I am guessing by now that you have heard about the young American couple who had decided to take a year-long bike trip around the world. Jay Austin was a vegan who worked for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Lauren Geoghegan was a vegetarian who worked in the Georgetown University admissions office. Both were 29 years old and they decided to quit their jobs last year in order to make their trip.  
  I think it would be fair to say that these two young idealists lived in a bubble. They had convinced themselves that evil was a “make-believe concept”. Austin in his personal wrote “I’ve grown tired of spending the best hours of my day in front of a glowing rectangle, of coloring the best years of my life in swaths of grey and beige. I’ve missed too many sunsets while my back was turned. Too many thunderstorms went unwatched, too many gentle breezes unnoticed.” A romantic notion, one that a lot of people can admire his willingness to follow through on. But the refusal to believe that there are bad people out in the world who will do bad things to you without the need for you to provoke them was a tragically naïve belief that cost him and Lauren Geoghegan their lives.  
   Their trip went on for 369 days, taking them from the southernmost tip of Africa in Capetown, South Africa, to Namibia, Botswana, Zambia, Malawi, Tanzania, Egypt, Morocco, Spain, France, Italy, Croatia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and finally Tajikistan, where their journey ended when they were murdered along with two other cyclists, one from Switzerland and the other from the Netherlands. Five men exited a car and stabbed the bicyclists to death. ISIS claimed responsibility in print and then followed up with a video showing the five attackers pledging allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.   
   I am also guessing that by now you have heard about the Jihadi training camp in New Mexico where children were being trained to carry out school shootings. There are a lot of disturbing details that are still emerging from this news story. Details like the fact that the children in the compound were armed and ready to engage law enforcement until one of the adults told them to stand down. Details like a deceased 3-year-old disabled boy found at the compound died from being denied his medication and lost his life during an Islamic prayer session to expel the demons they believed were inside him.  Details like one of the children saying that they believed the deceased boy would resurrect in about four months and inform the compound residents of their specific targets. He mentioned law enforcement personnel, educational institutions, financial institutions and banks as potential targets.   
   As shocking as it was for some to discover that a camp like this was operating in the United States, (it was no surprise at all for others that have been warning of such compounds for years) as shocking as the many details that continue to surface about the people who were involved and what they were doing there, there was nothing that could have prepared any of us for what happened when the people running this compound got in front of Judge Sarah Backus. Judge Backus released four of the five adults to house arrest and on a $20,000 "signature bond," which means they just have to sign a document promising to return to court when it is time for trial. If they do not show up to court, then they will face arrest and be required to pay $20,000 as a penalty. Judge Backus also ruled they must reside in “acceptable” living conditions, wear ankle monitors, cannot have firearms, cannot leave the country and can only see their children during supervised visits.  
   How did the judge come to this ruling? Well, the defense attorney for the arrested extremists claimed they were the victims of discrimination because they are Muslims and black. The defense argued that there was no strong evidence of a specific terrorist plot, only aspirations. And the judge agreed that not having a specific plan somehow makes them less dangerous. Backus also made mention of the fact that four of the five had no criminal record (the fifth was a fugitive with an outstanding warrant in Georgia). The guns at the compound were acquired legally and even though the children stood ready to, they did not resist law enforcement. (I would argue at this point that none of that accounts for the child abuse and the death of the three-year-old but that’s just me.)  
    Judge Sarah Backus is a San Francisco transplant to New Mexico. She has a history of issuing low bail to violent offenders. This has led many to speculate that she was motivated more by a social justice activist mindset than from upholding her oath to render justice and protect the public. Given the evidence that was presented and the testimony of law enforcement at the hearing, one could be forgiven for letting the thought cross your mind that she was indeed acting as a SJW rather than an officer of the court. It certainly appears as if the rules of Political Correctness trumped the law.  
   There is evil in the world. There are people prepared to carry out acts of evil. Jay Austin and Lauren Geoghegan didn’t deserve to be murdered. Members of ISIS committed this act of evil and then bragged about it. The people living at the compound in New Mexico shared a belief that many ISIS members would call an “extremist cult”. Those people are now (house arrest or not) out of custody and free to commit an act of violence should their “true target” be revealed with little chance of stopping it until it’s too late. I am left pondering; which is more evil, the attacks the jihadist in New Mexico were training to carry out, or the release of clearly dangerous people in the name of Political Correctness? I just pray that no innocent person pays a price for this judge’s lapse in judgment. 

​   Imagine that you work in an office building. Now imagine that outside of this office building there is a large, very angry crowd that has gathered protesting what they believe to be the policy of the President. Still imagining, you work for a government agency that is at the heart of the policy in question, not a field agent but you work for the agency, and that large, very angry crowd has some folks in it that are menacing and appear to be violent. At this point, you call 911 Emergency Service because all you want to do is go home at the end of the workday. You wait for the police, but no one shows up. You call again, still no one to serve and protect. What would you do?
