How A Culture Creates A Mass Murderer

Although gun ownership is way up, but shooting deaths are down in comparison, there is a lot of angst and the wringing of hands when some unstable person goes on a shooting spree. And in the midst of this, people seem to be at a loss as to what we can do to put a cork in it. And that is what perplexes me - people seem unable to grasp that it is a waste of time trying to to fix the problem by RE-acting instead of by acting.

Before we can  figure out what to do, we must first figure out what we have already done that contributes to the instability of some people to the extent that they can commit such insane crimes. Why, after hundreds of years are young people now bouncing off walls - even the suicide rate is escalating?

The first thing we need to understand is that most shootings are not a product of mental illness, though it appears that way. It is actually a result of mental conditioning. More and more young people are being conditioned by our current culture to act with anti-social behaviors. After all, mental illness has always been with us, but has not resulted in so many mass murders in so short a time. No - but what is new is our rapidly changing - and deteriorating - culture.

If I were tasked with creating a culture where people feel so disassociated with others that it would result in a mass shooting, here is what I would do - ask yourself if this hits a chord.

The very first thing I would do is disable the persons' conscience. To do this, I would take God out of his or her life. It makes no difference whether or not there is a God - whether God created us or we created Him does not make a difference in how we do or do not have a moral conscience. In other words, if we do not fear God because we do not believe in a Heaven and Hell, we have much less reason to lead a life of morality.

Then I would take away the old-fashioned idea of taking personal responsibility for our actions; that life choices should be like those in video games, where there is a do-over for any choice - simply end the game and start over. No consequences for making poor choices.

Along that same line, the next thing I would do to insure a good crop of mass murderers would be to get rid of any semblance that there is any sanctity of life; that life, itself, is not all that important. To this end I would promote abortion, ensuring that children grow up with the realization that it is just hunky dory to end a human life as long as it is deemed to be inconvenient. If you make poor choices, it's just time for a do-over. No consequences. This takes the lack of personal responsibility to it's highest level - life and death.

To further the development of a mind that is capable of mass murder, I would invent addictive video games that teach developing minds not only how to kill everything in sight, but to feel excitement, and even joy at doing so - an adrenaline rush. And that is the addictive part of such games. And like any other adrenaline rush, it drives adrenaline junkies to move up to a bigger, better rush. Seeking the ultimate high.

And to make sure unstable minds have no reason to NOT commit murder, I would invent social media, where such individuals can live in a world where there is no need to actually meet face-to-face with other people, or make real, human, personal connections that would otherwise provide the individual with relationships that can ground them to reality. In a recent poll, 22% of millennials  say they have NO FRIENDS! So, who in their life is anchoring them? Who is instilling personal connections with others, to provide them with a sense that other people have value?

Finally, I would fill the teaching staff at colleges and universities with professors intent on indoctrinating students with radical ideas, and put the mainstream media into the hands of those who would further promote radicalism, and brainwash people by not offering an unbiased view of their story lines.

Of course, it is even more complicated than this, but these are the things I would do that would insure that susceptible people would be prone to mass violence. And I am absolutely certain that these things do contribute heavily. And that is why we, as a people, need to reconsider the long-range results of changes in our culture and begin working on making changes to those changes.

I do not oppose change - change is necessary. But here is the difference: conservatives,by nature, take it slowly, trying to make sure there are no undesirable long-term consequences, while liberals tend to "want it now", and future consequences be damned.

So, just how do we fix this? In the home! Families - particularly parents - need to take an active role in reducing the impact of such things. Provide your children with a moral compass through religion. Teach them the importance of taking responsibility for their choices so they will be more likely to use greater care in making those choices. Then work to teach sanctity of life by ending abortions of convenience, and limit them to those that involve a life-threatening issue or incest. And limit your child's dependence on addictive video games, even if non-violent, and severely limit their use of social media. In fact, ban social media for any child under the age of 16 - give them a chance to make real, face-to-face relationships with others. And require your representatives to set up a program that monitors universities and forces them to teach our kids HOW to think, and not WHAT to think. And stop watching/listening/reading media that show a clear bias in their reporting.

