast their genocide for all to see, a good part of German society would likely not have been okay with it—why else would they have denied?

However, there is a modern parallel where those doing the industrial scale murder are shameless.  They watch and cheer as little children are shredded, limbs torn from their young bodies, shrapnel slicing horrendous gashes through their  faces.  But it is not just that relentless bombing of a people rounded up like cattle—it is the young boys ripped away from their families for minor infractions like throwing stones at occupying soldiers, with no due process, then raped and brutalized in military prisons.  

This has been going on for decades and is openly celebrated by the perpetrators.  The United States government enthusiastically supports an ongoing ethic cleansing twice as brazen as the Holocaust.

The sad part is that many reading this will know exactly what I’m talking about, aren’t able to refute a single claim I’ve made, and will choose denial.  Those terrorists had it coming, they’ll convince themselves, as the next child is blow to bits as illegal settlers watch eagerly from the hills overlooking the carnage.  They literally do boat tours off the coast to pick what part of the annexed land they will take.  This is depravity on a whole different level, yet our propaganda blinded morons will say it is 100% morally justified because “God’s people” or October 7th.

A Century of Aggression, Conflict and Terror

The biggest propaganda lie is to say that a conflict began after the other side hit back or escalated.  The fight between the settlers from Europe and people native to Palestine didn’t start on October 7th.  Quibble over the semantic details, but there were inhabitants on the land pushed off through a campaign of terror and abuse, here’s a brief historical timeline provided by Grok:

1882 – First Aliyah Begins: The First Aliyah marks the start of organized Zionist immigration to Ottoman Palestine, driven by European Jewish nationalists seeking a homeland. About 25,000–35,000 Jews arrive between 1882 and 1903, often buying land from absentee Ottoman landlords. Palestinians, the indigenous Arab population (Muslim, Christian, and Druze), number around 500,000 and live as farmers, urban dwellers, and Bedouins under Ottoman rule. These early settlers, motivated by Theodor Herzl’s Zionist vision (articulated later in 1896), begin displacing Palestinian tenant farmers, though violence remains sporadic at this stage.

November 2, 1917 – Balfour Declaration: The British government issues the Balfour Declaration, promising a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. This galvanizes Zionist settlement, with immigrants arriving under British protection post-World War I. Palestinians, still a majority (over 90% of the population), oppose this as it threatens their land and self-determination. No major Zionist terror acts occur yet, but tensions rise as settlers establish armed militias like Hashomer to guard settlements, clashing with locals.

April 4–7, 1920 – Nebi Musa Riots: Violence erupts in Jerusalem as Palestinians protest Zionist immigration and British policy. Jewish settlers, supported by early Zionist self-defense groups, clash with Arabs, leaving 9 dead (5 Jews, 4 Arabs) and over 200 injured. This marks an early escalation, though not yet a coordinated Zionist terror campaign. Palestinians are defending their homeland; settlers are a growing minority (around 60,000 by 1920) asserting claims to the land.

May 1–7, 1921 – Jaffa Riots: Anti-Zionist unrest in Jaffa results in 47 Jews and 48 Arabs killed, with hundreds injured. Zionist settlers, now numbering about 85,000, retaliate with armed groups like the Haganah (formed 1920), targeting Palestinian communities. Palestinians, still indigenous and resisting displacement, face increasing settler militancy. These riots signal the start of organized Zionist violence, though not yet classified as terrorism.

August 23–29, 1929 – Palestine Riots: Widespread clashes over Jerusalem’s holy sites kill 133 Jews and 116 Arabs. Zionist settlers, bolstered by Haganah, fight back against Palestinian attacks on Jewish communities. The violence reflects growing settler presence (around 156,000 Jews) and Palestinian fears of losing control. While mutual, this period sees Zionist groups refining their armed capabilities, laying groundwork for later terror tactics.

1935 – Irgun Splits from Haganah: The Irgun, a Revisionist Zionist militia led by Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s ideology (“only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state”), breaks from the more moderate Haganah. Settlers now number over 300,000, aggressively expanding. Palestinians, still a majority (around 850,000), face intensifying land loss. Irgun begins targeting British and Arab civilians, marking the onset of a deliberate Zionist terror campaign.

April 1936–1939 – Arab Revolt: Palestinians launch a revolt against British rule and Zionist immigration, killing around 5,000 Arabs, 400 Jews, and 200 British. Irgun escalates terror, bombing Arab markets (e.g., July 6, 1938, in Haifa, killing 18) and buses (August–September 1937). Settlers, now a militarized minority, aim to secure land; Palestinians fight to preserve their homeland. Atrocities include Irgun’s reprisal killings of civilians.

July 22, 1946 – King David Hotel Bombing: Irgun bombs the British administrative headquarters in Jerusalem, killing 91 (British, Arab, and Jewish). This high-profile attack, led by Menachem Begin, targets Mandate authorities to force withdrawal and enable Zionist statehood. Settlers (around 600,000) are a significant force; Palestinians (over 1.2 million) face displacement as Zionist militias grow bolder.

November 29, 1947 – UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181): The UN votes to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. Zionist settlers (about 630,000) accept it; Palestinians (1.3 million) reject it, fearing loss of 55% of their land despite being 67% of the population. Civil war erupts, with Zionist terror intensifying—Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi launch attacks on Palestinian villages.

December 1947–May 1948 – Pre-Nakba Atrocities: Zionist militias begin ethnic cleansing before Israel’s founding. On December 18, 1947, Irgun bombs Jerusalem’s Damascus Gate, killing 20 Arabs. By April 9, 1948, the Deir Yassin massacre sees Irgun and Lehi kill over 100 Palestinian villagers, including women and children, sparking mass flight. Settlers aim to clear land; Palestinians, indigenous and defenseless, lose over 300,000 people to exile before Arab armies intervene.

May 14, 1948 – Israel Declares Independence (Nakba Begins): Israel is established, and the Nakba (“catastrophe”) sees Zionist forces expel 750,000 Palestinians, destroying 530 villages. Atrocities like the Tantura massacre (May 22–23, 1948, over 200 killed) exemplify the campaign. Settlers become citizens of Israel (population 806,000, 82% Jewish); Palestinians, reduced to 150,000 within Israel, face further displacement as refugees.

July 25, 1947 – Sergeants Affair: Irgun kidnaps and hangs two British sergeants in retaliation for death sentences on its members, booby-trapping their bodies. This terror act pressures Britain to exit. Settlers solidify control; Palestinians suffer escalating violence as Zionist goals near fruition.