   If you worked in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices in Portland, Oregon you have already had to answer that question. But not as a hypothetical because it happened during the, sometimes violent, week-long demonstrations in front of their offices. Employees were trapped by the so-called Occupy ICE protests which consisted of many pro-illegal alien folks with a little Antifa sprinkled in for good measure. At least two, documented, 911 calls were placed by the ICE employees but the police either refused or were not allowed to respond.
   Portland, Oregon Mayor Ted Wheeler is at the heart of the issue. The mayor has put in place a policy that forbids Portland law enforcement agencies from assisting any ICE employees while at or away from work. Mayor Wheeler is so strongly committed to the left’s “Resistance” of all things Donald Trump that he is perfectly willing to let citizens of his city who happen to be federal employees to fend for themselves against misguided mobs. (Another great example of virtue signaling in the absence of any real virtue.)
    The National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, a union representing ICE employees, has written a cease-and-desist letter to Mayor Wheeler, asking him to ensure the police enforce the law equally and protect innocent people. The letter says, “Your current policy forbidding Portland law enforcement agencies from assisting employees of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency who request law enforcement assistance while at or away from work is a violation of the United States Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.” However, at this point, there is little indication that the mayor is planning on making any changes to his policy. I’m afraid that it will take litigation to remedy any of this, and I’m further afraid that more people will be injured (or worse) before it’s done.
   Before I go any further I want to make clear that I am not being critical of law enforcement in this case. The men and women in blue, no matter what city or town they work in, do a very hard job in very often tough circumstances. The policy of the mayor makes it impossible for the police of Portland to do their job in this case. There may very well be some officers that believe as the mayor does, but I doubt seriously that there are law enforcement personnel out there who want to see lawlessness on their streets. The failing here is Mayor Wheeler’s need to “stick it to Trump”.
   For those of you who are angry at President Trump for his border policy, I’d like to point out that the separation of children from adults being detained for illegally crossing our border is not actually his policy and never was it. It was a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals during the Obama administration that made it necessary. Obama did the exact same thing after that ruling and struggled to execute it. (And in this occasion, this isn’t meant to be a knock-on Obama as government, regardless of who’s in charge often has difficulty working well on the fly.) If you are angry about Trump’s policy for any other reason, then you are just mad that he is attempting to enforce the law and that is not worthy of a rebuttal.
   For those of you who are caught up in the “Abolish ICE” hysteria, I wonder how many of you know what it is that ICE really does on a day to day basis. I think many of you who fall under that category may be simply following others and have no real idea about this federal agency and what it does. I would simply ask you to learn more about ICE from independent sources and then if you still feel the same, I’d love to know why. Unless you are a terrorist or an illegal alien you have no need to fear them. ICE works to make your communities safer.
   And for those of you who are “for the children”, I’d like to point out that many of the children being brought across our border as a legal prop are not with their parents, or family members of any kind when detained. At this moment there is a thriving human trafficking business in Central and South America that is built on the premise of using children to help provide legal cover for anyone caught illegally entering our country. These children are subjected to harsh conditions, dangerous travel, and often end up working on ranches and farms in slave-like conditions or in the sex trade if they if they cross unimpeded or sometimes even if they are detained but are then released to “family members” already in the States. Shouldn’t we have policies and laws that are enforced that discourage and tries to end this horrific practice? If you really are “for the children”.
   The real problem in the news story about Portland’s ICE office being under siege isn’t the police who didn’t answer the call, and it isn’t the mob or the violence carried out by members of Antifa in that mob, although those are big problems. The real problem is that the mayor of Portland encouraged lawlessness in the city he has sworn to serve. Wheeler’s policy allowed for innocent people to be endangered simply because he doesn’t like who they are working for, the federal government and in Wheeler’s mind Donald Trump. People who are literally working to enforce U.S. laws were allowed to be targeted by domestic terrorist (Antifa) in the name of others who are, by definition, criminals (illegal aliens). That is the real problem here.

​   The political debate over universal health care is not a new argument. In recent history alone we have the examples of Hillary Care, a program that was being developed by Hillary Clinton while she was the First Lady that never came close to being implemented; Romney Care, the plan signed into law for the state of Massachusetts while Mitt Romney was governor that cost the state millions of tax-payer dollars with health outcomes that are still debated to this day if there was improvement; and most recently Obama Care, also know in some circles as the Un-Affordable Health Care Act, which required the Democrats to change the rules of Congress in order to force the stepping stone to single-payer system upon the American people.
   The Affordable Care Act was written in a fashion that made it unsustainable. Many, like myself, believe this was done intentionally with the purpose being that it would lead to the American people demanding a fix and the federal government would then swoop in and save the day with full-fledged socialized medicine (or another step closer to it, at the very least). Regardless of if you believe it intentional or not, it is clear that, due to the continuous rising of premiums for less than adequate coverage and the IRS keeping what would have been otherwise income tax refunds to help cover the costs of “Marketplace” policies, Obama Care as it was written and implemented was doomed to fail. (As many conservative voiced warned.)
