​   How many of you have heard about the proposed movie titled “Rub & Tug”? Don’t feel bad if you haven’t, I myself had not until a few weeks ago when I first heard that a “Culture War” controversy had broken out over the lead actress. You see the movie tells to story of Dante "Tex" Gill, a female massage parlor owner during the '70s and '80s who "preferred to be known as a man” aka transgendered before the T had been added to LGB, but SJWs got up at arms when the lead was revealed to be a cisgender female and not transgender male (just to help everyone keep score both are biological females).
   When you pitch a script in Hollywood you hope that you can convince studio executives, production companies, directors and big-name actors/actresses to sign on for your project. “Rub & Tug” had managed to get Scarlett Johansson so excited about the project that not only had she committed to play the lead character but her production company, These Pictures, was set to co-produce the film. Now you would think that LGBTQ activists and SJWs everywhere would be excited about having this story told and having one of the hottest stars in Hollywood attached, but you’d be wrong.
   In the realm of the Social Justice Warrior, it often seems that virtue signaling is of more import than the cause du jour. (I often like to point out that virtue signaling isn’t the same thing as actually having virtue when the topic comes up, but I digress.) This would seem to be a case of exactly that. The SJWs were angered by the fact that Johansson, who is cisgender, was set to play the part of the transgendered Gill. In their virtue signaling mindset it is completely unacceptable that a woman who believes that she is a woman should have the role of a woman who believed she was a man. It’s called acting SJWs and it’s something that Scarlett Johansson is pretty good at doing. It doesn’t matter that the movie would have a much better chance of being successful at the box-office with Johansson attached and that she would mostly do a great job of portraying the Pittsburg born gangster; no it’s far more important that someone else, anyone else as long as they are the appropriate transgender, success of the movie be damned, play this role.
   At first, Johansson pushed back against the SJWs saying that there is no difference between her playing a transgender character and a transgender actor playing a cisgender character, but that only served to further enrage the activists. So, Scarlett Johansson has changed her mind is no longer going to be in the movie. Victory for the cause, right? Well, not so fast. Because of Johansson’s withdraw, the movie now is in serious jeopardy of getting made at all. With Scarlett no longer playing the lead it is no longer a certainty that These Pictures is still on board with co-producing the film and there is as of yet no word if Joel Silver's production company Silver Pictures will move forward with the project if Johansson’s company pulls out. While several groups are celebrating the “win” and are now making lists of “approved” actors to take the role, they seem to miss the point the making movies is still a business and no matter committed to the cause a studio may be, they still want to make money.
          After reading what I have about “Tex”, I would like to see the movie get made. I think it is an interesting story about the kind of person who fits the description of “Larger than Life”. I am forced to ask the SJWs out there a question. What helps the cause more, the movie getting made with big stars in it and people going to see it while it’s in theaters or making it “pure” and possible stopping it from being made? Oh, wait, I answered this one already. Virtue signaling, it’s always more important to virtue signal.

   In politics, it has always been a case of “Buyer beware”. You have a responsibility to know who you are voting for and where they stand on the issues that are important to you. It has never been good enough to simply take a politician at their word. You have to look at their voting record (if one exists), watch who they choose to associate with, and if possible find out what they say when they think that most would-be voters will never find out. And make no mistake, this is true of politicians no matter what party they claim membership.
   Sadly, in our modern world, we have moved past expecting a certain amount of dishonesty from those seeking office to encouraging it in some cases. One example of the totally accepted kind of intentional deception is the time-honored art of telling half-truths known as “spin”. (These days we are lucky to get to half-truth.) Little more than a marketing ploy, the idea is to focus only on the parts of the topic you want the people you are speaking with to know. If you are for knocking down an old building to make room for a new business, then you are going to talk about how the new business is going to create needed jobs but you’re not going to mention that small creek on the property that feeds the city parks pond. If you are against that same building being removed, you are only going to bring up how it’s a historic landmark but you’re never going to talk about how badly those new jobs are needed. Both point of views are telling their audience part of the truth but neither side wants you looking at the issue from any other standpoint so they don’t bring it up and hope you never find it out.
   Another form that is almost demanded in today’s politics, and once again regardless of your political leanings, a large number of people have come to expect bias-confirmation from our media sources and from our selected office holders. We have come to expect that our elected representatives be paragons of the virtues we want them to express, even if they have to exaggerate for our benefit. We want to hear how our folks are the saving the world and how those “others” are trying to destroy it all. We can hardly blame them for giving us what we want; which is part of why the consequences for dishonesty in politics aren’t as harsh as they once were.