June 5–10, 1967 – Six-Day War: Israel launches a preemptive strike on Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, occupying the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. Settlers expand into these territories (e.g., Kfar Etzion reestablished in 1967); Palestinians (around 1 million in occupied areas) endure military rule and land seizures, with 280,000–360,000 more displaced.

1987–1993 – First Intifada: Palestinians in occupied territories revolt against Israeli rule, met with settler violence and IDF repression (160 Israelis, 2,162 Palestinians killed). Settlers, now numbering over 100,000 in the West Bank, attack Palestinian communities, often with impunity. This period highlights ongoing settler-Palestinian conflict.

September 28, 2000–2005 – Second Intifada: A more violent uprising sees 1,000 Israelis and 4,000 Palestinians killed. Settler extremists and IDF target Palestinian civilians; settlers (over 200,000 in West Bank) expand outposts, intensifying land theft. Palestinians resist occupation, facing collective punishment.

The Zionists did not hide their Holocaust and they never abandoned their national roots in terror either.  The Irgun and other settler militias (terrorist organizations) were integrated into the new Israeli government and never held accountable.  Anywhere else in the world Americans would be funding the “freedom fighters” trying to fight off the invasion and later the yoke of occupation and oppression—but, in this case, AIPAC spends millions upon millions every year to buy the support (or just the silence) of US politicians.

The American public is propagandized and Evangelicals shoveled under a pile of what amounts to theological manure to remain blinded to one side of the atrocities being committed.  If your answer to any question of what the IDF does to Palestinians is “but Hamas” then you are anti-Christ.  Jesus did not teach an eye for an eye, certainly not ten of their eyes plus the lives of their children, and instead taught to turn the other cheek and love our enemies.  If you condone (let alone celebrate) the calculated murder of children then you have entirely destroyed your own Christian witness.

There is no morality when morality changes depending on who is doing it.  If it is wrong for Hamas fighters to escape their open air prison (equivalent to concentration camps or Warsaw ghetto) to take Israeli hostages to barter for the return of their own, then it is most certainly wrong for the IDF to bomb knowing they will likely kill up to 15 civilians for one Hamas fighter.  And do not feed me this “they hide behind women and children” bullshit excuse.  Zionism hides behind the Holocaust rather than own up to the long list of atrocities committed in the name of a Jewish homeland.

The first Holocaust doesn’t justify the ethnic cleansing of Gaza or current massacre with spectators.  The IDF is not at war, in war you don’t have boat tours or field trips to watch—they are bombing fish in a barrel and then playing victim.  

This clever framing of perpetual victimhood, even while they are doing worse than those they call terrorists, may work for those who are indoctrinated into Zionism or ignorant—buy it does not work for a consistent moral standard.  

It is a “rules for thee, not for me” scenario where anything Israel does is blessed and anything the Palestinians do is a terrible act of terrorism.  Zionists can steal land, kill or rape the rightful owners, but then be upset when the Palestinians finally caught on and started copying their terrorism.  I mean, if it worked for Irgun—why not Hamas?

No More Holocaust In OUR Name!

A favorite tactic of apologists for Zionism is to deflect from current IDF atrocities to ask why equal time isn’t spent condemning the other side.  But we are not funding Hamas, we are not providing them with military aid, and I am not making a mockery of my faith by claiming that God gives those who deny his son special exemption to kill for land.  If God is on their side then they don’t my tax dollars to fight their fight.  America-first only works when you end foreign entanglements and make no exceptions.  We don’t need to invade Israel to stop them, we simply need to stop feeding their war machine.  I’m not responsible for Hamas—but my money is going to continue a genocide and therefore I will make my stance clear: No more baby murder in my name!

When Aaron Bushnell stood before the Israeli Embassy on February 25, 2024, and set himself ablaze, he didn’t just die—he screamed a truth too many ignore: “I will no longer be complicit in genocide.” His final words echo the resignations of principled State Department officials like Josh Paul, who quit back in October 2023, declaring, “I cannot work in support of a set of major policy decisions… that I believe to be shortsighted, destructive, unjust.” Or Annelle Sheline, who left in March 2024, unable to serve under the Biden administration “that enables the atrocities in Gaza.” These true Americans—soldiers, diplomats—saw the blood on our hands and courageously they chose conscience over career.   

They saw what American Zionists choose to ignore.  The footage emerged of a 10-year-old, Ahmed, burned alive in December 2024 when an IDF airstrike hit a tent camp in Deir al-Balah. His screams, captured on a bystander’s phone, cut through the lies and propaganda: a boy, not a fighter, reduced to ash as the settlers watched from the gallery eager to personally gain from the slaughter of babies.  You can’t be pro-life and be okay with this.  You can’t represent Christ while being an apologist for murder.

We’re not funding Hamas. We’re bankrolling a machine that burns children alive, rapes boys (old as my son) in detention, and calls this defense. 

Bushnell saw it. 

Paul saw it. 

Sheline saw it. 

They acted. 

Will we? 

Or will we keep decorating the graves of the righteous, and pretend that our silence isn’t complicity? 

I posted pictures because we must stop this—in the name of Jesus it must stop!

Facing the Truth

Standard

I decided to take on one of the lies being spread on social media today and found myself bumping up against the Facebook censorship regime once again.  And what they allow or disallow is purely about the partisan narrative they’re pushing.  Leftists can post memes all day long showing Elon Musk with his hand raised, claiming that he is a Nazi, but you can’t even post a plain old picture of Democrats with their hands in an apparent salute without that “misleading” blackout being slapped on it.

InDePeNdEnT fAcT-cHeCkInG

This is the kind of protection those left of center can expect.  They’re never held to the same standard as those on the right.  If you are conservative any soundbite can ripped out of context and disseminated without a fact-check.  Republicans are guilty until they prove themselves innocent.  By contrast, the corporate media mouthpieces do not confront the left for their hypocrisy and require Democrats to denounce the left-wing violence.   And Billionaire’s like Mark Zuckerberg play interference for them by not even letting us make a comparison to show how ridiculous their claims are.

This is what I posted on Facebook with the image above:

What happens when you put a conservative guy with Asberger’s syndrome in front of an audience of leftists?

Bullying.  

The left is about conformity.  

You march to the beat of their drum or they will ostracize and belittle.  Name-calling is a leftist invention.  They love their categories, white and black, haves versus have nots, and it is always about pigeonholing people into tribal groups and robbing all people of their own unique identities. 

But turning Musk’s awkward movements, as a guy clearly on the Autism spectrum, into a Nazi salute—even the ADL said that’s taking it too far.  Unfortunately this misinterpreting of his hand motion has become that moral justification the far-left wanted to unleash a terror campaign of vandalism and violence—a Krystalnacht redux.  