Do these things in every family, and mass murders will become the rarity they should be. And if a child's family is unable to do do, for whatever reasons, we need after school programs that help to fill that void.

/

"Cultural Appropriation" is BS

The radical political correctness police keep harping and railing against anyone who eats or wears anything from another culture, claiming it is somehow "wrong". Today they are slamming Rihanna. To those idiots I would only say that America is, and always has been a "melting pot", and most sane, reasonable people are proud of that. Only haters, bigots and morons would take issue with it.

According to them, only Mexicans can make or eat tacos; only Italians can eat pasta, only Japanese may wear a kimono. And only black people can have dreadlocks.  That's all just so much BS.

Everyone in America "appropriates" the cultures of others - how many of the black "Do-Wop" groups of the 50's wore their hair in an American DA (short for ducks a**)? And how many Mexicans have eaten a hamburger or hot dog? And how many foreign nationals play, or even watch a the Great American Pasttime - a baseball game?

I have always believed political correctness is evil, and capable of dooming not only democracy, but civilization itself, and that is no exaggeration. It divides people. It forces people to control (or be controlled), and even squelch their thoughts and beliefs. It is, at its very core, the central focus of fascism.

When PC first started, radicals would say it's wrong to call someone "fat", and we should use terms like "weight challenged" in order to not offend the obese. But who in their right mind actually believes that the fat guy doesn't realize you are still calling him fat, only in different words? No, PC does not prevent anyone from being offended - it simply makes radicals feel less guilty about the verbiage they use, and more importantly it is designed to control our speech.

Like "undocumented" instead of "illegal". And the "homeless" are now "outdoor urban dwellers", "Merry Christmas"  is "Seasons Greetings" (and Christmas is the "Winter Festival"), the poor are "economically marginalised" and an "insult" is now "emotional rape". Radical fascists in America realize that to change minds and beliefs, and control the masses, one must first control the speech. Our Founders specifically made "freedom of speech" the FIRST amendment in the Bill Of Rights for good reason. PC is the antithesis of the first amendment, and since it controls speech, it is blatantly fascist.

Note that "politically correct" was initially coined by Leon Trotsky to refer favorably to those whose views remained in sync with the ever-shifting Bolshevik Party line. This was important, as "not PC" people risked prison or death.

Back to "cultural appropriation" - today I will wear a sombrero while eating a pizza, then drive my Japanese car to Native American event, then watch a fireworks display (which were invented by the Chinese). And I may even call some dude "Bro".

/

Is Trump Responsible For Those Deaths at the Border?

To hear Beto O'Rourke and others on the left tell it, President Trump is responsible for the deaths of a father and daughter who drowned trying to get into our country. And I understand why they make that claim. But let's take an HONEST look at what occured.

For nearly 50 years Congress has refused to do anything to fix the loopholes in our immigration policies and laws. Worse yet, for 50 years administrations - both Democrat and Republican - have refused to adequately enforce the laws we do have.

During the previous administration, immigrants were encouraged to come here, in hopes of being covered under the "Dreamer's" policy known as DACA. And as progressives on the left institute Sanctuary policies to protect illegal immigrants - even if they are gang members or criminals - and call for more open borders, elimination of ICE and now decriminalization of entering the U.S. illegally, well, you may as well send out personalized invitations to anyone who would rather be here than in their own country.

And that is precisely why that father and daughter died. Had they not been "invited" by progressive, leftist policies, they might never have come at all, or better yet, might have tried a legal method of entry.

President Trump did not send out those invitations. Instead, he is the first president in decades to take illegal immigration seriously, and try to end it by actually enforcing our immigration laws. And when one side sends out an invitation, and the other side snaps it away, people will get hurt.

