Should Obamacare Be A “Teachable Moment”

Photo Credit: Fresh Conservative (Creative Commons)

Despite the loud trumpeting of the losers who are trying to defend the indefensible, the failure of the Obamacare websites was NOT brought about by either too many people trying to use them or a vast right wing conspiracy.

It was brought about by poor design, influenced by politics, and no end to end testing.

Put another way, if these people had been running the show when we went to the moon, they would have skipped Projects Mercury and Gemini and gone right to a Project Apollo moon shot in 1962, despite the fact we hadn’t even tested the Saturn rocket that made it possible.

And they would have gotten the same results they just got with Obamacare, except that there would have been three dead astronauts.  (For those of you under 50, we did land on the moon in 1969.)

Building an e-commerce website is not rocket science.

Google, Apple, Amazon, and Pro Flowers, among others, are names you see on this publication’s website often, either because we have a business relationship with them or they provide services for us. They are the gold standard in e-commerce because they have international points of presence and their sites work as advertised.  They also have one other thing in common.

None of them were only tested for two weeks.

So, asking the logical question, why was the Obamacare site built by a contractor from Canada without assistance from the gold standard in American technology?  Was it because there were political considerations?  If so, what were those considerations?

It would appear that close to a billion (with a B) dollars was expended.

As Democrat Congresswoman Anna Eshoo put it, “Amazon and eBay don’t crash the week before Christmas. Proflowers doesn’t crash on Valentine’s Day.”

If Obamacare can be described as Barack Obama’s signature accomplishment, then its launch can be described as typical of his administration’s failings.

If normal people were tasked with constructing an e-commerce front end to the nation’s healthcare system, they would invite their friends from Google, Amazon, and Microsoft to lunch.

Those are companies quite capable of designing such a system.

Three years ago, they would have asked, what’s the best way to go about this (and how much should it cost)?

I’m quite sure nobody would have answered that they should sole source the work from a Canadian company that is a professional government contractor.

Reality, however, never stops Barack Obama and his sycophants.  When you elect a guy who has never run anything to the most powerful executive position in the world, this is what you get. A CEO who wears no clothes and a staff afraid to tell him he’s naked.

And, frankly, if you think that had the electorate elected John McCain in 2008 things would be better, you are smoking crack. He’s never run anything, either.

The next election needs to be about competence, not politics.

Healthcare should be a signature lesson for everyone.

Let’s not kid each other.  Whether you take your cues from Hillary, Barack, George W., or Ronald, our healthcare system is fundamentally broken.

Given their chance, the lefties tried for a step towards a single payer system.  They got something designed instead by the Obamaites, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi that was long on politics and short on reality.

Left completely out was anything that would actually lower the cost of delivering medical care and medicine.  It is all about spending money, not saving it.

There are plenty of ways to fix the healthcare system; but the truth is that one size does NOT fit all, and there is no single silver bullet.

Instead of recognizing that fact and empowering people at the local level to find solutions, some very arrogant people starting with Obama, Reid, and Pelosi tried to shove a single solution down everybody’s throat.

It won’t work, and the results will undoubtedly be reflected in the next few elections.  Let’s hope that the winners of those elections pay really close attention to this (as Obama would put it) “teachable moment”.

Photo Credit: Fresh Conservative (Creative Commons)

Global Colapse Of The Dollar: No Place To Hide

Money down the drain 300x240 Global Colapse of the Dollar:  No Place to Hide

Dismantling the Dollar’s Global Reserve Currency Status

The U.S. dollar has enjoyed an enviable position for years as the reserve currency of the world. This has allowed the Treasury Department presses to run around the clock printing new dollars that will be used to facilitate global trade, finance the Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Easing, and fund our deficit spending. But the dollar’s status as the reserve global reserve currency is slowly unraveling. The consequences of losing that most favored currency status could be devastatingly inflationary.

In 1944, an international conference was held at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire that included a gathering of over 700 delegates from all 44 Allied nations of the 2nd World War. The purpose was to design a global currency system that would facilitate trade and render financial order to the post-war world. Several significant developments resulted from this summit, formally called the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference.

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), was established, as well as the establishment of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Resolutions accepted at the conference led to the transition of world reserve currency status from the war-ravaged British sterling, to the U.S. Dollar.