Why did Nazis hate the Jews?  Well, there was the same envy of wealth and influence then that the left is now directed at public figures like Musk.  To the left a billionaire’s money should belong to them, the ‘fasces’ or their elite managerial class, whereas an American vision is that people should keep their lawfully acquired gains.

Patriotic Americans believe in free markets and rule of law.  In stark contrast, the Antifa left (deceptively named) believe in central control (in their hands) and rule by mob if anyone dares to resist their ‘progressive’ regime.  They are everything un-American bundled into one ugly package, unforgiving, anti-freedom, big government, collectivist (you do what ‘we’ demand or else) and do not believe in civil rights—starting with that of respecting property and persons.

As I travel in Asia there are Swastikas all the place.  If we judged their usage by our own narrow interpretation and understanding we would issue travel warnings to Jews.  But it is not the symbols or gestures that matter—it is the attitudes and actions behind them.  Musk wants taxpayers to keep more of the money they’ve earned.  While the left, along with their Democrat enablers, want to scare you away from choosing the best EV brand there is because they’re control freaks.

The left totally lacks empathy.  Sure, they claim it, like they claim everything else on the planet they didn’t earn with their own work.  It’s all about them, their Narcissistic small-minded worldview, that is why they can only ever project, accuse, self-deceive and destroy the success of others.  They’re an organism that thanklessly destroys their host and condones hate, theft, arson, and murder of anyone who does not lockstep with their cult agenda.

Musk’s “my heart goes out to you” gesture…

The problem isn’t only that the left has a clear double standard, it is that they think they’re the worthy judge when they’re clearly as biased as they come.  A little humility would go a long way for this lot.  At the very least they could let us be free from their grip to spend our own money and live our own lives—but then that would be too democratic for their tastes.

Oxygen Masks and Civilizational Math: Empathy’s Breaking Point

Standard

Anyone who has flown commercial knows the safety rundown before take-off.  You’re instructed on where to find lifejackets and how to put on the oxygen masks.  And one thing they emphasize is before taking care of anyone else, including children, they need to secure their own oxygen first.  This does not mean that a passenger shouldn’t care at all about anyone else.  What it means is that caring for ourselves first can make us more able to help others.

I came across a post of Facebook about the vandalism and terror campaign against Elon Musk’s Tesla brand.  In the comments I saw a left-wing activist justifying their violence by using a paraphrase of Musk, “empathy is a weakness.”  So I looked into the claim and found a quote of Musk during a Joe Rogan Experience podcast:

There’s a guy who posts on X who’s great, Gad Saad? … Yeah, he’s awesome, and he talks about, you know, basically suicidal empathy. Like, there’s so much empathy that you actually suicide yourself. So, we’ve got civilizational suicidal empathy going on. And it’s like, I believe in empathy, like, I think you should care about other people, but you need to have empathy for, for civilization as a whole, and not commit to a civilizational suicide. … The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy, the empathy exploit. They’re exploiting a bug in Western civilization, which is the empathy response.

I’m not sure where “empathy is a weakness” can be found there.  What it seems Musk is saying is to keep everything in balance and not go to self-destructive extremes.  I would call it rational pragmatism rather than use a weird sounding “suicidal empathy” and yet it is a poignant point.  We can understand and share the feelings of others (empathy) while not destroying civilization in the process.  It is sort of how I always listen to my son, but don’t always give him stuff that he wants—because the soda and sweets could lead to tooth decay and diabetes.

This is the Gad Saad quote referenced by Musk in the interview:

Imagine an entire civilization that is taken over by an emotional parasite called suicidal empathy that trumps every other instinct that is within your adaptive repertoire. You are willing to sacrifice everything at the Altar of Suicidal Empathy. Nothing is more important than that.

What he’s taking on is the ideologies that demand we recognize, accept and finance every kind of bizarre behavior.  Money being sent for transgender operas when we have crumbling infrastructure, for example, this is what suicidal empathy looks like.  Or letting a confused men destroy women’s sports—there is an opportunity cost to these special accomodations and, with limited resources, it means many will suffer for the whims of a few demanding empathy in the form of their own exemptions and privileges.

My son may want me to taking him fishing every day.  To him I have limitless time and resources.  He says it would only take me a few minutes to drive him across town to his favorite spot.  But what he doesn’t really get is how doing this is difficult given I can’t just leave baby at home and it also cuts into my time to do the chores he neglects.  To him it seems simple and he reacts with disgust as if he is entitled to transportation and a life of leisure at the expense of everyone else in the house—yet the adults know better.

Performative Empathy vs. True Compassion

Nobody at DOGE is saying we should beat or bully transgender people or forbid people from donating to foreign causes.  What they have advocated is for efficient and effective use of public funds.  Yes, it could be called “tough love” and yet it is really essentially to the thriving—even surviving—of the country that we don’t bleed resources for minimal or no real return.  Government is not a charity, it relies on coercion to attain funds, for that reason it should only be used for things the majority of people support.

Those burning Tesla supercharger stations, smashing out dealership windows, or even attacking vehicles owned by individuals not named Elon may claim to represent the side of empathy, but their’s is only performative empathy and part of their partisan political agenda that is all about maintaining their own power and control over others.  Those same people forcing mandates, in the name of climate change, have now spun a 180 to creating unnecessary pollution.  They never cared about the planet—it is always about their belief they have the right to rule us.

That is what toxic empathy is about.  It is a manipulation game, a virtue signal, and like the jealous boyfriend’s love.  Sure, they say they love, and yet would murder before they would ever let their significant other go their own way or be apart from them.  This is, of course, symptomatic of leftism.  They want complete control over your life and yet call a billionaire greedy for being allowed to keep the wealth they’ve amassed.  And that’s the real culprit here: Envy.  It’s not that those on the left care so much about people, it is that they are looking for a moral justification for their rage against successful people.

Leftist ’empathy’ strikes again.

Elon Musk is many things.  He’s extremely motivated.  A problem solver.  A billionaire.  A bit of an online troll.  A father of fourteen children.  Efficiency expert.  And also has Asberger’s syndrome.  It is that last item on the list that puts him at odds with normies who prefer lawyerspeak to bluntness.  Musk doesn’t coat anything in syrup, he analyzes, identifies the problem, and states it plainly rather than beat around the bush.  Contrast to the left, he puts logic and reasoning first—feelings second.