There are two possible solutions to preventing such deaths. On the one hand we could do what those on the left want, and open our borders to all who come. On the other hand, we could stop sending out invitations like sanctuary cities and states, and providing them with the means and the legal representation to assist them in flouting our laws, close loopholes, and create more legal methods for entry that concentrates on merit. The former would result in our schools, hospitals and cities being over-run, resulting in a cost of trillions to try and rectify, not to mention allowing some pretty bad people to prey on our citizens. The latter would result in the rule of law being upheld, and an immigration system that is sane, sensible, logical and good for our country.

Yes, I feel for people in other countries who long for a better life. And perhaps we can look into ways we might help them create a better life within the boundaries of their own country. But I think progressives should make a stab at understanding something - our own founders were no different from these people, insofar as being downtrodden and ruled harshly. But there is a huge difference - our founders did not run! They FOUGHT to make this country what it is. And we have fought to keep it ever since. In doing so, there is a strong sense of pride in our country - at least or those of us who have not been brainwashed into believing America is a bad place. But how can it be bad when so many risk life and limb to get here?

The point: these people trying to run from their own country should stop, turn around and FIGHT for something better in their own lands. Unless they do that, they will never be worth anything in ANY country they live in, because they simply are not willing to do the work necessary to fix their own.

Now, back to the claims on the left that Trump is responsible, and why they make that claim - they have no choice. They must either try and blame someone else, or accept responsibility for paving the way for such things to happen. It is either blame Trump, or blame sanctuary cities, and all those rewards that progressives want to issue to illegal immigrants.

And we all know that progressives never accept responsibility for their mistakes. Ted Kennedy anyone? Hillary and her illegal server? And even abortion right up to the moment of birth - the ultimate ditching of personal responsibility that ends in terminating an innocent life. The last time I heard a liberal accept responsibility for anything was when President John F Kennedy took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

No, do not expect "Beto" or his ilk to accept any responsibility for the mistakes made by the policies they hold dear.

/

They're Looking At Health Care All Wrong

 

Politicians and pundits on all sides are looking at health care costs all wrong. They are all focused on INSURANCE, and not the cost of the health care, itself. And whenever you insert someone else between you and a product or service, that person needs to be paid which only serves to make the product/service more expensive. And insurance always increases the cost of things, because medical providers can charge more to insurance companies because they have deeper pockets than individuals, and there are few restraints on increasing costs since insurers just pass those costs on to the individuals paying the premiums.

If we want to decrease the expense of health care, we must first address the actual needs and the costs of those needs, and THEN we can address insurance to cover them. In this post I am not going to include the lifetime damage to bodies because of vaccines which are literally designed to weaken the immune system (or it would destroy the vaccine) which, in turn, makes the patient much more susceptible to more serious autoimmune diseases. I'm not including that here, as it is far too late to change what already is. But people should seriously consider swearing off ANY vaccines henceforth.

First and foremost we need to address the poor lifestyle choices that contribute to 70% of all health issues. One hundred years ago the average person was in good health, barring an injury or contagious disease. In nature, the normal state of health is good health, and poor health is abnormal. We have managed to turn that on its head with our proclivity towards making poor choices like smoking, too many sweets, fake foods (if it wasn't food a hundred years ago it is not food now), an over abundance of chemicals and preservatives and an aversion to actual exercise and physical labor. You don't have to be a doctor to understand that our choices are largely responsible for our health. It is estimated that over 70%, and perhaps as much as 80% of all health care needs are attributed to poor lifestyle choices. If we were to all live by the Biblical statement, "All things, in moderation", and get sufficient exercise, we could cut health care costs in half.

And we could cut them even more by using our tax system to discourage poor and harmful lifestyle choices and apply those taxes to directly reduce the cost of healthier options. For example, increase tax on sodas and cigarettes and use those taxes EXPRESSLY to reduce the cost of healthy, whole food and/or fitness equipment or gym memberships.