The function of the reserve currency is to serve as a standard of value by which all global financial transactions are measured and facilitated. And after Bretton Woods, the dollar was it. All other currencies were fiat currencies that had no intrinsic value, but rather derived their value compared to, and relative to, the dollar, which in turn was tied to the value of gold at $35 per ounce.

This meant that all global transactions were consummated by exchanging national currencies to dollars for uniformity and accuracy. The dollar has continued in this role, even after the dollar was removed from the gold standard in 1971.

What led to the demise of the gold standard has relevance to today’s challenge to the dollar. During the late sixties, government spending grew significantly with the costs of the escalation of the Vietnam conflict and funding of LBJ’s Great Society programs. These were funded mostly by deficit spending, essentially charging the costs with a promise to pay for them in the future. This was extremely risky while the dollar was tied to the value of gold, for overspending and printing of dollars meant an excess of dollars in global circulation which could then be exchanged back to gold, depleting U.S. gold reserves.

This limited the extent to which Washington could deficit-spend, and caused inflationary pressures on the economy. With Washington lacking the fiscal policy discipline to control the spending, President Richard Nixon issued Executive Order 11615, which “closed the gold window,” making the dollar just another fiat currency with a free-floating value for global exchange.

In many ways, we’re facing a similar situation now. The United States has had five consecutive years of more than $1 trillion in deficit spending. The first two of those years we were within a few hundred billion of spending twice what we were collecting in treasury receipts. The lack of discipline and fiscal responsibility in Washington led to a downgrade of the nation’s sea of debt two years ago by Standard & Poor’s. The ratings organization stated at the time, “Elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent with a ‘AAA’ rating.”

S&P added that the nation’s credit rating could be lowered even further if serious attempts to reduce the debt and deficit were not successful.  They further asserted that $4 trillion in spending reduction would be a “good start” towards rebuilding our credit rating.

Global confidence in the dollar is weakening. The massive spending which led to the downgrade of our debt has only been exacerbated by the Federal Reserve’s easy money policy of low interest rates and Quantitative Easing, funded by free-running printing presses and newly minted dollars. As a result, the dollar’s standing as the global reserve currency is steadily eroding.

China has been aggressively touting their yuan, or renminbi, as a replacement to the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Many nations have already agreed to bilateral trade with China, bypassing conversion to dollars. Just in the past two years, China has inked deals with Germany, Russia, Brazil, Australia, Japan, France, Chile, South Korea, United Arab Emirates, India, and South Africa.

“Generally speaking, it is not believed by the vast majority that the American dollar will be overthrown,” Dick Bove, vice president of equity research at Rafferty Capital Markets, said recently. “But it will be, and this defrocking may occur in as short a period as five to 10 years… If the dollar loses status as the world’s most reliable currency, the United States will lose the right to print money to pay its debt. It will be forced to pay this debt. The ratings agencies are already arguing that the government’s debt may be too highly rated. The United States Congress, in both its houses, as well as the president, are demonstrating a total lack of fiscal credibility.”

Money News reported in February, “The greenback is declining as a percentage of the world’s currency supply. Compared with its peers, it has dropped to a 15-year low, as nations show a willingness to use other currencies to conduct business, according to the International Monetary Fund.”

In March, the Wall Street Journal ran a piece titled, “Why The Dollar’s Reign Is Near an End.” They pointed to some of the obvious implications of the dollar’s demise as the reserve currency. “In this new monetary world, the U.S. government will not be able to finance its budget deficits so cheaply, since there will no longer be as big an appetite for U.S. Treasury securities on the part of foreign central banks. Nor will the U.S. be able to run such large trade and current-account deficits, since financing them will become more expensive.” In fact, the March Congressional Budget Office projections indicate that we will be paying over $5 trillion for the next ten years just to pay the interest on the national debt. This figure will be adjusted much higher as the dollar declines in use as the reserve currency, leading to an erosion of its purchasing power.

Sam Zell, chairman of Equity Group Investments, said in an interview with CNBC: “My single biggest financial concern is the loss of the dollar as the reserve currency. I can’t imagine anything more disastrous to our country. I’m hoping against hope that isn’t going happen, but you’re already seeing things in the markets that are suggesting that confidence in the dollar is waning. I think you could see a 25% reduction in the standard of living in this country if the U.S. dollar was no longer the world’s reserve currency. That’s how valuable it is.”