As an aside, CEOs and political leaders have a higher likelihood of being psychopaths.  It is what makes them good at their jobs.  You can’t make good decisions for a corporation or a country when you’re too zeroed in and obsessing over impacts to individuals.  That is going to lead to analysis paralysis and no necessary corrections being made.  Instead they think on the macro scale.  This is not to say they don’t care about the parts, but the good of the whole is what matters to them and they distribute concern according to the overall picture.  Sure it may seem cold and calculated—but serves the common good much better than empathy run amok.

As much as those on the left like to crow—as if their great empathy stretches across the globe—the reality is their typically very focused on their own feelings.

Their ’empathy’ is unsustainable.

Myopic.

Blind.

Christian compassion, in contrast, balances judgment and mercy. You do unto others as you want them to do to you, but also speak the truth in love—even when it gets you killed by an angry mob that doesn’t want to hear it. The tension or fusion of love and accountability keeps it grounded; it’s not a free-for-all where every whim gets a blank check. Unlike leftist empathy, which often bends toward appeasement or control, Christian compassion holds a line—help the widow and orphan, yes, but don’t burn down the house to warm them. It’s personal, not performative, and it doesn’t bankrupt the future for the sake of today’s applause.

Breathing Room for Civilization

In the end, the clash isn’t about empathy versus apathy—it’s about who gets to breathe first when the masks drop. Musk and Saad aren’t wrong to call out the self-inflicted wounds of suicidal empathy; they’re just pointing to the scoreboard: civilizations that forget their own oxygen don’t survive to help anyone. Leftist empathy, with its envy-fueled ‘virtue’ and reckless spending, dresses up as love but flirts with collapse—torching Teslas while preaching care, funding operas while bridges crumble. Christian compassion, for all its flaws, at least remembers the whole plane matters, not just the loudest sob story. We don’t need more performative tears or smashed windows—we need a hard reset on what keeps us aloft. Secure your mask, folks; the turbulence is just beginning.

Never Meet Your Heros

Standard

I have lost all of my heroes. The expression, “Never meet your heroes, because they’re sure to disappoint you,” describes the painful realization that those great people you imagined are not as special as you believed they were.  It could be the letdown a friend had when he heard Matt Walsh speak.  It could be a family that learned their eldest brother was cheating on his wife for many years and was not some image of virtue.  For me it was a process and a very long grinding away of faith in these figures.

I was never one for human idols.  I never put posters of celebrity faces on my bedroom wall and would never be as impressed with figures like Ravi Zacharias as some of my friends.  It wasn’t a religious thing nor something just to be ornery.  I simply didn’t have a feeling of awe about these personalities that were mid.  The people I most admired tended to be local—my blue collar dad, my missionary cousin, or that perfect girl I would marry some day.  But time has removed all from the pedestals.

Those women of my youth would end up as the cheating wife or more interested in status than my sincerity.  My dad no longer looks like that man I remember who could carry me on his shoulders (with me hanging on for death life) up a silo ladder, and that zealousness of the ‘compassionate’ types tends to morph into a noxious ideological alignment that is really anything but they profess.  They say that they want the Kingdom, but have replaced faith in God with fraudulent human institutions.

And I’m not just talking about the apologists for CAM in the wake of the Jeriah Mast and years of coverup aftermath.  “Oh, but this is an organization that does such good!”  What I’m talking about is something fully revealed since the DOGE ax has fallen on USAID.  I grew up believing in the strict separation of church and state—that a colonial expansion of Christianity was tainted and this at completely odds with the teachings of Jesus about His kingdom not being of this world.  

My views have certainly evolved—having left my religious cloister—but I’m still appalled by the thoughtlessness of people who I had once thought were smart and uncompromised.

Banality of Evil: When Ends Justify the Means 

The Anabaptists, after the disaster of Münster, had committed to a quiet life of separation.  It is why those in Old Order groups have refused participation in Social Security and other kinds of government benefits.  Mutual aid should be voluntary and Christian charity is not obtained through coercion.  Sure, the power of the state is alluring, that temptation (driven by our ego) to rule over others because we know what is best or they are undeserving of the resources they have—I have had many of those “if I were king” moments—but there is no stopping point when you fail to resist the siren song.

Left-wing politics always clothe themselves in a kind of compassion.  Surely you will not oppose helping these children, right?  And I am pragmatic to the extent I’m glad starving children are fed by any means.  But opening the Pandora’s box of leftist means is always a slippery-slope to more use of state power and, inevitably, to leftist utopian cost-benefit analysis where everyone who opposes us is a literal Nazi and, therefore, we’re justified to stop them with violence.  When coercion is allowed as a means of obtaining the ends we desire there is no stopping point.

The worst form of evil has good intentions.  It is that of those who imagine themselves as the hero of their own narrative and thus allowed to bend the rules.  This explains the extreme narcissism of Luigi Mangione who saw himself as a worthy judge of a father of two and a husband to a practicing physical therapist.  There was no need for this leftist murderer to look inward, he had completely externalized evil and turned other men into caricature representatives of truly complex multi-faceted problems.  When the ends can justify the means we’ll justify any means.

Pastor Jim Jones preaches his counterfeit Gospel before being abandoned by the US government and having to free his cult from bondage with some poison laced Kool-aid.

Seeing someone I thought was a Christian missionary lament how the United States had “abandoned” them was a reminder of how the great have fallen.  There was not a shred of gratitude expressed towards the American taxpayers who financed them nor acknowledgement of the misappropriation of funds that has wearied voters to foreign aid.  But more stunning to me was unholy alliance between this person of faith and agencies of US imperialism.  Since when has the love of Jesus become an extension of the US regime abroad?  Are they of the kingdom, as they proclaim, or agents of empire?

USAID, despite the name, is certainly not a charitable organization and was formed in 1961, at the height of the Cold War, with an aim of promoting the interests of the US political regime.  That’s fine.  But it has long ago gone off the rails even as far as what it was originally imagined.  The Soviet Union had fallen and the Federal agency created to oppose it morphed from something most would support into a beacon of wokeness—pushing transgenderism and abortion.

Break the Yoke of Fraudulence 

The reason why USAID is being dismantled is because we can’t sort the legitimate from illegitimate function of the agency.  Sure, it may help people in need, but funding it also is enabling of evil and maintained through a system of coercion we call taxes.  Anything good that it did can be done through other means.  This functional fixedness of those who depend of government, especially on the part of those professing Christ, makes me wonder where their faith lies and what their actual mission is.

