All Posts

Individual rights are more important than the common good of the population at large? Say what????

by Devin

I was having a conversation with a Canadian friend of mine recently that went like so many others I’ve had with my American friends, that I finally decided I needed to write about it. The topic of the conversation is one that should have been discussed in every school in America at some point or another, but apparently is not. I can excuse my Canadian friend, because he’s Canadian, but all Americans should know this from grade school on. Our conversation went something like this:

Me: A totally free market (obviously with some necessary regulation to minimize corruption) for health care services and insurance is a necessary element of reducing health care costs in America.

Canadian Friend (CF): Okay, but shouldn’t the purchase of health insurance still be mandatory, so that everyone is covered?

Me: No. That’s draconian, and frankly, un-American!

CF: But what happens when someone has a major medical problem and they don’t have insurance?

Me: They should have had it. They took a risk and lost.

CF: Well, that’s fine for people who can afford health insurance or are wealthy enough to pay the bill, but what about the poor?

Me: In a free market, with minimal regulation mostly aimed at preventing corruption, costs would be far lower than they are now, so we’re only talking about a very small percentage of the overall population. There are charities out there to help them. And even if there weren’t, each and every American has a responsibility to take care of themselves.

CF: So, when someone who is uninsured and too poor to buy insurance, let alone pay the medical bill, has a major medical problem, the public at large gets stuck with the bill?

Me: And how is that different from what happens everywhere, regardless of how healthcare costs are managed, regulated, or controlled? Besides, many of the illnesses experienced by the poor are of their own making. Smoking or drug abuse, for instance.

CF: Exactly. Why should the public have to pick up the tab for someone else’s lack of personal responsibility? Why shouldn’t we pass laws that tax or outlaw certain types of behavior that are detrimental to our health?

/End Conversation

Alright. Let me just address this head-on. First and foremost, this country was founded on the radical concept of individual freedom. America’s Founders placed a higher priority on individual freedom, than they did on protecting the benefits of the public at large. This means, at its core, that we, as a nation, value our individual rights and the freedoms that come with those rights MORE than the rights of “the people.” When I say, “the people,” I am referring to the public at large, the collective, the masses, etc., as they are most often referred to by those in favor of social justice and socialists in general.

I know this is a difficult concept for many people to get their head around. It is counterintuitive. What I am saying is nothing less than that we, as a nation, are willing to sacrifice benefits to the majority in order to protect the rights of even just one person (don’t forget that “the majority” is made up of individuals). If many have to suffer so that one may enjoy the freedom that comes from protecting his or her individual, unalienable rights, then so be it.

This is a radical idea. It’s so radical, that it had never before been established in any other nation prior to the founding of the United States of America. Never in the history of mankind. And it is the number one reason behind why America has enjoyed success on an historically epic and unprecedented scale. That, and a profound respect for, and observance of, the rule of law.

It’s also so radical and counterintuitive, that if it isn’t taught in the schools and by parents to their children, it is virtually unknown.

Here’s the catch, though. With these rights and the freedoms that come with them, also comes great responsibility. If a person has the right to own a gun, he or she also has a responsibility to not use that gun for evil.

Take the gun issue as an example. We are faced with two possible choices in this country, just as other nations are. We can either opt for allowing individuals to own guns and then enact laws to punish those who use them for evil, or we can opt to not allow individuals to own guns and thus try to prevent them from having the freedom to choose between using the gun for evil or not.

The entire basis of this nation is that when faced with this choice, we nearly always opt for the former and NOT the latter. This is the very heart and soul of our nation’s founding and for what it stands. We, as a nation, are willing to allow for the potential suffering that may come from an act of violence with a gun, in order to protect to the maximum extent possible, individual freedom.

Ben Franklin said it best, “Those who are willing to trade freedom for security, deserve neither.” This means, in America at least, that we are willing to subject ourselves to the dangers posed by those few who choose to use their rights and freedoms for evil, in order that the rest of us may retain those rights and freedoms to enjoy life and pursue happiness.