   The newest call by far-left politicians to push for is being championed by “Democratic Socialist” Sen. Bernie Sanders in what he calls “Medicare For All”. It was first pushed by the Vermont Socialist during his bid to become the Democratic Presidential nominee. His plan is to extend the current Medicare program, which already has some finical issues, to cover everyone. There are a few problems with that plan, chief among them and easily provable to even the most stubborn of advocate would be the cost.
   A new study was recently released by George Mason’s Mercatus Center, a libertarian-leaning policy center, that states it would cost the U.S. government $32.6 trillion over the course of the next ten years to make “Medicare For All”happen. To cover the new burden to the American tax-payers of extending Medicare benefits to the entire population would require a massive tax increase. This conclusion also aligns with a similar analysis performed by the Urban Institute. While many so-called Progressive politicians from both sides of the aisle believe that more government is always the answer no matter what the question may be would have no problems with raising our taxes, most of them also seem to believe that all of the money is theirs and we are lucky they let us keep any of it so I don’t think that they are the best judges of what is appropriate for our tax rate. But according to this study, the government could double all corporate and individual income taxes and it would still lack the required revenue to fund the program.
   Now Sanders, who has long advocated a universal health care system, impugned the study’s credibility, citing the funding the Mercatus Center receives from the Koch Brothers.  “If every major country on earth can guarantee health care to all, and achieve better health outcomes, while spending substantially less per capita than we do, it is absurd for anyone to suggest that the United States cannot do the same,” Sanders said in a statement. “This grossly misleading and biased report is the Koch Brothers response to the growing support in our country for a ‘Medicare for all’ program.” It is important to note that Sanders said this even though his office has not performed a cost analyst of their own on the plan he has championed. And his criticism of the study over the Koch Brothers doesn’t explain the findings of Urban Institute.  I would also point out a “misleading” thing in his statement.
   Sanders said that these other nations “achieve better health outcomes” than we do. I would love to know what standard Sen. Sanders is using to make that statement. When it comes to quality of service or wait times to be seen the current system here in the States far exceeds the norms in the nations that have socialized their national health care. The innovations in care and technology are at the cutting-edge here which improves outcomes as well. Whatever standard the Senator is using, all you have to do is ponder the question of why do those who can afford to travel to the U.S. from the U.K. and Canada come here for care when it would be provided at home. Why spend so much more for an outcome that is not as good?   
   It appears that the idea of “Medicare for all” is becoming something of a litmus test for 2020 presidential hopefuls for the Democratic party. Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and other notable Democrats have expressed their support for the plan despite none of them having any good ideas about how to pay for it without vague comments about the wealthy paying their “fair share”. (Strange how the party that claims to be for the people is always quick to grow the government and increase the power of government in everyone’s life.) But why is it so important, as it has been for decades now, in the minds of some for the government to take full control of our healthcare? They will tell you it is because of the lack of access to care for the poor or the expense but is that it?
   The reason someone like myself questions the intentions of those politicians who push for socialized medicine is because we have seen what happens in countries that nationalize their health care. We have seen the long waits for needed care that in some cases are not delivered because those in need pass away before they can be treated (yes, it is very rare but it does happen). We have seen the failures of our own VA system which is not that dissimilar from the U.K. system. We have seen the availability of some treatments limited or restricted because of cost or lack of innovation. We have seen medical decisions taken out of the hands of doctors, nurses and the patients themselves and placed firmly in the hands of bureaucrats whose job it is to do cost analysis with no concern for the human being on the other side of that analysis.
   I know that the utopian dream has it’s appeal when you don’t think too long about the details. But socializing medicine is a wrong move for America. We need to be focused on finding ways of reducing the cost of providing health care without slowing innovation and without turning our healthcare workers into government employees. We need to promote growth in our economy to the point where all our citizens are better able to afford their own care. We should never have an American Charlie Gard.
   Charlie Gard, for those who have already forgotten, was the infant boy from London, born with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. The British healthcare system threw in the towel and decided that there was nothing left to do but watch the baby die. His story gained international attention when his parents tried to remove Charley from the country to seek experimental treatments paid for by private donations from around the world. Both Italy and the United States even tried to bestow citizenship on young Charley in an effort to get him out of the British system, to no avail.
   In the end, Charley Gard would most likely died regardless. But what harm would there have been in trying to save the child? What harm would have come in advancing the medical science that would have come from the data gathered during the treatment, getting us closer to a cure? The harm my friend was in challenging the state and it’s power over you and your children. The harm was in thinking that you as a parent would have more say over your child than the government, as Christopher Gard and Constance Yates found out the hard way as the whole world watched.
   America is based on individual liberty for all. Freedom cannot thrive when the government has that much power over it’s citizens. Socializing anything is contrary to the very spirit of this nation. I know that I will be criticized for the examples I used here as being “worse case scenarios” but if it can happen once then it will happen again; don’t let it be here.
      “Medicare For All” is a socialist idea that, if implemented, will bankrupt our nation. Bernie, Cory, Kamala stop trying to turn America into Venezuela while making empty promises of free stuff. Stop trying to buy votes from people who don’t understand how economies work. Nothing is ever free and there are far worse prices to pay other than money.