   There is yet another form of dishonesty however that merges the last two ways that I mentioned and counts on you to be uninformed. To me, this is the worst form because it is an all out lie. In order to raise funds, fire-up the base, or just get the room excited the politician in question will tell you something that they know simply isn’t true and count on you not knowing any better. In short, they are counting on you to be “dumb enough to fall for it”. They will try to add some spin, if there is any truth that can be peppered in for effect, and tell you what they think you want to hear because you are less likely to question the rest of what they have to say, but their goal is to push you to take action, action for them. The pander, then they use fear, anger or both over an issue that they know doesn’t exist so that you will answer their rallying cry.
   Hillary Clinton recently executed the “Can I Make You Fall For It” type of dishonesty. She was speaking to the American Federation of Teachers when she decided to go way over the top when discussing Donald Trump’s SCOTUS nominee Kavanaugh. She started off even-keeled enough for the crowd she was playing to by warning of “devastating consequences” if Kavanaugh is confirmed but she got caught up in the emotion and took it much further. Clinton said in her speech. "This nomination holds out the threat of devastating consequences for workers’ rights, civil rights, LGBT rights, women’s rights, including those to make our own health decisions." All of which, while I find these concerns to be unfounded, are legitimate issues for the folks who lean to the left. But then she continued in a way that is meant to anger you further but also requires you to know nothing about how our government works. Something that you should expect that she would know better than to think possible after she has been the First Lady, a U.S. Senator, and the Secretary of State. She said, “I used to worry that they [the Republicans] wanted to turn the clock back to the 1950s. Now I worry they want to turn it back to the 1850s".
   The 1850s, of course, predate the American Civil War, meaning that Clinton believes that under Kavanaugh it would be possible for the United States to return to the days of slavery. She basically told this crowd that a Kavanaugh confirmation would somehow lead to the nullification of the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the people of this nation would somehow be okay with the idea of owning another human being. The political left doesn’t like Kavanaugh but where do any of them see a desire in him, or any other conservative justice for that matter, to dismantle the Constitutional ban on slavery? My guess is that they don’t, but they sure want their base frightened that those “Mean Ole Republicans” are working hard to make “A Handmaid’s Tale” the new America.
   Here are some facts about our federal government. Facts that Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton know or at least should know. The Supreme Court is bound by our Constitution the same as the other branches are supposed to be. They are not free to re-write it or pick and choose which parts they will follow and which parts they will ignore. Once amendments are added (the 13th for example) it requires yet another amendment to repeal it. That means someone has to propose said amendment either by a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate or by a Convention of States called for by two-thirds of the state’s legislatures. If this happens then the purposed amendment is sent to the Governor of each state who in turn submits it to that state’s legislature. Then if thirty-eight of the fifty states (three-fourths) vote to ratify then the purposed amendment becomes part of our Constitution. Notice that there is no mention of either the President or Supreme Court Justices in the process?
   This statement about a return to the 1850’s was not an off the cuff remark. It was meant to paint a picture of conservatives pushing women back into the kitchen, LGBTQ folks back into the closet, and black American into bondage. It was meant to get the people in that room fired up about trying to stop Kavanaugh. (It was also meant to try and show that Hillary is still a viable candidate in the next election cycle for the Democrats but that’s another topic entirely.) But it was also one more shot at all those people she called the “Basket of Deplorables” during her last campaign.
    She knows that there is nothing in Kavanaugh’s record that would hint that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and certainly nothing to suggest he would like to own himself some people. She also knows that even if the SCOTUS was made up of nine White Supremacist, they wouldn’t have the power to repeal the 13th Amendment. But then she knows that a lot of the people she is talking to at these rallies don’t know any of that.
   There was one more point worth bringing up. I did have a Hillary supporter ask me how I know that she knows all of this. I pointed out to him like I did earlier in this piece that she has been a U.S. Senator and had served as the Secretary of State and she has asked twice to be President. A big part of doing those jobs is, in fact, knowing how our government is supposed to work. Giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming that she isn’t intentionally being dishonest, does her not knowing these things make her more or less qualified?

​     I spend a lot of time watching news stories from Western Europe and the U.K. in particular, as many of the political changes in the world often manifest themselves first across the Pond before we see them here in the States. Decades ago we saw the spreading of socialism across Europe like a bad rash from summer camp. Now we see the next stages of civilizational jihad marching through the Western parts of the continent and there is no question that we here in North America are targeted for the same as what’s happening there.