The person who acts irresponsibly and chooses not to have health insurance, particularly in a market where it is affordable or accessible to all but the poorest unemployed, is subject to the consequences of his or her choice when illness strikes. Fortunately for them, we are, in addition to being the most prosperous nation on the planet, the most generous and giving people on same said planet (proof of this is so abundant on the internet, I’ll leave it to you to do your own homework). We have charities and many of them are designed specifically to handle hard cases like these. And because they are locally run and by people who are passionate about it, they are the very best suited to do it.

And at the end of the day, if someone falls through the cracks and is unable to get charitable assistance, and they default on their medical bills, the public at large is ultimately going to pay for it, one way or another, whether they like it or not. And I ask again, how is that different from a universal health care system, where the public pays for everyone’s health care? Only in one way, the individual experiences a bad credit rating. That’s it. And let’s face it, for those who choose to be utterly responsible, or irresponsible for that matter, credit is unnecessary. Just ask Dave Ramsey!

I have no doubt that there are a nearly unlimited number of special circumstances that someone who vociferously disagrees with me and what this country was founded upon can come up with to challenge what I am saying in this post. And I am certain that there is an answer for ALL of them. The answers probably all look very much alike. And some will also probably seem harsh to the gentle soul. But the truth isn’t always what we want to hear. And I would suggest that if you don’t like the principles that this country was founded upon, rather than trying to “fundamentally change” it, do the rest of us a favor and either accept it, or, if you cannot accept it, feel free to find a country that is more to your liking and emigrate. My respect and admiration goes out to those who do!

Healthcare – the dirty little secret…

by Devin

Probably one of the biggest political topics of our time has to be healthcare. It’s the giant problem that everyone seems to want to solve. No doubt, it is a giant problem, but why is that so? Has it always been that way? If not, then what happened that caused it to be such a problem? In this essay, I’m going to try to illuminate two major factors that no one, anywhere, that I know of, is talking about, which just might answer these questions. But first, I want to emphatically state, right up front, that it has NOT always been such a huge problem. In fact, if you go far back enough, historically, in the United States, it wasn’t really much of a problem at all!

Factor number one: LBJ. Huh? LBJ? What’s LBJ got to do with anything??? Answer: The Great Society. Let’s go back to the late 1950s and early 1960s, the pre-LBJ era, and take a look at how healthcare was administered before it became such a huge mess. In those days, just like in these days, and all the centuries that came before, there were people who needed medical care that were not sufficiently wealthy to pay for the kind of medical care they needed. Nothing new there; however, those people still received the same quality medical care as those who were insured and those who were wealthy enough to not need insurance. How did that happen, you ask?

Well, back in those days, doctors and other medical professionals, including hospitals, were allowed to deduct losses from unpaid accounts from their gross income or revenue for tax purposes, just like any other ordinary business expense. The key to doing this was keeping a good set of books for your practice or business that showed which accounts went unpaid each year. Such accounts were backed up by the evidence of medical records for each patient and each patient was a verifiable real person with a real, verified medical condition. Of course, no doubt there were a few fraudsters out there. When has there ever not been? But by and large, indigent patients who could not pay their bill received the same medical care as everyone else and got a pass. Smart doctors understood that if they took enough indigent patients each year, they could actually end up paying no taxes at all!

Of course, from where the federal government stood, that was an utterly unacceptable situation! What’s this? Doctors are getting rich and paying no taxes!!! That could not stand! Nevermind that these doctors, and don’t forget hospitals and other healthcare professionals, were in fact paying their taxes in a big way in the form of unpaid medical services rendered to the poor of our society. Thus, along came LBJ’s Great Society solution: create a government program to pay for healthcare for the needy and then prohibit medical professionals and hospitals from deducting losses from unpaid accounts. (Eventually tax law was written such that no service-providing businesses could deduct uncollected debts.) From this point forward, medical professionals and hospitals were required to pay tax on all of their income/revenue (minus normal business expenses such as equipment, insurance, staff costs, etc.) and file a claim for payment for services rendered to those qualified and enrolled in the government program.