The managing director of Pimco, Bill Gross, who manages more bond assets than anyone else in the world, wrote recently, “The future price tag of printing six trillion dollars worth of checks comes in the form of inflation and devaluation of currencies.”

The Wall Street Journal’s George Melloan concurred, “Indeed, it is unlikely that Americans themselves will escape the inflationary consequences of current Fed policy. The Fed is financing a vast and rising federal deficit, following a practice that has been a surefire prescription for domestic inflation from time immemorial.”

Investor Jim Rogers recently advised, “The dollar is not just in decline; it’s a mess. If something isn’t done soon, I believe the dollar could lose its status as the world’s reserve currency and medium of exchange, something that would lead to a huge decline in the standard of living for U.S. citizens like nothing we’ve seen in nearly a century.”

Dollar weakness has accelerated since the downgrade of U.S. debt. To prevent this continued decline Washington must get a handle on spending, and make serious cuts, not just cuts in the rate of growth as the recent sequester was. The Federal Reserve must discontinue the Quantitative Easing that has buoyed domestic equity markets, but has infused too many dollars into global markets, and created a fiscally incestuous relationship with the Fed buying our own debt. If these actions are not taken soon, all Americans can expect to see double-digit hyperinflation comparable to the 1980s. The continued erosion of the dollar as the reserve currency will affect all of us.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at

Photo Credit: Standard Compliant

Building On The Secular Case For Traditional Marriage

Marriage SC Building on the Secular Case for Traditional Marriage

Is there a strong secular case to be made for the state’s exclusive recognition of traditional marriage? If so, any arguments for a deviation from this accepted, well-established standard should be equally as compelling.

Please consider this brief introductory summary in support of traditional marriage. The case made is purely a secular one. [Note: Featured quotes are that of Iowa Congressman Steve King, whose sentiments were recently featured in National Review Online].

First, there was never a need to officially or explicitly define marriage as an exclusive institution between man and woman. It was understood. As it stands, “To marry, two people must prove they are of opposite sex, not related, of age, and not married to anyone else.”

It is vital that we fully understand the historical precedent behind government’s recognition of such a uniquely designed and specifically defined category/status/classification (i.e. marital). Ultimately, there must be a widespread societal benefit, based on ‘credible and relevant empirical evidence,’ to justify governmental support and/or recognition (which is specifically what Chief Justice John Roberts has requested as the matter comes before the Supreme Court).

Demands for specials exceptions based on personal perceptions of entitlement should not be the primary driver of public policy. It’s these personal demands that have enabled the legalized slaughter better known as abortion. Where is the equality in such barbarism? If advocates of same sex marriages truly seek ‘equality,’ they may want to make the rights of defenseless infants part of their social/political platform and agendas. Regardless, the established reality remains: “There is no requirement for proof of enduring love, comingling of finances, or even intent to cohabitate. To ask the government to certify any of those things would offend all Americans who jealously guard their individual autonomy.”

There’s a reason why the government has never permitted relatives to marry, nor upheld the legality of polygamy. However, baseless propaganda efforts are tactically deeming those who remain exclusively committed to traditional marriage “phobes.” Their efforts are breeding an atmosphere by which even the most reasoned restrictions will not go unchallenged.

Before we enable calculated slander to shape public opinion and force the hand of government, we must carefully examine the health statistics, in particular the high incidences of STDs among the gay community (as verified by the CDC). We are living in a day where government is being forced to comply to the special interests of fringe minority groups at the expense of a time-honored, clinically proven gold standard.

Traditional marriage is the naturally and scientifically verifiable familial foundation (defined gender roles: woman/wife/mother-man/husband/father). On what grounds is THIS essential biological/foundational model overridden? Ultimately, ”government has a compelling interest in a legal record of procreation (this is further indicated by the doctrine of presumed paternity), and in creating a lasting environment where children will thrive. The fact that one must obtain a court order to divorce and the existence of tax-based incentives for marriage are other effects of the government’s interest in marriage.”

What is the justification for dismissing these realities? And why would polygamy and incestuous marriages remain exempt under this new model?

These are questions that must be definitively answered before this is taken any further.