  I have been saying for months now the intersectionality is doomed to fail. I have seen the signs for some time however, it wasn’t until a conversation with Don Smith of The Don Smith Show (great conservative talk show host by the way; look him up if you don’t already listen) that it clicked in my mind that there is an expiration date on the leftist alliance. But let me offer up some supporting evidence. I saw three news stories from the U.K. this past week (and no they had nothing to do with protesting President Trump’s visit) that when taken together I think demonstrates why the cobbled coalition of special interest groups will only hold together for a limited time.
   First, for the benefit of anyone who may not know, intersectionality is the idea that all of the various groups that feel they have been marginalized, persecuted, or are the victims of some form of bigotry should unite for their common good. It began as part of a feminist philosophy but was soon adopted by other leftists who saw the value of bringing these different groups together in order to push back against their common political enemy … conservatives. You see, leftists are very well read and draw tactics from many sources including Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. “The enemy of my enemy” and all that. However, there is something a little different in our modern world that Sun Tzu never had to contend with in his day, but I’ll come back to that later.
  The first of the three news stories demonstrates how the left tries to push the P.C. agenda on the rest of us. John Berkow, the speaker of the United Kingdom’s House of Commons, made the statement that LQBTQ rights must always be considered as more important than religious rights. He was speaking to an organization called PinkNews when, channeling Hillary Clinton, he said that LGBTQ rights are “Human rights”. Now I would have interjected that religious rights have been considered “Human rights” throughout the Western world for better than two centuries now but I was not there. Bercow claimed to "respect people’s rights to adhere to and profess their faith," but went on to say that when "somebody’s adherence to faith on the one hand and the acknowledgment of and demonstration of respect for human rights" come into conflict, "the latter has to trump the former." In simpler terms, the LGBTQ agenda is more important than anyone’s religious liberties.
  The second story demonstrates what happens when you don’t play by their rules. Dr. David MacKereth, a 55-year-old doctor who had worked for NHS since he was 29 was fired from his job as a health and disability assessor. He had started training for the new job back in May of this year and before that he had been an Emergency ward physician. According to Mackereth, he was required to refer to patients or clients by there self-identified gender on official reports. Mackereth recalled, "I said that I had a problem with this. I believe that gender is defined by biology and genetics”. This doctor of 26 years has been relieved of his duties because he wouldn’t play along with the P.C. game on the grounds of science. Heaven forbid that a doctor might recognize, that in some cases, knowing the actual gender and having it in the report might affect outcomes. Possibly even effect life and death decisions for patients. Dr. Mackereth stated that he believed it was wrong to engage in this practice and because he challenged the purveyors of intersectionality protections he now faces the ending of his career.
  The third news story demonstrates what happens when the members of different factions come in conflict with one another. At the recent London Pride Parade, a group of “lesbian activists” disrupted the event.  It seems that the group of eight women were unhappy at the inclusion of transgender people. It would appear that these folks have come to the conclusion that trans-women are not biological women. Once you accept that basic truth you then must also accept that there are differences between biological men and biological women. To say that a man can be a woman simply because he feels that he is one is to say then that there is nothing inherently special about being a woman thereby negating female empowerment. (I think you can see how the thread continues to pull the different groups apart here.) These “activists” realized that trans-women are biological men so they are of no practical use to lesbians. Pushing an agenda that supports trans-people, at best distracts from the LGB cause and at worst works against the LGB and Third-wave feminist causes. These lesbians aren’t the first to recognize the contradictions among the coalition nor do I image they will be the last.
  Recently in Seattle, members of Antifa became at odds with members of the local members the Democratic Socialist of America when they felt betrayed as the police showed up many of the DSA left the Antifa folks to the mercy of law-enforcement. Last summer in South Carolina, at a LGBTQ parade, members of Black Lives Matter demanded that police not be involved in helping to secure the event. The organizers of the parade disagreed and there was a very loud and very public disagreement. The truth remains a simple one; all of these different groups may think of conservatives as their enemy, but their goals are not the same.
  The fundamental flaw with intersectionality as it has been made manifest under the modern leftist is something Sun Tzu never had to contend with in his day. (See, I told you I’d come back to it.) These different groups are not warriors waiting to be led into political battle by a unifying force against a common enemy. They are instead competitors in another game of the left’s creation; who’s the most oppressed, who’s the biggest victim. In the battle to show that they are the biggest victim, of capitalism, of society, of the heterosexual, cisgendered, white men, or whoever or whatever is holding them back; they must form a hierarchy and in doing so there will only be more riffs among them. It is only a matter of time before many of them will see each other as a bigger rival than conservative. And the clock is ticking.