One of the arguments in favor of this new system was that now, instead of medical professionals and hospitals having to absorb losses from unpaid accounts, they would be in the superior position of being able to collect that revenue, which would otherwise be lost. From a tax accounting standpoint, it is always better to collect payment than to take a deduction, so it sounded good, well, at least, at first. Ask any doctor nowadays how much these government programs, officially known as Medicare and Medicaid, pay compared to their standard rates or even what private insurance companies pay. It’s pennies on the dollar. They would be far better off deducting the losses.

So this is how, pre-LBJ, poor people in America got the medical care they needed. And this is how the federal government stepped in and began the process of destroying what was once a very efficient and simple solution to the problem of getting healthcare to the poor. Ask any doctor over the age of 75 if there was a golden age of medicine and they will all (except those who live in la la land) tell you that indeed there was, once upon a time. They will also tell you that it is long past and they are so thankful to be out of the profession and retired (due to the destruction of the industry by the federal government.)

Of course, once the government puts its fingers in the pie and starts the process of screwing it up, it is never capable of backtracking to the last known good situation. Oh no. It just figures that it needs more tweaking to get it right; thus they (our wonderful politicians) never admit a mistake and repeal anything. Instead, they pass even more legislation trying to fix the problems they created with the first mistake. These “fixes” ultimately lead to even more unexpected consequences, which in turn lead to even more faulty legislation, ad nauseum, ad absurdum. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Affordable Care Act, otherwise affectionately known as Obamacare, a roughly 2,700 page behemoth of a law passed in the wee hours of the night on a weekend over the holidays which no one had read and no one really understood. This law was supposed to lower everyone’s annual healthcare costs by an average of $2,500, so stated by its strongest proponents and President Obama himself.

It was also not supposed to affect anyone who had an insurance policy they liked or had a doctor they liked. I guess we all now know the truth on that one. Furthermore, instead of lowering the average annual healthcare costs, it actually increased them by as much as four to eight times. Go ask anyone who pays for their own health insurance if they got to keep the policy they had and what has happened to their premiums and deductible. Virtually no one experienced a lowering of any kind in the cost of their annual health care expenses.

But lest I go on for too long about Factor number one, let me get on to Factor number two. This one is a little trickier than Factor number one because it involves a moral question and a cultural factor. Factor number two is the result of the technology revolution.

Just 50 years ago we were barely on the cusp of the technology revolution. The standard method of diagnosing medical conditions was clinical. No fancy computer tomography or magnetic resonance imaging machines yet existed to provide highly detailed pictures of soft tissues inside the human body. The best that existed was a simple x-ray machine.

Back in those days, doctors (and that’s what people called them, NOT “health care providers”) had to rely on their training and experience to recognize what was causing an illness based on direct observations and patients’ responses to a series of questions. As is the nature of being human, some doctors were better than others at arriving at the correct diagnosis, but all doctors had to be able to make clinical diagnoses or they would be out of business in pretty short order.

Then along came technology.

New advances in technology gave doctors, for the first time in history, the ability to see inside the human body in great detail. Furthermore, developments in biochemistry resulted in tests that could provide all kinds of information to doctors which had never before been available. And to top it off, pharmaceutical companies began to sink giant amounts of money into developing medicines that could treat, cure, or prevent illnesses in ways that had never previously been imagined. But all these new advances came with a cost. And not a small one.

The rapid introduction of high technology equipment, tests, and medicines into the field of healthcare changed forever the way doctors go about diagnosing illnesses. As these new technologies became more and more available, doctors coming out of medical school and residencies began to rely more and more heavily on tests and equipment to figure out the causes of their patients’ illnesses. Old school doctors who already had clinical diagnostics down found the new technologies to be exciting new tools to add to their abilities, but were primarily useful for confirming what they already knew. Newly minted doctors, who did not yet have the years of experience at making clinical diagnoses began to use the new technologies to help them make a diagnosis. Finally, as the older doctors began to retire, clinical diagnosis was relegated to use only for the most basic and simply identifiable illnesses. The “no brainers.”