Costs can be reduced further by capping malpractice awards. Medicine is an imperfect science; honest mistakes can be made. The ONLY lawsuits that should be permitted are for instances of gross neglect or incompetence, and then the awards should be capped at reasonable levels. This would reduce costs in two ways: first, by reducing the exorbitant costs that doctors and medical establishments must pay for malpractice insurance, and second, because doctors will not feel obligated to "over-test" in an effort to cover their butts. Currently, doctors must test a patient for many things unrelated to the health issue, just to play it safe and not risk a lawsuit.

To reduce health care costs further, it is as simple as stopping the "revolving door of referrals." If you know you need a gastroenterologist, why should you be required to first see a personal care physician for a "referral"? The cost of seeing the PCP adds significantly to the cost. We should be able to schedule our own appointments with specialists as long as we already know the diagnosis.

Case in point - I suspected my medication for ulcerative colitis may have caused PML, a serious viral infection, so I wanted to see a professional to get an MRI to see if I was infected. I had to first see my PCP ($225) to get a referral to see the neurologist ($640) who referred me to an unnecessary HEART specialist (my heart is perfect and had nothing to do with my issue) at a cost of $1200, who then, finally, got me an appointment for an MRI ($1550). A total of $3615.00, when all I needed was the MRI at less than half that cost. And as it turned out, I did not have PML. But $2,000.00 was wasted in getting that eventual determination.

Now that we have lowered the actual costs of health care into the realm of sanity, we can NOW address the cost of insurance. Having reduced health care costs by at least 50-75%, it is safe to assume one of two things - either the cost of insurance can be reduced by 50-75% OR most people can afford their health care costs without the need of insurance, as they would only be paying as much for their health care as they would have had to pay in insurance deductibles, anyway.

A PROPOSAL:

1) INSURANCE. Insurance always increases the cost of things, because medical providers can charge more to insurance companies. Since the insured does not have to pay much of the bill, he has no cause to complain. This is precisely why medical providers charge much less to those without insurance. If they can charge less to one person, they can charge less to all. Also, insurers are classic "middle men", who must be paid for the services(?) they provide.

Solution: the caps that Medicare and Medicaid put on medical services should be across the board, regardless of insurance. Doctors would not lose money as long as the following solutions are also included in the health plan.

2) EXCESSIVE TESTING. Doctors order many more tests than are necessary in order to protect themselves from expensive malpractice suits. All those unnecessary tests get expensive. Patients should be offered the option of declining additional tests and signing a waiver of liability. Which brings us to...

3) MALPRACTICE LAWSUITS. Believe it or not there are people who sue just to try and wrangle money out of doctors and hospitals. In many cases the medical providers simply settle out of court - it's cheaper. And when they don't, awards can be in the millions, so malpractice insurance is very expensive - a cost that providers must pass on to their patients.

Solution: Put reasonable caps on awards. And only proven gross negligence should be allowable as "cause". Medicine is not cut-and-dried science. That's why they call it the PRACTICE of medicine. Nothing is guaranteed, and doctors - just like you and me - can make honest mistakes.

4) REFERRALS. The medical community thrives on the "patient revolving door".  No matter what you see the doc for, chances are he will try to automatically set you up with a "follow up" visit - costing you more money. In most cases it is not necessary. In some cases any "follow up" could be done by phone without cost if your issue has been controlled or eliminated, but that would not put extra cash in the docs pocket.

And then there is the "referral merry-go-round". You may know that you need to see a "gut" specialist - a gastroenterologist. But you can't just make an appointment with one, because your personal care physician can't tap your wallet that way. Nope. You gotta go see him, first, and pay for that office call just to have HIM set up an appointment for you with the gut guy - who may, in turn refer you to some other doctor.

 Solution: Patients should be able to make appointments directly, without a PCP go-between, if they already know who they need to see. EXAMPLE: I had a gastro guy in Maine. I have UC. I moved to VA and knew I needed to have a new gastro guy. But to get one, I first had to get a PCP give me a referal. I KNEW what I needed - there was no need to have a PCP tell me what I already knew, and charge me $220 to do so.

5) PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. These are a license to steal, especially when they keep changing the use of the drug. Drug manufacturers have 7 years to profit as much as possible from their drug before the patent lapses and others can make cheaper generic versions. It's called the "exclusivity period". Designed to help them profit after investing so much into it. But they often profit TOO much. If they can find another use for the drug when the 7 years is up, they can keep their monopoly on it for another 7, and so on. That said...while the R&D is done in America, most drugs are actually manufactured overseas, predominantly China. It makes good sense to bring that manufacturing back to the states and by a non-profit government agency, then sold on a non-profit basis. Big pharma can make their R&D profit, but manufacture and packaging should be on cost basis, to reduce the cost overall.

Solution: First, exclusivity periods should not be permitted more than once per new drug. And if generics can be made so much more cheaply, then so can the original product IF the research and development costs were offset. This can be accomplished by having the government subsidize the R&D, reducing the cost to the drug maker. And by subsidizing, those costs are divided among all taxpayers, and not just the sick. If taxpayers can foot the bill for treadmills for shrimp, or tunnels for turtles, I think the health of the people should be getting first dibs on that money. Subsidize R & D, and remove that cost from the product.

6) UNHEALTHY LIFESTYLES. This is the BIG one. If people were to choose healthier lifestyles, there would be far less need of health care to repair the damage. From the foods we choose to consume, to the amount of exercise we participate in, and to other choices such as smoking, alcoholism and drug addiction, poor lifestyle choices are responsible for more than 80% of all health issues.

Solution: Poor lifestyle choices should be taxed - those whose poor choices drive up the cost of health care should be responsible for those extra costs. Increased taxes on products such as tobacco and alcohol should be put into a fund specifically designed to subsidize health care, or to help offset the cost of any exercise equipment,  athletic gear, or gym membership to encourage exercise. Unhealthy foods and drinks should be taxed and the money collected should be used specifically to reduce the cost of healthier, natural choices which are currently too expensive for many, which contributes to unhealthy choices. In this way, those responsible for higher health care costs would be paying for it, keeping costs down.

The actual health CARE, and not health INSURANCE is what the government should be subsidizing.

So why don't those in the Democrat leadership want to make these simple changes to improve health care and reduce its cost? Because that is not what they want - they want government to CONTROL health care. They understand that if they control your health care, they control YOU.

As a  final thought, assuming we bring costs down significantly, the ONLY insurance a person should need is catastrophic insurance, to cover things most people cannot afford, such as cancer treatment. If insurance covers only catastrophic issues, the cost is significantly reduced even more.

Together, these things are not difficult to achieve. Certainly, many people will still make lifestyle choices detrimental to their health, but the high taxes on those things would help offset the costs incurred. In other words, people choosing to harm themselves would be the same people carrying the brunt of the costs of their treatment. No longer will you and I be paying too much for insurance because someone else chooses to drink, smoke or junk food themselves into oblivion.

/

What Democrats Are Overlooking (Mueller Report)

Robert Mueller was treated by Democrats like an infallible God during his investigation of Trump, with phrases like, "Just wait until the Mueller Report comes in - then we'll have Trump indicted." They were so sure not only because Mueller has a reputation for being the best prosecutor, with great integrity, but also because his team was made up of partisan, anti-trump people, including from the Clinton Team, and they had an unlimited budget and power. They had two years, issued thousands of subpoenas and interviewed several hundred people. Yessir, if  there was any inkling of a crime, they would certainly dig it up.

And for two years we saw exactly that happening. And in spite of all the effort, cost and time, the Special Counsel found exactly - NOTHING! If that team of anti-trumpers could not turn up anything, any sane, rational person would have to say, "Well, I guess there is nothing there" and move on with the People's business.

But not the Democrats in Congress or those running in 2020. All of a sudden they have escaped the asylum and  are now saying  the Mueller Report is bogus, biased in favor of Trump. Really? And now, rather than finally getting back to doing the people's business, they are intent on re-investigating in search of the crimes that the Mueller team was unable to turn up.