The merger of a Christian charitable cause with government doesn’t purify government—it taints the witness:

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?  What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?  Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?  What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” Therefore, “Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.” (2 Corinthians 6:14-17 NIV)

The accusations of “Christian nationalism” against those who want a government that performs basic functions were always just a smear by those in alliance with imperialism and Godless globalism.  While I’m not a fan of God and country, at least the flag waving religious patriot knows there is a difference between their Christian mission and secular state.  The left, by contrast, confuses these categories and would have social program replace true charity and community aid.  In one case you have those who may tend to overreverence nation, but in the other there are those who truly represent empire and yet tell us they their only  citizenship is the kingdom of heaven.

The truth is that the ‘Christian’ left is simply the left merely wearing the words of Christ as a disguise for ideological agenda.  Those decrying the reduction of empire and return to responsible governance never said thank you to those funding their do-gooderism.  It was, for them, all about holding those “chief seats in the synagogue” and their own glory as humanitarians.  They may speak against Trump, but then have never uttered a word against the waste, fraud and abuse that has made these broad sweeping cuts popular with common people.

The true Christian spirit is that of a Federal employee who told me about the enormous amount of inefficiency and waste in his own agency and—while making no profession of faith—supports the effort of DOGE knowing it may impact his employment.  That, to me, is someone who understands self-sacrifial love more than someone feeding the poor on another person’s dime and then going to social media to complain when their funds are cut.  They’re grandstanding.  While my Federal employee friend is a truly humble public servant who is grateful and not biting the hand that feeds him.

None of this to say this “abandoned” former hero of mine is a bad person.  They clearly are using their abilities to help other people in desperate need.  I applaud that.  And yet their public statement betrays.  There is an attitude or spirit there that is different from Christ.  I would much rather they just be a secular humanist—subscribed to partisan leftist politics—and own it.  They should just admit that they’ve abandoned faith in Jesus and are looking for a worldly system.  Judas Iscariot is the patron saint of faithless social justice, guilt trips and envy—when you betray your calling just own it.

The People Want a King, Part II: The Idolatry of the State and the Call to Self-Rule

Standard

A decade ago, in “The People Want a King, Part I,” I wrestled with the ancient cry of Israel—“Give us a king!”—from 1 Samuel 8, seeing in it a mirror to our own craving for centralized power. I cast Trump, then a looming figure on the horizon, as a Saul-like pretender—brash, self-absorbed, a king unfit for the throne. The heart of man, I argued, is frail and fearful, ever eager to trade liberty for the illusion of security. Now, ten years on, we revisit that cry, turning the lens inward and upward: what happens when the king we demand becomes a god we worship? And what might it mean to cast down that idol and govern ourselves under a higher law—one that admits no rival?

Let us begin with a heresy: government is not sacred. It is not a divine institution bestowed from on high, nor are its stewards a priestly caste anointed with heavenly oil. Scripture offers no such mandate. The state is a human construct—a tool, a mechanism, a servant of necessity. It is not the ekklesia, the called-out assembly of God’s people, nor the Kingdom of Heaven breaking through the veil. It is, at its core, a business: a transactional entity exchanging services for tribute. When it ceases to serve—when it grows fat and lazy, a Blockbuster Video in a Netflix world—it deserves no reverence, only replacement. To treat it otherwise is to fashion a golden calf from the scraps of bureaucracy.

Yet the cry persists: “The nation is too complex for such simplicity!” I encountered this objection recently, a rebuttal to my call for radical restructuring. The argument, draped in the garb of sophistication, insists that governance transcends mere commerce—that its intricacies demand a permanence beyond critique. This is a shade thrown at those, like the DOGE reformers, who dare to wield the axe of efficiency against the overgrowth of empire. It is a plea for the status quo, cloaked as concern for “public trust.” But trust in whom? The regime that has ruled longer than memory, entwined with corporate titans and special interests, bleeding the commons dry? The trust was shattered long before any billionaire CEO took the helm; it crumbled under tax rates that plunder and wars that pulverize the defiant.

Here lies the theological crux: complexity is not a virtue—it is a veil. In 1 Samuel 8, Samuel warned Israel that their king would take and take—sons, daughters, fields, flocks—until they were slaves in all but name. The modern state has fulfilled this prophecy with chilling fidelity, its mission creep a slow idolatry. What begins as a servant becomes a lord; what promises order delivers oppression. The labyrinthine bills, the thousand-page tomes of legislation—these are not signs of wisdom but of deceit, a Sanhedrin of scribes hiding corruption behind the law’s letter. To call this sacred is to confuse the Temple with the moneychangers’ tables.

Government as business is no mere metaphor—it is a functional truth. It trades protection and infrastructure for our coin and consent, a covenant not unlike the marketplace. Yet unlike the agora, where competition hones the blade of excellence, the state resists renewal. Private enterprise, for all its flaws, bends to the will of the consumer: Sears falls, Amazon rises. Governance, enthroned as monopoly, calcifies. Its priests—elected or appointed—crown themselves with divine right, decrying reform as sacrilege, a “threat to democracy.” But democracy is not their god; power is. And power, unchecked, builds altars to itself.

This is the sin of the political establishment: they have conflated the nation with their institution, the people with their rule. The nation is not the state, nor the state the nation—just as Israel was not its kings, nor its kings Israel. Government should reflect the imago Dei in its people, a stewardship of justice and flourishing. Instead, it mirrors Baal, demanding sacrifice from the many for the feast of the few. How is this sustained? Through a catechism of control—children reciting pledges, citizens taught to venerate the machine as eternal. To question it is to court excommunication.

Yet Scripture beckons us elsewhere. The restoration of governance requires a return to first principles: simplicity as clarity, transparency as righteousness, accessibility as the leveling of pride. The state’s convolution is no accident—it is a shroud for sin, a “you wouldn’t understand” that echoes the serpent’s whisper. To dismantle it is not anarchy but exorcism, a stripping back to the studs to expose what festers. The old guard, like Saul clinging to his throne, shriek at the loss of their sacred monopoly. But their divinity is a lie, and their temple must fall.

The Stagnation of the External, the Promise of the Internal

Consider the contrast: a business that squanders its capital dies; a government that squanders ours endures. This is the curse of external governance—its inertia defies the natural law of adaptation. Were it subject to the crucible of choice, only the fittest form would stand. Instead, it grows sclerotic, a Leviathan too holy to slay. And the people, seduced by its permanence, make it their idol. They crave a king to think for them, a mediator to absolve their agency. Politicians—prostitutes of the soul—oblige, peddling promises they half-believe, deluded into messiahs of their own making. Zelensky’s advisors call him mad with grandeur; Washington’s geriatrics are no different, mistaking their tenure for providence.