There was something else going on in American culture at the same time as the technology revolution that further pushed doctors to rely on tests and equipment to, at a minimum, confirm their own diagnoses, and more often, to make the diagnoses: medical malpractice. As soon as the question, “did you confirm your diagnosis with such-and-such test or machine?” came up in a malpractice trial, that was the end of the doctor’s discretion to decide whether or not a particular test or scan was needed. From that point forward, fear of lawsuits began driving doctors to order every test and scan they could think of that might provide some supporting evidence to confirm or make a diagnosis.

As I mentioned before, these new technologies came with a cost, literally. New tests, machines, and medicines cost millions of dollars to develop and manufacture. Many millions. Without the ability of those companies who develop the technologies to recover their costs, and without the motivation to make a profit, none of these technologies would ever be developed. Period. End of story.

As proof, I offer an examination of countries that do not have free market economies and where profits are taxed out of existence. How many such countries have contributed in any significant way to current medical technology? The answer, if you don’t already know it, is practically, if not entirely, none. And if you travel to any of those countries and are able to receive medical care that involves the use of any modern technologies, guess what? They most likely got them from the United States of America. They didn’t invent them. They bought them.

But I digress. The point of this discussion is to make clear the fact that these new technologies are not cheap. But if you look back through modern history, you will find unlimited examples of new technologies that started out so expensive that only the super-rich could afford them. The first cars and airplanes, for example. Over time, as the companies who develop new technologies begin to recoup their investments, their patents expire, competitors begin making alternatives, and the benefits of economies of scale begin to kick in, the costs of the technologies come down, making them more and more available to more and more people; the not-so-rich.

And herein lies the moral dilemma. People can live without cars and planes (although some people probably think they can’t.) But without some of the new medical technologies now available, some people will die.

That’s right. Some people will die. And, in fact, it happens every day. Not only in the USA, but all over the world. Particularly in third-world countries. This is actually nothing new. For as long as some countries have been more medically advanced than others, people in those lesser advanced countries have simply died. Or, in less extreme circumstances, suffered for the rest of their lives from something curable in a more advanced nation. The advent of high medical technology has, in this area, served primarily to highlight the difference.

But what about people right here in America who are not wealthy enough to take advantage of all these new technologies and thus suffer and/or die as a result? Doesn’t everyone have a right to these new technologies, regardless of their wealth? That is the $64 billion dollar question. It is the very moral question at the heart of today’s medical controversy. As an aside, I find it interesting that many of those arguing that it is our moral duty as a nation to make all these new technologies available to everyone are also people who do not have any moral values of their own! But again, I digress.

So, I have established that throughout history some people have always had access to better medical care than others. It’s undeniable. I have also established that the main difference between now and then is the cost and capability of the old medical technologies versus the new medical technologies. The moral question has not changed. It is simply more directly in the spotlight.

I propose that we ignore the fact that the new technologies cost radically more to develop and manufacture than the old technologies. If we do this, then the answer to the moral dilemma remains unchanged. Those who have the money will pay for the new technologies and over time, the prices of those technologies will eventually come down to the point where all but the poorest can afford them. If we accept this situation, then we can also expect that there will always be newer and more advanced medical technologies on the horizon. If we refuse to accept this situation, then we cannot expect that there will always be newer and more advanced medical technologies under development.

To make it, possibly, maybe, just a little bit easier to accept this situation, one has to understand that if we had never accepted this situation in the past, we’d still be treating fevers with leeches.