​   There can be little doubt that President Trump has a flair for the dramatic and a talent for showmanship that has not been seen when it comes to the holder of the mantle of POTUS. And, like it or not there is one part that conservatives can take at least some joy in … it drives the Left nuts. It makes Democrat office holders, leftist in academia and the media say and do things that continue to reveal themselves to the American people in general. (A big part of the reason that #WalkAway exists.) How President Trump announced his nominee to secede Justice Kennedy on the SCOTUS is no exception.
   Donald Trump first gave a date on which he would make his choice public. Not a self-imposed deadline as many characterized it, but an opportunity to build anticipation. The President wanted a television event akin to a “Reality TV” reveal. He made sure that everyone knew who his final four happened to be, in order to keep the discussion focused on what these choices might mean to the future of the country. It pushed media personalities and left-leaning pundits to show their devotion to the so-called “progressive” agenda over adherence to the Constitution as they spoke about Brown v. Broad of Education, implying that the Mean Ole Republicans will bring back school segregation and Roe v. Wade, claiming that abortion is “settled law” (funny that none of them mentioned Citizens United during those conversations) and even talking about how dangerous Judge Amy Barrett would be as a Justice on the High Court because of her Bible study group.
   To further demonstrate the left’s opposition mindset ABC news ran a graphic calling Trump’s pick controversial, before Kavanaugh was announced. The Women's March group put out a release: "In response to Donald Trump's nomination of XX to the Supreme Court of the United States, the Women's March released the following statement...." They put a couple of Xs in there as placeholders just waiting for a name to insert … and then they forgot to go back and put in the name. Campus Reform released a video on July 8th (meaning that it was put together days before and released the day before the announcement was made) showing college students thoughts about Trump’s pick and it’s clear that a lot of these student’s mind were already made-up on the issue.
   But, with all of that said, there does happen to be a few good reasons why conservatives might have a few reservations about the choice of Kavanaugh. In a case called Seven Sky, Kavanaugh made a strong effort to avoid jurisdiction over Obamacare by calling the “Fair-Share” fine a tax. In fact, he was the first judge to make the legal argument which opened the door for Chief Justice Roberts to find Obamacare constitutional. In another case, Priests for Life, that raises some red flags for conservatives, Kavanaugh said that the government has a “compelling interest” in provision of contraceptive coverage from employers. In Garza, a case involving the question of whether the government must provide an abortion for an illegal border crosser that was being detained awaiting a hearing, he did not join a dissent that criticized Roe v. Wade. In yet another high-profile case Kavanaugh granted standing to an atheist who was suing the government over the Pledge of Allegiance, remember that in order to have standing you must prove both that you have been damaged and that you have been targeted (or at least that used to be the legal standard). I don’t want to meet the person who has been “damaged” in any real way by the line “One nation, Under God”.
   All things considered, the Democrats should be happy with this pick from the President. He may not be a leftist activist judge which they might prefer, but he is clearly open to leftist arguments. He could very easily become a true replacement to Justice Kennedy in so much as he could be a swing vote allowing leftist policies to advance or stand when a true constitutionalist would simply vote to strike them down. Besides, it’s not like the American political left would like any of the other Judges on President Trump’s list any better (Personally I’d love Mike Lee from the Presidents list). The Democrats have to cry and moan in order to raise funds and keep the party base in activist mode but in truth, for them options don’t get any better.
   Now that I have pointed out a few concerns I’d like to add another point or two for the conservative out there who may be unhappy with the choice. First, while we may get an idea of how a judge may approach their rulings; previous decisions are not always indicative of how a Justice will act once on the SCOTUS. Second, speaking as someone who had serious concerns about Donald Trump while he was a candidate it, we should be willing to give Kavanaugh a chance to prove us right or prove us wrong. He may just surprise us all. 

​The Republicans are currently working to keep, what was to most of them, a campaign promise. The de-funding of Planned Parenthood has been talked about by Christians and Conservatives since the first of tax-payer dollars made their way to the eugenics-based organization disguised as a women’s health provider. While Christians are clear on their moral reasons and Conservatives have made compelling financial arguments for not supporting the Margaret Sanger founded abortion provider, for some reason the political left has insisted that our federal government should continue to fork over millions of dollars a year. 