Instead of legislating, they are wasting America's time and resources on more bogus investigations to find what just is not there.

Any qualified shrink would say that is derangement. I don't know about you, but I am horrified that America is being represented by deranged people, so intent on damaging the President that they will alienate everyone but their far-left, radical base, and throw away any chance at keeping the power they crave.

America is a great country. Trump has made huge advances, economically and in foreign policy. He is pushing the country forward in spite of the Democrats and corrupt media trying to pull him down. It's time to tell our representatives and senators if they want to take Trump down, do it at the ballot box in two years, but until then to SUPPORT the man who is actually doing the job that needs to be done, instead of trying to be an anchor preventing it.

/

Why 2020 Hopefuls Seem to Defy Sanity

It seems really strange - Democrats seeking the Presidency are veering farther and farther to the left in an effort to please their base, while alienating the vast majority of Americans. "Forever" investigations, impeachment, infanticide, socialism, open borders, sanctuary cities, collusion - these are far from mainstream, yet all the hopefuls are touting them as their policy. Why would they stake their claim on such things? They must know they cannot win the general election on those issues.

Ah! But that is precisely the point! They must first GET to the general election - get the nomination. And the only way they think they can win the nomination is by pandering to their far-left base. And I am sure they realize that once they win the nod, they will have a really tough time pivoting to the center. But, alas, there seems to be no other choice.

Frankly, I don't see any of the current string of hopefuls getting that far. What I see is a Democrat "Dark Horse", who gets into the race at the last minute, as did Bill Clinton, and by being the moderate, sane voice in the crowd, easily wins the nomination.

If not, the Democrats have a better chance of winning Mega Millions than winning the White House.

Why The Electoral College Is Necessary

It seems that every Democrat running for President, all of whom are trying to change the voting rules  so they can win more elections, are in favor of eliminating the Electoral College. And, indeed, that would insure that Democrats never leave office.

The Founding Fathers understood that the election of the presidency must be fair to all. They understood that if the popular vote were used, the large metropolitan centers like New York and Los Angeles would always determine the presidential elections, because they have so many more people. The Founders knew instinctively that it would be wrong for small geographic areas to determine the policies for all of America because 20 percent of America would rule the entire country.

Seen in a more practical way, consider states like Iowa or Wyoming. Since they have relatively small populations, do you really think any politician would even bother to campaign there if the Electoral College was eliminated? And by extension, would their votes even matter? Of course not.

The Founders also understood something else that is lost on many people - people in the cities have much different priorities than those in rural areas. Cities are where the money is, and they have all the amenities at their feet. There are more jobs. They are far removed from the needs of those who still have to struggle on their own, without those amenities, and without all the power of cities like New York. Hence, city people tend to be more liberal. It is simply a case of Maslov's Hierarchy of Needs - the most basic needs are survival, while the highest levels are more social oriented.

What this means - and intelligent people understand, is that without the Electoral College, the 80% of the people who do not live in cities would just be forgotten, as their votes would be meaningless. The large populations of liberal bastions would always rule.

And that is precisely why Democrats want to upset the apple cart and do away with "the little people" having any representation. You know, the ones they call the "fly over states", who cling to their Bibles and guns.

The Electoral College provides small, less populated states with fair and equal representation. And that is why politicians have to campaign in every state like New Hampshire and Iowa, and not just New York and California.

And now the Democrats are getting worse - states like Colorado and Washington plan on giving all their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote NATIONALLY. In other words, the popular votes in those states will not matter, and would not count. For example, if every single person in that state votes for a Republican, but the NATIONAL popular vote goes for the Democrat, that Republican state would  award all their electoral votes to the Democrat, effectively throwing out every vote in their state. And to think people like Senator Warren and Bozo O'Rourke say they want every vote to count. No - they only want DEMOCRAT votes to  count.