So, what about “the poorest?” When do they get to take advantage of the new technologies? The answer to this question is found in our culture. The United States of America is the most charitable nation on planet Earth. Bar none. When natural disasters strike in foreign countries, who comes to the rescue with millions in donations and billions in equipment? The United States of America. That’s who. Do any other countries do the same? Well, a few help out, but none have the capacity or the desire to help to anywhere near the extent of our great nation. So the answer to the question, “what about the poorest?” comes from within. It comes from charity. It does not come from the government. Private charities have the ability to provide financial support at the individual level like no other entity in the world. And they do. As a nation, we should be doing everything possible to promote and facilitate charitable giving. It is the total solution.

Will some people still fall through the cracks? Absolutely. No system is perfect. But as a free democratic nation, where we value both individual rights and rule of the majority, no one can do better.

So is all we have to do to solve the healthcare problems in this country is simply allow medical professionals and hospitals to deduct unpaid accounts from their taxes and its “Problem Solved?” No. I wish it were. But there are many other things we most certainly can do to fix our broken healthcare system. And, naturally, I know what they are! But they will be the subject of another blog on this site, when I have time write it.

Until then, here is to your good health!

Two liberals text smack-down over American Sniper

A: I saw American Sniper last night. More like American’t Sniper.

Me: I thought American Sniper was really good. I loved it. I polished my nails today. My toenails look ok but my fingernails look like crap. We also saw Silver Linings Playbook and loved that. Interstellar? Not. So. Much.

A: That’s an old movie, but ya it was good. Interstellar was fine and American Sniper is a glorification of war and murder. I’m reading the book right now.

Me: I didn’t think American Sniper glorified war. Why do you say that?

A: Because Chris Kyle is portrayed as a hero. I understand that he saved Americans but he also stated he didn’t regret killing any Iraqis who were commonly referred to in the move as “f*&%ing savages.” Enjoying killing people who do not agree with you is an act of terrorism.

Me: I see what you’re saying. On the other hand, there seems to be an effort on the part of Michael Moore types to portray Al Qaida as being on the same moral footing as the US. ?Killing a kid with a drill, burning a pilot alive, beheading people. That is f*&%ing savage. Killing is bad. Killing to exact maximum suffering is worse. Making women and children act as meat shields…all these are acts of f*&%ing savages, and the American military does not occupy that same moral plane.

A: Invading a country because of reasons that were false? I would want an insurgence too. America does a pretty decent amount of torturing, themselves. How about the man that was covered in water and left on a concrete slab to die? That was a case of mistaken identity. Sure, Iraqis have done terrible things but so have Americans. That doesn’t mean that the generally peaceful population of the Middle East should be considered savage terrorists. I would hope my family, my teachers and I aren’t being portrayed as merciless snipers.

Me: I never agreed with the Iraq war. You can be sure that you, your family and teachers are being portrayed as infidels who deserve death. You’d have probs been married off years ago and would not likely be allowed in school. They make movies out of their atrocities. They sell them and post them online and play them on TV. I travelled in Turkey for a month. I loved it and I loved Turks. It’s not ignorance from me. The important thing is to see evil for what it is, and if you don’t, you empower evil. Evil can’t be turned back with rainbows and Care Bears.

A: American Sniper is making money off of American propaganda. Kyle is not a hero. He is a good shot. The bottom line is he said he enjoyed killing people that had no bad intentions towards him (as well as people that did). Where you get the idea of rainbows and Care Bears is unknown to me. Iraq is protecting itself just like America. I didn’t say I wanted to live there but America is plenty f*&%ed up. I still have things to be afraid of that I shouldn’t have to be. Marriage is also a massively different cultural phenomenon that’s hard to compare with the west. Moore is a great director who argues his points with valid intellectual evidence. It seems Eastwood’s goal was making a fortune off of portraying war as a cultural triumph.

Me: I didn’t read Kyle’s book. So you know more about him than I do. America has problems, the American military has problems, but comparing them to the barbarism that happens over there is totally wrong. Michael Moore is a propagandist. If you think America is on the same moral footing with Islamic terrorists, then he has successfully propagandized you. Yet you wouldn’t want to live there… Because it’s run by ?bunch of woman-hating pedophile murderers perhaps? This is the problem with moral relativism: suddenly that’s an ok society. Their values are ‘just a little different.’ You have to be a LOT different to create a market for viewing videos of burning someone alive or having sex with 9 year-old girls.