This is not governance but bondage, a learned helplessness masquerading as piety. The privately employed know their limits—life persists beyond their shift. But the state’s acolytes preach indispensability, as if only they can wield the scepter. Contrast this with self-governance: a people ruled not by fleshly lords but by principle, by the law written on their hearts. Jeremiah 31:33 whispers of such a day; Hebrews 8 seals it in Christ’s blood. At the civic level, this need not mean chaos but discernment—shuffling roles, pruning branches, trusting that micromanagement by fools yields only thorns.

Why, then, the sanctity of the status quo? It is the coward’s theology: easier to bow to mystery than to wrestle truth. As Israel preferred a king to the uncertainty of judges, so we prefer bureaucracy to responsibility. Samuel’s warning rings anew: the king takes, and we cry too late. External governance is not our salvation—it is our stagnation, a false god promising safety while forging fetters.

The Myth and Monuments of the Federal Cult

To cement this idolatry, the Federal government has woven a mythology and erected monuments rivaling the temples of old. Consider the Capitol, that domed sanctum of marble and myth, its steps ascending like an altar to a civic deity. The Lincoln Memorial, a brooding Parthenon, gazes over a reflecting pool as if to baptize the nation in its own reverence. These are not mere buildings—they are shrines, designed to awe, to whisper: “This is eternal, this is beyond you.” Like the ziggurats of Babylon or the temples of Rome, they fuse power with divinity, demanding obeisance from the pilgrim and the peasant alike. The Founding Fathers, recast as demigods, stare down from friezes and statues, their words carved into stone as if they were Moses descending Sinai. Big Brother is not God—yet here he looms, a surveillance state cloaked as savior, its all-seeing eye promising protection while its fist tightens the leash.

This cultic architecture is no accident—it sells the lie that the state is sacrosanct, its form immutable. The pledge of allegiance, recited by schoolchildren, is a liturgy; the flag, a totem; the Constitution, a holy writ too sacred to amend save by the high priests of amendment. Yet this is a sleight of hand. The Constitution, for all its brilliance, is a human document, not a divine oracle—its framers knew it, urging vigilance against its abuse. The Federal cult inverts this, turning a tool into a god, a means into an end. As the temples of Baal housed idols to blind the masses, so these monuments obscure the state’s frailty, its susceptibility to rot.

Enter January 6th, 2021—a day branded as a desecration, a violation of the “sacred ground” of democracy. The narrative drips with priestly indignation: rioters stormed the Capitol, profaned its halls, threatened the holy order. Politicians clutched their vestments, decrying the “insurrection” as an assault on the nation’s soul. But let us parse this claim with a smirk—how many have died at the hands of this government, overseas and at home, in the name of “protecting democracy”? Millions, if you tally the wars and drones, yet the single death of that day gets the sackcloth and ashes. If the Capitol is sacred, what makes it so? Not its service to the people—its corridors have long echoed with the clink of corporate coin and the murmur of self-interest. Not its fidelity to justice—its laws have sanctioned plunder at home and terror abroad, not least against Argentina, whose people still bear the scars of U.S.-backed meddling and economic strangulation. The sanctity, then, is a projection, a mythos guarding the idol. January 6th was chaos, yes—ugly, reckless, and lawless—but to call it a sacrilege assumes the temple was holy to begin with. It wasn’t. It was a house of power, not of God.

The true violation predates that day: the slow consecration of a bureaucracy into a deity, the elevation of marble over morality. Ancient temples hid their emptiness behind splendor; the Federal cult does the same, crying “blasphemy” when the curtain is pulled. January 6th didn’t defile a sacred space—it exposed a hollow one, a monument to a king the people demanded but never needed. And here’s where Argentina’s President Javier Milei enters, grinning like a Cheshire cat as he handed Elon Musk a chainsaw in 2025, etched with “Viva la libertad, carajo” (“Long live liberty, damn it”). Milei, who’s taken his own chainsaw to Argentina’s bloated state, wasn’t just gifting Musk a tool for bureaucracy—he was practically dancing with glee to see Musk turn it on the U.S. regime that’s bullied his nation for decades, from IMF debt traps to covert coups. It’s less a symbol of shared efficiency and more a middle finger to the empire, wrapped in a libertarian bow.

Trump’s Mandate and the Singular King

So where does Donald Trump fit in this unholy pantheon? In Part I, I cast him as a flawed Saul—brash, impulsive, a king more enamored with his own mirror than his people’s good. I stand corrected, or at least refined. Trump is no savior, nor should he be—Christians have but one King, enthroned above all earthly powers (Colossians 1:16-17). Yet he wields a mandate, both legal and theological, to tear down these idols, and therein lies his purpose—not as messiah, but as iconoclast.

Legally, Trump’s authority stems from the Constitution itself—a document that vests executive power in a president elected by the people (Article II, Section 1). His 2024 victory, a roar against the entrenched cult, grants him the democratic right to wield that power against inefficiency and corruption. The Federal government, swollen beyond its constitutional bounds, has no divine charter to resist pruning. The framers envisioned a lean state, not a Leviathan; Trump’s DOGE-inspired axe—however blunt—aligns with that original intent. He can shutter departments, slash budgets, and fire the high priests of waste, all within the law’s letter. The shrieks of “threat to democracy” from the old guard are the death rattles of a dethroned idol, not a defense of principle.

Theologically, his warrant runs deeper. Scripture abhors idolatry—Exodus 20:4-5 commands no graven images, no bowing to crafted gods. The Federal cult, with its temples and myths, is precisely that: a false deity usurping allegiance owed to Christ alone. When Jesus declared, “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Matthew 22:21), He drew a line—Caesar gets coins, not worship. Trump, for all his bombast, serves as a wrecking ball to this blasphemy. He need not be pious to smash Baal’s altars; Gideon was a coward before he toppled the poles (Judges 6:27). If Trump’s tenure exposes the state’s hollow sanctimony—January 6th as symptom, not sin—then he fulfills a divine irony: a flawed vessel breaking a greater folly.

Yet here’s the correction to my 2015 take: Trump is not the point. I overstated his flaws as disqualifying, missing the forest for the trees. He’s no king to crown—Christians must reject all earthly thrones save one. “My kingdom is not of this world,” Christ said (John 18:36), and Paul echoed, “Our citizenship is in heaven” (Philippians 3:20). Trump’s role is transient—permitted, not ordained—to dismantle a false god, not to replace it. The Christian’s allegiance lies with the King of Kings, whose rule brooks no rival, be it Trump, Biden, or the marble gods of DC. Self-governance, then, is not just civic—it’s spiritual, a refusal to outsource our souls to any throne but His.