Planned Parenthood for years now have been playing accounting games in order to show documentation that no American tax dollars are being spent on the abortions themselves. I would suggest that any dollar spent on any part of the organization simply allows more dollars from other, private sources to be used for abortions, therefore, all the dollars still go to help pay for the ending of innocent lives. American leftist still claim that PP does “so much more than abortions” but it doesn’t take long looking at PP’s own numbers see a very different truth. Planned Parenthood’s most recent annual report shows increases in abortions and taxpayer funding and decreases in contraception, breast exams, and overall patient numbers. PP remains the largest abortion provider in the United States, having performed 328,348 abortions of unborn babies. Meanwhile, the abortion chain received more taxpayer funding. The report shows Planned Parenthood received $554.6 million, up from $553.7 million the previous year. 
Forget the racist, eugenics beginnings of Planned Parenthood, (Margaret Sanger is on record saying her “birth-control” efforts were meant to rid us of black people and other undesirables), and ask yourself why would an organization that receives so much money in the form of private donations that the nearly half billion dollars from the federal government would hardly be missed still requires such veracious defending by Democratic politicians? Every time the idea of our government ending it’s “meager” support for the illegal traffickers of embryotic tissue the false narratives about reproductive rights, women’s health, a woman’s right to choose, and the Republican’s War on Women all come out to be used as a club to silence anyone say that it’s time to end our subsidizing the murder of the unborn.
Nancy Pelosi, my personal shock that the Catholic hasn’t already excommunicated her aside, has now sunk to a new low in the battle to protect the abortion-mill. She now claims that Republicans are dishonoring God in their effort to end the practice of handing the practitioners of child sacrifice tax-payer funds. Her reasoning, (and it’s a stretch to call it that) “… So, this is God’s creation, we have a real responsibility to it…to minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us…”. That’s right, Nancy Pelosi believes that PP is God’s creation and that it is doing God’s will and that we are obligated, as an act of faith, to support it. I can’t quite square that with what I know about the God of the Bible (which I’m pretty sure is the God that the Catholic Church worships) nor can I quite understand how someone who claims to be a practicing Catholic could make such an outrageous statement. 
Putting Dr. Sharon Schuetz’s suggestion that Pelosi now worships Moloch (not saying she is wrong, just putting it aside for the moment) there are sadly just a few options that make any sense. The first possibility being that Nancy has been noticing that evangelicals have been showing up at the polls much more the last two election cycles and she thinks she can somehow lure them in with her talk of God. The next possibility being that she simply knows her base and is desperate to instill the notion of normalcy of abortion among the religious, although it is entirely possible that she is merely trying to convince herself that she hasn’t sold her soul to win elections. Then there is, to my mind, the saddest of them all; the possibility that Rep. Pelosi has become so far removed from her faith that she might actually believe what she said. In an attempt to attack Republicans she has revealed that she no longer seems to have a grasp on the most basic of tenets of any denomination of the Christian faith… the sanctity of life.

  On May 22nd 2013, an appalling, and what we thought at the time to be a nation-changing crime occurred. On that day two self-proclaimed soldiers of Allah, not ones who were born in some far off Islamic land but those who had freely chosen it, travelled to Woolwich in South East London. Their intention was to kill a random British soldier. 
   Lee Rigby, an innocent British soldier who had been attending an Army recruitment event in London. He was identified and then brutally murdered by these two savages. The two jihadist in question, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, after murdering Fusilier Lee Rigby, then stood around giving an Islam-inspired rant to the shocked onlookers and members of the public who had tried to help the victim.  
   Fast forward to May 22nd 2017. Ariana Grande, an American singer and actress best known by conservatives for her pro-refugee, anti-America, anti-Americans, anti-Trump statements, was the featured  performer in a music concert in Manchester, England. Once this concert was over and the crowd was leaving Salman Abedi, the 22 year old son of Libyan immigrants, detonated an improvised explosive device killing himself and 22 others as well as injuring 59 innocents mostly teens and children. (Ms. Grande's primary fan base.) 
   Today, as we have far too often, we mourn the loss of those taken by the forces of darkness claiming to be warriors of Allah. Today we face the stark truth that no one is safe from the wrath of jihadists who set the their sights on the infidels; not women, not children, no one. Today we once again see proof positive that Islam is not a religion of peace but a ruthless philosophy for world domination that hides it's intent by invoking an uncaring god that you must kill for in order to impress him enough to guarantee your entry into heaven. In Muhammad's own words: Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. 