A: I understand things are going wrong there. But America is not helping. Thinking it’s ok to want to kill people–any people–is sympathizing with acts of terror and in this case is extremely islamaphobic. Kyle was doing a job directed by the US Army and he happened to be very good at it. This does not make him a hero. It is not a good thing to be “the most lethal sniper in US history.” We should not be led to believe in military ‘glory.’

Me: I think he saved a lot of lives. Understand, my quarrel is not with you. Moral relativism is my target. It is evil, but believes in no evil. You can read about the context of the USA’s involvement with terrorists, but I remember it. I remember it back into the 1980s. I was very aware of what was going on and like most people I didn’t think it mattered. But they declared war on us and brought their violence to our shores. The US moved the war back out of our country and in to someone else’s. You can believe that’s wrong if you want, but they declared war on us. And with their torture, beheadings, mayhem, and movie-making thereof, you think Clint Eastwood is glorifying violence and murder? The US does everything it can to avoid hurting civilians, but the terrorists’ main target IS civilians. They have no reverence for human life at all and it is absolutely preposterous for anyone to be apologists for them. Whoever taught you to do so is badly misled. Why defend the indefensible?

A: I’m not defending terrorists. The majority of the Middle East is peaceful. The majority of the United States is peaceful and that does not include Kyle. You can’t “think” he saved a lot of lives. I am aware he was an asset to the American military. If he enjoyed killing people based on culture he is at the very least an ethnocentric asshole. The Middle East is generally full of terrible people but the USA can be forgiven for torturing innocent civilians. It’s ok because it’s the greatest country in the world!

Me: I see. They declared war on us and attacked us, but we’re the ethnocentric ones. Their main purpose is to torture and kill civilians, but because the US sometimes accidentally kills or negligently tortures a civilian, that makes us the same as them? No we are not the same. Our values are totally different. Our values are superior. You call that ethnocentric; I call that knowing right from wrong.

A: Um ok but the terrorist attack came from Al Qaida which was based in Afghanistan. We invaded Iraq under the false idea they were harboring weapons of mass distraction (which America does all the time). There are plenty of people here with the immoral goal of torturing and killing which by no means describes the majority of the Middle East.

Me: That’s a really good point. I felt even at the time that it seemed fake, and I was against it. The fact that the US was either dishonest or incorrect seems to have hampered our efforts ever since. Still, in hindsight, the USA is on the right side of history in this struggle.

You know how in the movie Chris Kyle’s dad tells him there are sheep, there are wolves, and there are sheep dogs? Well, I think you’re a sheep dog.

Why might TEA Partiers be voting for Hillary?

by Devin

Salutations, my dear readers. All twelve and half million of you!

So here I am at my computer and I’ve finally gotten our blog site up and running. It took a little more than the touted “famous 5-minute setup,” but then again, it seems that I never do anything the easy way! In any case, it’s up and I’m ready to post my first blog, so here goes. I figured that I might as well make my first post something daring, like a prediction, since at this point no one is reading our blog, yet, and hopefully, if I’m wrong (and I hope I am!) it will be buried underneath a mountain of more recent posts and no one will ever be the wiser…

The 2016 Presidential race is going to be between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush.

There it is. My First Official Prediction on The Gatherer! Mark it down folks, because?I’m not in the habit of making them!

“So,” you say, “I get the Hillary part, but what makes you so sure it’s going to be Jeb?” Well, let me try to answer that question for you. First, we all know the established Republican party leadership is in love with the Bush family. If you don’t know that by now, read no further. This blog isn’t going to help you.

Second, Romney’s biggest donors, the ones he cited when he announced?that he would not be running, have all committed to Jeb (which should tell you something about him as a prospective candidate, but I’ll save that conversation for another post!) Reince Priebus, the RNC chairman, is practically a?Bush family member, at least adopted. Basically, everything on the Republican side is in favor of the anointment of?Jeb Bush as the presumptive Republican nominee. But there’s more. Oh, yes.