The Eschatological Hope

The people want a king, but the King we need refuses a throne of stone. To cling to the state as sacred is to repeat Israel’s folly, to trade the Spirit’s freedom for Saul’s spear. Self-governance is not utopia—it is obedience to a higher call, a shedding of idols for the stewardship God demands. Complexity is a liar’s refuge; trust is a martyr of our making. Let Trump tear down the temples—legally, he can; theologically, he should—but let us not crown him in their place. Overturn the tables, tear the veil, and build anew—not a kingdom of men, but a commonwealth of the free, under no crown but His.

And Jesus Had Compassion…

Standard

I’ve frequently been appalled and dismayed by the things I see coming from my former religious peers.  It is very well-meaning, but so horribly misguided.  And recently I saw a post like that, and imagined an incredulous Jesus: “You are Israel’s teacher, and do you not understand these things?”

*sigh*

What I’m talking about is the intellectuals of the conservative Mennonite cloister, those who teach the Gospel of Niceness and side with Judas and Social Justice who confuse Jesus with a political figure who is seeking to install a Marxist regime.  They ride on the leftist bandwagon, believing it makes them countercultural—when they’re simply going along with the powerful elites of our time.  Hypocritical elites who have mandates for us and exceptions for themselves.

The offending post was one of such glaring false equivalency that I can hardly fathom a thinking person would come up with it.  The misleading commentary is that Elon Musk resharing a meme in support of his efforts to remove waste, fraud, and abuse from the government is the same as Hillary Clinton applying a nasty label to those who dared to vote against her.  This is the statement:

Clinton called millions of ordinary Americans a “basket of deplorables.” 

Musk called millions of ordinary Americans “the Parasite Class.” 

When Jesus saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. (Matthew 9:36)

First of all, the first part is true, Clinton did indeed call ordinary Americans a “basket of deplorables” saying that half of those who were voting against her were “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic.”  It is to say that over thirty-one million people who got tired of the glib “We came, we saw, he died” imperial-lib establishment that she represents are just horrible people.  

Not only is she punching down, attacking a bunch of ordinary people for voting against her, but the reason she is demonizing then is to terrify vulnerable people.  It is a cynical divide and conquer strategy, purely for sake of securing political power for herself, and part of a campaign to turn Trump’s simple effective “Make America Great Again” into something divisive and scary rather than an inclusive unifying message.

Elon Musk, by contrast, merely reshared a post.  He did not say half of the Democrat party support is parasites.  What he did say is “90% of America loves @DOGE.”  In other words, he is speaking for the crowd rather than against it.  Furthermore, the meme is not about legitimate social programs and those who benefit.  Nobody in the Trump administration is calling for slashing the rightful entitlements of Social Security or Medicare and Medicaid.

Name calling!  Accusing elites of exploitation!  Jesus would never do that, right?

What DOGE has taken aim at is the totally ridiculous and absurd, obviously fraudulent use of public funds, which 90% of America (if properly informed) supports.  The ‘crowd’ would be fully on Musk’s side if they weren’t being lied to or blinded by partisan bias.  It is compassion for those truly “harassed and helpless” that is drives the effort to increase government efficiency—and the social elites who willfully take advantage of taxpayers should be called out.

To those doing apologetics for waste, fraud and abuse, who are pushing this dishonesty take and misrepresentation: I would find it so much more tolerable if it was a forthright endorsement of sending money for far-left causes.  Just come out with it and say that you want money funnelled through USAID to pay for global promotion of transgenderism and pro-imperialist propaganda—you want this, be honest.

Compassion for the Brood of Vipers?

“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?” (Matthew 23:33 NIV)

Jesus had compassion for the crowds, but he spoke very condemningly of social elites who used their positions of influence to put heavy burdens on the shoulders of others—while not offering a finger to help.  

Jesus pretty much describes the telescopic philanthropy, the virtue-signaling and pearl-clutching of modern social justice.  

Jesus did not show compassion for these moralizing frauds.

Nice Jesus is upset about mean Tweets calling out social elites.  Real Jesus was killed because he wouldn’t stop insulting the people who thought they were above the ‘deplorable’ unwashed crowds.  Nice Jesus only would affirm and accepts everyone without ever requiring a change.  Real Jesus once compelled a tax collector (and cheat) to give back his ill-gotten gains—he greeted the promise of restoration by pronouncing salvation had come to this house.

If Jesus walked the streets of Manhattan today he would be accused of being very meanspirited, labeled as hateful, and likely cancelled by the woke elites.  They would whip up the crowd by taking things he said out of context, by calling him a homophobe, sexist or racist.  After all, he used the word “dog” to describe a foreign woman.  That is what the critics of Jesus did, he called them out and they false accused him.  He would most certainly be diagnosed as being a cult leader and narcissist for his claims.

Not saying a pair of trolling billionaires are the same as Jesus.  But they certainly do take after the character of that man who was overturning the tables of the money changers and chasing out of the temple.  Lest we forget, the money changers were those who took advantage of the poor who were obligated to pay the tax.  This money was supposed to go to the upkeep of the temple and yet teams of grifters, offering a service, were being parasites:

Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. “It is written,” he said to them, “ ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’” (Matthew 21:12-13 NIV)

The Gospels contain differing accounts of this event, some scholars believe it may be about two separate times when Jesus went charging in on a little ‘insurrection’ rampage, but interestingly his explanation of authority to do this cleansing was later misconstrued and used at his trial.  

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

The corporate media has taken fabricated tales and normal diplomacy with a foreign power—and they spun it into an incredible “Russian collusion” narrative.  Trump talked about the “very fine people” on both sides of the Charlottesville statue controversy, and he took great pains to qualify his statement—by very specifically condemning the white nationalists and Nazis in the crowd.  But it didn’t stop the media from running the story “Trump Calls Nazis ‘Fine People'” and Joe Biden, along with many other Democrat partisans, have continued to repeat this lie.

Where Trump, and MAGA, clearly delineate between legal and illegal immigration, their detractors muddy the waters.  The left takes Trump’s desire to keep America safe from the flow of Fentanyl and of unvetted foreign nationals and twists it into xenophobia and a threat to legal immigration.  It is deliberate deception.  The far-left wants to keep brown and black people terrified that’s how they’ve always won—by fear-mongering the crowd, they deceive the sheep and, when that does not work, they will imprison or assassinate their opponents.

Remember ‘kindness is everything’ my leftist friends, right?