   So what has changed in the four years between the merciless killing of Lee Rigby on the streets of London and the slaughter of Manchester's children? Politicians have ignored their government's responsibility of vetting immigrants and refugees throughout the Western World. They have criminalized free speech when that speech calls into question the source of the problem or the politician's policies and labeled it "Hate Speech". They have redirected resources and in places like Germany even taken homes from citizens to accommodate the ridiculous number of unvetted people who have moved throughout Europe claiming Mohamed as their profit. They have made-up new words like Islamophobe to demonize anyone who cries out for a return to sanity. 
   But, that's not all that has changed. The people are growing more and more frustrated with the forces of Political Correctness and the politicians who are failing to put the safety of their own people ahead of their misguided policies of appeasement or advancement of so-called progressivism. More of the people are coming to realize that many of those politicians have been knowingly lying to them all along even if they aren't sure why they have been lying. A time is coming that if the politicians don't start doing the right thing, the people will take matters into their own hands. If and when that day comes it won't be pretty and worse, it may be innocent people who are on the receiving end of the backlash. Many Western people often confuse Sikhism with Islam and there are many Muslims who want nothing more than to live a happy, productive life in peace with their neighbors it is only those who embrace the way of jihad that are a threat to Western culture. 
   Let us mourn. Let us not overreact. But for the sake of all the innocent blood that has been spilled and for all of the innocent blood yet to be spilled but can be saved, let us take action. We must choose leaders that will stand against the evil of jihad. We must demand a return to common sense and an end to political correctness. We must stand with others who will fight for liberty and freedom, whether they be our next door neighbor or "Across the Pond".  ​

​ I have heard many "inspirational" quotes over the years that have conveyed a similar idea.  But I have never seen or heard it put quite this way so who knows, maybe someday "If You Ignore the Obvious You Can Accomplish the Impossible" will be quoted and attributed to me. The credit for this particular string of words aside the idea is simple. No matter what odds you face, no matter what the detractors may say, no matter what "conventional" wisdom may be if you push on you just might shock the world and do something that no one would have believed possible before you did it.  
   Many of the world's greatest scientists and inventors have ignored what the rest of the world had considered obvious in the act of discovering new truths and in the act of creating everything from the light bulb to the nuclear bomb. Every actor, musician, and athlete who achieved fame has ignored to obvious fact that odds are against them and made a name for themselves no matter what big city or small town they were from. And every heart that just accepted the obvious has proven that the inverse is also true, that if you don't try then the best you can ever hope for is a life of mediocrity. Greatness never happens by accident and luck is simply where hard work meets opportunity.   
   The idea of sharing a quote like this is to (hopefully) inspire someone to do something fantastic, amazing or simply not give-up on following a dream or life in general. The problem with inspiring some people is their goals may not be honorable. A great example of this would be the people who hate the U.S. Constitution and hide their distaste for personal liberty by calling themselves "Progressive" and convincing others to join them through the guise of caring for the "poor" and the "underprivileged".  Some of these people are globalists who want to dissolve borders to make it easier to profit or rule the masses, some are eugenists who have the goal to rid the world of who they deem "undesirable", but most are just followers who haven't seen through the lies, agendas, and propaganda. These people can also be inspired and the enemies of the Republic the Framers gave us have ignored the obvious.  
   There was a time in American history when no one living here would believe that we as Americans would turn so far from God. Despite the insistence of ideologs like Barack Hussein Obama this nation was built on Christian values and the Founders acknowledged that only a moral people were capable of having and maintaining a republic. But the so-called Progressives ignored the obvious fact Christian homes made up the overwhelming majority of America and over time convinced the people that when the Framers said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" that they meant there should be an unbreachable separation of church and state. (Which isn't what they had in mind but say that in public or on social media and watch how many people agree with you.) By ignoring the obvious the so-called Progressives have changed our culture from one that valued moral behavior to one where there is sex, drugs and immoral lifestyles glorified on the free airwaves of radio and television. Today there are more people who can name all of the Kardashian family than can name both of their Senators and the Vice President. 
   There was a time in the United States when is was "obvious" that there could be no such thing as a career politician. The government was put in place to conduct the People's business. There wasn't money for big salaries or benefit packages so there was no incentive to go to Washington and stay. If the people of your district chose you to serve, you went, it was an act of service, and then you came back home because your life was your business or your farm. At that time you had a life to get back to because you were not going to get rich in Washington. Then there was no need for term limits because the life left back home required your return. The so-called Progressives ignored the culture of honorable service and began convincing office holders to vote themselves higher and higher salaries and to take full advantage of the lack of term limits. By ignoring the obvious the Progressives have turned Washington D.C. from a place of honor to a place where individuals can go and become multi-billionaires if they can just get re-elected a few times. How much of the People's business do you think they are doing? 