Marriage cannot be redefined without recklessly dismissing the essential natural realities that have shaped our culture for centuries. Sound decision-makers must apply reasoned analysis to reaffirm that “Marriage is the stable platform from which families are launched.” Just as important is the clarity achieved with the realization that “Government surely has a compelling interest in ensuring the stability of that platform…”

A stable and successful nuclear family dynamic has always been the central barometer indicative of a thriving America. That dynamic is in danger of being methodically and irresponsibly dismantled.

But lets not stop here. We need to follow the demands for same sex marriage to its ‘illogical’ conclusion.

It seems we are headed down a disturbing path in which ‘equal’ = ‘same’. It’s as if we are being pressured to relinquish any adherence to or acceptance of defined gender roles altogether. Gender distinctions are becoming obsolete as the roles become more and more interchangeable.

We are beginning to be confronted with a variety of unforseen and pecuiliar scenarios. Calls for equality are coming from multitple directions and threaten to shake our foundations. Actually, our foundations are being tested to see if they are sound as the opposition seeks cracks or weaknesses they can exploit.

We are swiftly entering a realm where the question will be asked: Should there be any limits or restrictions in any area of life based on gender? As the quest for full equality advances, will we be forced to dismiss the idea of gender roles altogether? And if a genderless society becomes the ‘new normal,’ will all boundaries and distinctions be removed? Will gender-based expectations become a mere reminder of a ‘repressive’ social standard held in former days?

As gender-based barriers and restrictions evaporate, we will be ‘free’ to raise our sons to play with dolls and wear dresses, while a man who perceives himself a female will be able to freely take part in all aspects of female-oriented activities – and vice versa.

In a ‘genderless’ society, the marriage institution must remain open and available to all forms of alternative arrangement. Once a nontraditional precedent is set, we may no longer logically place any restrictions on a marriage arrangement, since to do so would be discrimination. No longer will there be a reasonable way for a line to be drawn.

The recognition of same sex marriage ultimately sets a precedent in which gender roles and human desires are relative and accessible, based on a form of equality that removes naturally defining qualifications as needed. A greater ‘good’ is being promoted in the name of ‘sameness’ via state-sanctioned opportunities that neutralize defining characteristics for the sake of fairness.

Are we sure we want to go down this road?

* I dedicate ‘Building on the Secular Case’ to Mr. Bill O’Reilly, on behalf of “Bible Thumpers” everywhere.

Photo credit: loungerie (Creative Commons)

‘Mainstream Media’ Not Mainstream

Media bias1 Mainstream Media Not Mainstream

I never imagined that I’d find myself quoting Bill’s one-time heart throb (okay, eons of time ago), but using her just happens to suit my purpose. (Guess Bill and I aren’t so different after all….)

A persistent (make that constant) theme I have extolled in both writing and speaking is that as Conservatives we should not fall prey to the ingrained habit of referring to the all-but-obsolete establishment media as “the mainstream” or “MSM.” Could anything be further from the truth? Stop and think about it for a minute….

As I like to tell audiences, “You’ll never see [David Gregory or Katie Couric, et al.] at a Denny’s!” It isn’t going to happen!

Back during the Roger Staubach Era, the Dallas Cowboys were affectionately referred to as “America’s Team.” As one might imagine, such a moniker would be considered the gold standard in the world of marketing or PR.

Imagine that you are starting a new grocery store chain, and through a stroke of luck you become known as “America’s Grocer.” Could it get any better than that?

Imagine, on the other hand, that you are one of the “Big Three” television and news networks – NBC, ABC, or CBS. Imagine also that over the past 50 years your viewership has plummeted from a virtual collective dominance of 100% to, say, 25% of the “news”- viewing public.

That would still represent one out of four American adults watching, but put in perspective, three out of four “news”-watchers would have rejected your collective “news” coverage. Not very good!

While that was merely a hypothetical construction on my part, here are some actual numbers for “Evening News Ratings,” obtained at

NBC – 9,640,000 (Total Viewers)
ABC – 8,628,000 ( ” ” )
CBS – 7,482,000 ( ” ” )

Those numbers combined make 25,750,000 out of the current U.S. Population of 315,497,649. The annual population increase is estimated elsewhere (by extension) to be .76%. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated the number of adults 18 or over to be 234,564,000 in 2010, which would be roughly 240,000,000 today, in 2013.