Point #3: Those in the media with a liberal political view understand that if their candidate should happen to lose, the next best thing is to have them lose to a liberal, big government Republican (and let’s face it, Jeb Bush is a liberal and favors big government). That way, they can expect the least amount of damage to their political agenda for the next four years. How, you may ask, does the liberal media act upon its desire to see someone like Jeb become the Republican nominee? It’s a very reasonable question and one that I shall humbly attempt?to answer.

Here’s how they will do it. Whenever they get the chance, they will talk about how well he’s doing, how he’s now the favorite, the frontrunner, has all the momentum. They will do this as though they are just reporting the facts. It doesn’t matter. The point is to create the impression that he is a juggernaut. They know very well that many, many voters out there prefer to cast their votes for the person they have the greatest confidence can win. In the case of the Republican presidential nominee, they know that Republicans are desperate to coalesce around one candidate as soon as possible, so they can mitigate the assured?bloodshed of an extended?primary battle. The same day?Mitt Romney made the announcement that he was not going to throw his hat back into the ring,?The New York Times?published a story that, while not out-and-out stating it, makes it clear that Jeb Bush is now the Republican frontrunner by a large margin. Surprise, surprise!

And finally, the left-wing media, along with negative advertising by other Republicans seeking the nomination, will try to make all of the candidates look as stupid and incoherent as possible.

To sum it up, Jeb Bush has the political backing of the leadership of his party. He has the financial backing of heavy hitters. Ultimately, he will have sufficient support from the left-wing media to get the nomination. It’s a done deal.

Now for why, if and when this happens, TEA Partiers might?be voting for Hillary. Hillary doesn’t go around claiming she’s a moderate or “just left of center” politician. Everyone knows where that crow?is perched?on the political wire. It would never work. My hat is off to her for not being afraid to stand up for what she believes. If?she is elected, she will push hard to the left to counter a Congress that is led by moderate, establishment?Republicans. She will lead this country even farther over the cliff than it already is and have the support of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell most of the time (all the while complaining publicly that there is nothing they can do about it, wah, wah, waaah).

It has been painfully obvious to the Republican Establishment in the last two Presidential elections that large swaths of their base have stayed home on election day. Those very same people show up for mid-term elections. What is going on here? Simple. The conservative base will not vote for the likes of John McCain or Mitt Romney. Rest assured they most certainly will not hold their noses and vote for Jeb Bush. They have been abandoned by the Republican leadership and they are out to make them pay!

After two Presidential elections where the Republican leadership has crammed a moderate (Mitt Romney) and a liberal (John McCain) down its voters throats, the TEA Partiers are going to be so disgusted that they are going to be ready to do more than just stay home if Jeb Bush is the nominee. Many of them are going to go to the ballot box and cast their vote for Hillary. Why on earth would they do that, you ask? Because what they hope would come from such a situation is the continued and accelerated awakening of America to the damage being caused by liberal policies and the laws and regulations based on them. They will?want that damage to be as visible as possible and to sit squarely on the shoulders of the people responsible for it. They will be wanting to spank the Republican Establishment as hard as they can!

The down side, of course, is that the Republican leadership (both elected public officials and party leaders), is highly unlikely to?learn a thing from a Jeb Bush loss to Hillary, because they are fine with Hillary, she being their second choice for the Executive Office. Not only does it give them four more years of a Democrat to point the finger at while they advance her policies, it also puts them in a better position to raise money. It’s just like when gun-control bills are on the verge?of passing into law, the NRA cleans up on donations. Maybe, just maybe, if Hillary wins, the?mega-donors and moderate voters?will finally get the message and stop wasting their time and money on liberal Republicans and start backing real conservatives. The?hope is that these people will finally learn that you cannot fight radical ideology with no ideology.

If that ever happens, America?might just have a chance.