   There are other examples that are easy to point out "gun control", media bias, the definition of marriage, gender identities, and many other "issues" that would have never been issues without the push from the so-called Progressives. The slow, patent nudges from master manipulators with the goal of erasing borders or erasing entire groups of people and using those very people they wish to eradicate along with the countless, well-meaning, useful idiots to do the dirty work for them. In truth, there are way to many to list here but if you know what to look for, then you can see them for yourself. They have ignored the obvious and accomplished the impossible; they have nearly destroyed our Republic and convinced millions of people that anyone who would dare question them or challenge them must be a bigot or racist or just a hateful soul. 
   Now it is obvious that they are winning. It is obvious that the Republic is pretty far gone. It is obvious that there are few who can be trusted to fight for the Constitution and fight for the People. It is obvious that there are surprisingly few people left who even know how our Republic is supposed to work and why. But now comes the good news. You and I can ignore the obvious. The so-called Progressives want us to believe that it is too late, that they have already won, that there is nothing we can do to turn the tide. They want us to believe that so that we won't even try, and they don't want us to try because they know that it is just not true. We can stand together, work together, and bring together enough folks to reverse the damage. It won't be easy. The odds sure aren't in our favor. It's obvious that it may be nearly impossible so please let me remind you... "If You Ignore the Obvious You Can Accomplish the Impossible" - Tim Tapp

   One of the most basic arguments that Americans have these days is “what the role of government should be” and how that applies to any topic in question. This is not a new argument, in fact it was at the very heart of the founding of our constitutional republic. “What role should the government play in our daily lives? How much power should that government have over the citizens? What is the balance a government must achieve in order to provide security and personal liberty?”, are all questions that the framers debated, wrestled over, and even in some cases dueled over. In that respect, not much has changed. In our modern America we debate issues like “gun control”, “gas company profits”, “funding of Planned Parenthood”, the “cost of healthcare” just to name a few, but at their base, all of these issues and many more that we face-off over still come down to what we believe the role of government should be.
  For those people who hold that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America are divinely inspired documents meant to guide a Godly people to unprecedented prosperity and liberty want a federal government bound by a strict and originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. The role of that federal government is very limited and very specific. That federal government is: to provide defense from those who would look to take resources from us by force, do harm to us in order to claim new territory for themselves, or those who pose a threat to our safety and/or “way of life”; to pass and enforce laws so that disputes between citizens may be settled in accordance with our societal values (which should be rooted in a sense of morality and liberty); and most importantly to foster a climate of opportunity and personal liberty which can most often be achieved by staying out of the daily lives of citizens as much as possible.  
  For those people who hold that the U.S. Constitution is an out-dated document with little to no value in our modern world, many want a central government with broad and nearly unlimited powers. Those people believe that only a powerful central government can provide the “help” that it’s citizens need and that it is okay for that central government to use whatever means are necessary to “provide” for those citizens. Those people are very often used by others who see the Constitution as an obstacle and who wish to grow their own individual power by pretending to fight for the cause of the day while really only working to dismantle the constraints on that central government and set precedent for wielding power which that government did not previously have allotted to it. Many who claim the label “communist”, “socialist”, “progressive” or “liberal” often desire the powerful central government with little thought or concern about the damage done to personal liberty.
  Now there are many Americans that fall in different places between the positions I described. This is why you will find some people who will side with the small, limited government philosophy on some issues but then come down on the powerful central government philosophy on other issues. It is in that fertile ground that those who wish to plant the seeds of discontent and division in America work their hardest to weaken the Constitution and the Rule of Law by confusing issues that are a matter of law with emotions, feelings, and “fairness”.  
  A new case in point is the effort to use the Bayh–Dole Act to “reduce to cost” of Xtandi, a prostate cancer drug. Presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders along with other members of Congress sent a letter to the National Institute of Health (NIH), asking the agency to employ what is commonly called “march-in rights”. The Bayh–Dole Act is a law dealing with intellectual property arising from federal government-funded research which was passed in 1980 and was intended to establish a single policy for all government agencies to follow when dealing with patent rights when government funding was involved. (Before that each agency had it’s own set of policies and procedures.) One of the most contentious provisions of Bayh-Dole is the government’s “march-in” right which plainly put allows the funding agency (whatever government agency paid the grant for the research), on its own or at the request of a third party, to ignore the exclusivity of a patent awarded under the act and grant additional licenses to other “reasonable applicants.” This “right” is strictly limited and can only be exercised if the funding agency determines, after an investigation, that one of four criteria is met. The most important of the criteria, and the one most relevant to the argument being used is “a failure by the contractor to take "effective steps to achieve practical application of the subject invention” or a failure to satisfy “health and safety needs” of consumers.“
  Xtandi’s patent is held by a Japanese company which has subsidiaries and partners here in the United States. The complaint is that Xtandi costs four times more in the U.S. than in other developed countries. (Which is not an uncommon practice even for American drug companies.) Enter the calls of unfairness. Here Senator Sanders and others start chipping away again at Rule of Law in the name of "compassion”.