Thus the “Big Three” viewers among the total U.S. adult population (over 18) would be approximately 10.7%…far less than my “guesstimate” of 25%.

One site I came across seemed to indicate that some 74% of adults watch at least some news program weekly. According to this site, “CNN (20%) and FOX News (18%) are the television channels adults most often turn to when they want news or information related to politics or public affairs. These are followed by the networks, including ABC (9%), NBC (8%) and CBS (7%). Other channels include MSNBC (5%), C-SPAN (3%), PBS (3%) and CNBC (1%).”

These figures – for those who watch news or “political/public affairs” programs, as opposed to strictly the “Nightly [Network] News” – show an aggregate of 24%of Adults watching the Big Three.

Getting back to the Nightly Network News (America’s staple before Cable and the Internet)…it would appear that my hypothesis was spot on among viewers ages 25-54, whose numbers looked like this:

NBC – 2,643,000
ABC – 2,328,000
CBS – 2,141,000

For a combined total of: 7,112,000

Removing those 18-24 (31,377,456) and those 55 and over (78,516,273), from the total number of those 18 and over (140,000,000), we end up with 30,106,271. Of that number, the 7,112,000 nightly network “news” viewers ages 18-24 make up some 23.6%.

I’m not sure, frankly, why chose to include a breakout for that particular statistical bracket – surely those over 54 are still keenly interested in what is going on in their country, even if many of those 18-24 are not – but in either case, the percentage of those watching network news range between an estimated minimum of 10.7% and a maximum of 23.6%.

Enough of statistics already, but I felt the need to support my thesis with more than just my opinion. It would be easy to dismiss my argument (that the Establishment Media is anything but the “mainstream,” and should not be thoughtlessly granted cult-like status by calling it that) as or as merely semantical or “academic.”

To do so, however, would represent a colossal failure to recognize the power of labels, or, in a broader sense, the power of language, or that of thought itself (the subject of my first book series, entitled The Secret of Life – Xlibris, 2008).

For those not versed in the science of the mind, the human subconscious (in contrast with the conscious mind) takes things we say and hear quite literally, as fact, as it were…especially when these “facts” are heard and parroted incessantly, by virtually everyone in the culture, on “both sides of the aisle” – including ourselves!).

Those of us who are parents may be keenly aware of the dramatic power – for better or for worse – of labels. While each of my daughters rightly considers herself to be her dad’s “favorite,” I have nicknames for each of them, as well as for our sons. For the most part these nicknames are more on the “cute” side – some having been derived from the inability of younger siblings to pronounce their older siblings’ names, for example – but one of them simply evolved from my repeatedly calling her “special.”

One day at the grocery store or doctor’s office – I wasn’t there, but received the report from my wife later on – an older woman complimented this particular daughter on her big, beautiful eyes, and asked, “What’s your name, little girl?” To which she replied, with the utmost in child-like sincerity and belief – “Special.” And from that day to this she has officially been known as “Special”…and it seems to have had a profound effect upon her life! (I am proud of each of my children, but I believe the success of this particular one has been directly attributable to the self-affirming “label” she has carried throughout her life.)

I will end my obvious point by reminding each of us that the Obsolete Establishment Media (or OEM) is just that. No, it isn’t 100% obsolete, but when less than 1 in 9, or 1 in 4 adults continue to “tune in” (perhaps tune out reality would be more accurate), it can hardly be called the “mainstream media” or “MSM.” Think of it: either 3 out of 4, or nearly 9 out of 10 “adults” are no longer watching – down from 10 out of 10 (of those who were watching anything in the way of “news”) some 20-30 years ago!

Let me underscore that in another way: 75-90% no longer watch the so-called (absurdly-called) “mainstream” media! So enough of the madness! (Those on the Left, of course, completely accept that they are the “mainstream” – even though polls clearly indicate that self-identifying “Conservatives” outnumber “Liberals” by 2 to 1 – 41% to 21% in 2011.)

Think about that: twice as many Conservatives as Liberals…and yet we refer to those extolling the views of the latter (a mere fifth of the adult population) as the “mainstream.” This is a coup of which both Edward Bernays , the “Father of Propaganda,” and his Nazi adherent Joseph Goebbels would have been extremely proud!

To be continued….