Evil doesn’t like to have a light shown on it and when you see all of the screeching in response to DOGE taking a look behind the walls of bureaucracy you do really start to wonder why.  Why are they treating Musk as if he’s just some Nigerian scammer trying to get our information?  Is it because he’s from Africa?  It is totally ridiculous.  Lawmakers circle the wagons and tell us we have no right to know how our money is spent!  It’s time to drive out those who have used us to enrich themselves.

There is always a spy versus spy aspect to this where accusation is met with a recrimination.  Both Jesus and those elites questioning his authority claimed that their counterpart was demon possessed or of the Devil.  It would require some wisdom and discernment to know which of the two sides to believe.  But the religious frauds of our day still side with the elites against the crowd.  They defend the status quo and the corrupted established system.  It is always the beneficiaries of fraud that fight against the reform.

When My Own Neck Was on the Line

Standard

On December 4, 2024, a shadowy figure, in a dark hoodie, waited for his opportunity, ran across the street, and then fired three shots.  A married father of two stumbled to the ground as his killer fled the scene.  Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare was murdered and his killer allegedly a 26-year-old, disgruntled by botched a neck surgery that had left him in pain and disabled.

As father of two, husband of one, who had severe neck issues, and surgery, I had a lot of empathy for both men.  Very clearly this was an act of misdirected rage.  The killer, like most of us, wanted someone to blame for their life falling apart and a very wealthy insurance company chief executive made a convenient target, made a scapegoat, for a system that is broken at multiple levels.

When I was initially injured, in my twenties, I went to Dr. Rajjoub, he was known as one of the leading neurosurgeons in the area from what my mom found and we sat waiting in his office for a long time.  When we finally got to the exam room, the doctor was very brisk, “physical therapy.” 

My parents and I sat with our jaws open.  And my mom, a bit faster on her feet, stammered a protest.

Rajjoub broke his stride.  And he explained, very briefly, that better surgery options, like disk replacements, were on their way and I should wait.  And amazingly enough, a little physical therapy would get me back on my feet again.  He was right.

Fast-forward to a couple of years ago and a decade or so after this conversation and my neck pain was back with a vengeance.  And this time physical therapy, after an ill-advised trip to a chiropractor, would not produce sufficient results.  I knew with the numbness and loss of strength, the window of opportunity was beginning to close, there would need to be surgery soon or I may never be restored to full use of my right arm.

So I got an appointment with a specialist, at our local hospital, explained the history and my current symptoms.  This neurosurgeon agreed that it was time to go under the knife and we began to discuss the particulars of the procedure he would do.  What he would describe is a neck fusion.  They bond a few vertebrae together, around the injury area, to bring some stability and restore the gap for the pinched nerve to travel through.

I was underwhelmed.  I didn’t wait this long to get an inferior surgery.  So, once again, I enlisted the help of my mom.  And the goal was to find an alternative option who would do a replacement rather than a fusion.  We ended up contacting Virginia Spine Institute and I was soon talking to a young energetic Bucknell graduate.  We exchanged stories about my home town, and common experience at the local watering hole, before we got down to the business at hand.

One of the items to consider, going in, was that this medical group was out-of-network, my insurance would likely reimburse for a little and yet not nearly the whole cost.  But, given I only have one neck to spare, and that VSI seemed state of the art—I went with my gut and bit the bullet.

The results were phenomenal.

My veteran physical therapist was totally amazed at the speed of my progress.

As if to confirm my decision, already on my way back to work, I went through the drive thru at Dunkin a few days after the surgery, still wearing the neck collar as precaution, and had a brief exchange with the cashier who gave an account of her own experience with neck surgery.  She had the fusion, was still dealing with chronic pain, and validated every concern that I had with the outdated practice.

An activity not doctor recommended.

So why did she, and the killer of Thompson, have a surgery that should be discarded to the annals of medical history?

There are multiple contributing factors, as always, insurance companies slow in their acceptance of change, surgeons who don’t want to get trained in a whole different way of doing things when they have mortgage to pay plenty of work, but truly at the heart of it all is the FDA moving at a turtle’s pace.  The agency has lagged well behind counterparts in Europe and who knows why.  There is no Big Fusion industry lobby to blame as far as I can tell.  So what’s the hold up?

This approval process really underlines the misplaced faith many have in government agencies.  While Europeans were getting a far better option, literally for decades, those of us under the protective care of a Federal regulatory bureau, suffered the ‘cure’ barely an improvement on the disease.  And really need to ask the question why.  Why can the FDA work fast to approve a pharmaceutical and yet not to ban dangerous red dyes?

The answer is likely a combination of lack of political will and bureaucracy.  The real problem is this notion these institutions are all science and not political or biased.  

It is tempting to just call it incompetence (or cook up some cockamamie theory) but it is more than that.  We do fusion surgery rather than risk replacements and that is because what is established seems less risky than a newer procedure.  There is probably a big assumption that because an opinion exists there is no need to move quickly.  And then an agency is made of people.  It is not some monolith constructed of pure unadulterated science.  No, it is rather like where you work, an institution that is really only ever as good as the management.

Many smart people work at the FDA.  But it is not their job to make sure that the latest technology gets to the consumer.  They do their assigned tasks.  And thus some items may fall through the cracks.

The most tragic part of Thompson’s murder is that it targeted someone who was doing their job and working within conditions set by the industry and the government.  This idea that removing a profit motive will just magically fix everything is wrong.  What is truly needed is a major disruption of status quo for regulatory agencies.  There is really nothing sacrosanct or unquestionable that the FDA does.  Science needs scrutinized, the experts miss things and have their own private motives.

Furthermore, the rising cost of healthcare doesn’t have one singular cause.  The left wants to explain everything bad as being a result of evil capitalism, whereas the right always wants a secret plot to destroy the health of America, but the reality is much more complex and not nearly as exciting as these two ideologically driven fantasies.  It is simply the limits of system and cost of the technology in many cases, coupled with a crippling burden of compliance.

There is a big reason why the small medical practices are disappearing, swallowed up by giant politically connected and bureaucratic nightmares.  There is also a reason why, in the age of the ACA requirements, insurance companies must push back against waste of invested resources.  We’re all caught in a tangled ball of competing interests and may need our Alexander to take a sword to this gigantic seemingly unsolvable knot.  

Isn’t Socialism wonderful?

This is why I’m willing to give new Health Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. a chance.  We need reform and we needed it yesterday, it is decades overdue like the eventual approval of the disk replacement surgery that has allowed my return to an active and fulfilled life.  And, if you don’t like it, then maybe you should try Canada where healthcare is free, if you can get through the line.  Amazing how nobody blames public health officials—until you get one who goes against the status quo they claim to hate.