   The Constitution does give Congress the power to grant patents under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, so the congress was within it’s authority to pass Bayh-Dole. Xtandi was developed through research at the University of California, Los Angeles, with taxpayer-funded research grants so it would fall under the Bayh-Dole Act. But does a high price constitute “a failure to satisfy "health and safety needs” of consumers.“? Not according to the NIH in it’s previous decisions when asked to invoke the "march-in” right. (In the Case of NORVIR a prescription drug used to treat AIDS, Abbott Labs, who held the patent, raised the price of Norvir 400% for U.S. customers, but not for consumers in any other country. The NIH denied the petition finding no grounds to exercise its “march-in” rights citing 1.) The availability of Norvir to patients with AIDS 2.) That there was no evidence that health and safety needs were not adequately met by Abbott and 3.) That the NIH should not address the issue of drug pricing, only Congress. Then again  in the Case of Xalatan, a glaucoma drug held by Pfizer, The NIH said that “the extraordinary remedy of “march-in” was not an appropriate means for controlling prices.) In fact, in the 35 years since the implementation of Bayh-Dole the NIH has never invoked the “march-in” right for ANY reason, despite multiple requests by third parties to do so.
  Are you beginning to connect the dots yet? Why would Bernie Sanders or any other member of Congress ask the NIH to intervene over the price of a drug when the NIH has been so clear in the past on that point? The “communist”, “socialists” and “progressives” all play the long-game of incrementalism. They know that the people at the NIH change over time and that the new faces may not hold the same views as their predecessors. In the effort to once again increase the power of the central government they will take-up to cause of “helping the people” against (in this case) the evil drug company. In an effort to gain public support they will even lie as Sanders and company have done in a public statement where they claimed that “Under current law, NIH can take this step if federal funds supported a drug’s development and the company is selling it at an unreasonably high price.” A falsehood they know most Americans won’t know is a lie and even fewer will research to find-out. This group of politicians are counting on an uninformed, emotional response. One they are likely to get from those who normally support them.
  Make no mistake here friends. No matter where Sanders and company say they are drawing the line, the drug company is not the enemy they are fighting. It is capitalism that is the target. Bernie is a well-known avowed socialist and many of those whom he allies himself with may not be “out of the closet” but they do share the same powerful central government ideology which can not abide capitalism or personal liberty. The patent is a powerful tool of capitalism. It is what guarantees that those who create or invent will receive the fruits of their labors. The patent is more than just a tool of capitalism though, it is a driving force for innovation and breakthroughs that propel a nation forward and improves the quality of life for all. I would not expect a socialist to understand this simple fact, if they did then they wouldn’t be a socialist anymore, but I do hope that most American’s will understand this as truth.
  Bernie Sanders and his co-horts will tell you that this is for the good of the American’s in need of this medicine who cannot afford it (I guess Obamacare must not be working like they promised). He will tell you that the government already has this power and needs to use it for the “good of the people”. He will even tell you that this is only a one-time deal directed at the pharmaceutical industry. Knowing that what he is suggesting is a complete re-interpretation of the law, that the Bayh-Doyle Act was adopted to assist in the manufacturing of products to meet need during health or other public emergencies. And he will do all of this to play on the natural desire most Americans have to help one another while setting the precedent of “march-in”. And we all know that once that precedent is set it will be used again and it will be used in other industries as the central government (and those who run it) sees fit.
  The cost of drug development is ridiculously high. The patent protection is often the only guarantee that those who invested in bringing a new treatment to market will see any reward. This is not a justification to unfairly price a drug in different markets and something should be done but not “march-in”. Should a company be charging one group of people so much more than another group is a completely different question than if patent protection should be stripped away. A different solution, one with far less ramification on capitalism and personal liberty, can be found and should be implemented. Sanders isn’t looking out for the “little guy” here, he’s looking to move us yet one more step away from our Republic.