Tom Ballantyne is the author most recently of Uncommon Sense…Apparently! A Call To Arms, and Oh Really, O’Reilly! – both available at and at his website:

Why Republicans Lose

Republican Elephant 2 SC Why Republicans Lose

Newt Gingrich fired a cigar-shaped, self-propelled underwater projectile yesterday into the side of the USS Rove and his destroyer escorts.

Os Guinness’ insight is most helpful in the examination — and battle — for the soul of the Republican Party:

Put another way, if there are no universals or absolutes, then ‘normality’ is also relative and must be dictated by an arbitrary absolute created either by the stat or by the consensus of the population. This is true whether ‘normality’ refers to morality or sanity, badness or madness. One man’s ‘normality’ can become an implied or explicit judgment of another man’s ‘abnormality,’ whether mental or moral. Or, the assertion of one man’s ‘abnormality’ may be an assertion of freedom from the other man’s ‘normality.’ A man’s refusal to admit any degree of ‘abnormality’ in himself leads to the process of rationalization required to maintain his ‘normality’ at the expense of the other man’s ‘normality.’ This process tends to rationalize violence; for men justify their mistreatment of others by considering them as “abnormal” simply because others differ from them.

Last cycle, the GOP chieftains’ and lieutenants’ political killing of Todd Akin — yet funding $1M to liberal, homosexual activist candidate Richard Tisei — brings clarity to the philosophy of the Permanent Republican Majority, Karl Rove’s brainchild.

The amoral Permanent Republican Majority’s attempt to become the “normality” of the Republican Party — the concept of transmission being political triangulation which takes the place of principled conservative beliefs based upon conviction and moral absolutes — is troubling.

Christians participating in picking up a Republican House or Senate seat — ignoring one’s behavior, ethics, or integrity — is idolatry and worship of a false god and ultimately will collapse due to faulty construction to the foundation.

The Permanent Republican Majority’s “normality” (i.e. picking up Republican seats regardless of Biblical virtue, righteousness, or standard of decency) is the opposite of the ideology espoused by the wisest man — politically — who ever lived: “Righteousness exalts a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.”

The glory of a nation lies in its righteousness, not in its wealth or military might. If the key to maintaining sustainable freedom is righteousness — opposite of the credo and philosophy of the Permanent Republican Majority — Republicans and America are in a world of hurt.

Worse, Christian values — generally housed within the Republican Party — are being painted as “abnormal” in the attempt by the honchos of the Republican establishment to legitimize homosexual marriage within the Grand Old Party.

The USS Rove and its destroyer escorts’ postulation that their empty political philosophy is the gold standard for “being electable” — when in truth it’s a lust for power and money — challenges the notion that Biblical values, virtue, and Christian “normality” permit a democratic people to remain free.

Freedom always faces a fundamental moral challenge; virtue is a key component of freedom. Taking the Permanent Republican Majority’s route in the end will destroy the Republican Party initially, then America’s freedom.

Someone’s values are going to reign supreme in America. In God’s economy — from a Biblical perspective — the foundation that allows sustainable freedom and guards the nation are justice and righteousness.

Proverbs 20:28: “Mercy and truth preserve the king; and he upholdeth his throne by mercy.”

Michael V. Fox: “God’s loyalty and fidelity guard the king, but other proverbs about the foundation and security of the throne (nation) make it dependent on the king’s (nation’s) virtues.”

Having lost our Judeo Christian heritage (and it’s by-product of a Christian culture), secular America cannot absorb the virtues and values that Wisdom brings — ‘knowledge’, ‘insight’, ‘prudence’, ‘cunning’, ‘discretion’, ‘learning’, ‘guidance’, ‘counsel’, ‘understanding’, ‘competence’, ‘resourcefulness’, ‘heroic strength’ — it sounds like Pig Latin.

Dr. Bruce K. Waltke: “These virtues equip one to rule and to give him gravitas (dignity) associated with wealth.”

The establishment of a just and righteous society is primarily the responsibility of America’s pastors and pews; alas, deceived by the lie of the ‘separation of church and state’, the salt has lost its savor in this civil society.

Profiteering off of this empty, amoral political philosophy — which calls evil good and good evil — when carried to its logical conclusion results in the collapse of the Republican Party…ultimately.

David Lane
American Renewal Project


Photo Credit: Donkey Hotey (Creative Commons)