Netherlands euthanasia extends to addicts and mentally ill

For years, pro-life activists have argued against the slippery slope of euthanasia. Once mercy killings were normalized, it was argued, they would become more common and larger numbers of people would be killed. That argument would seem to be proven after 15 years of legal euthanasia in the Netherlands.

In 2002, the Netherlands legalized euthanasia for those with “unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement,” according to the Telegraph. Since then, the country has expanded the right to die to more and more people including children and the mentally ill. According to a new report in Life News, euthanasia has even been approved for at least one “hopeless alcoholic.”

The article is based on a story in the Dutch magazine, “Linda,” in which Marcel Langedijk writes about his brother, Mark. Mark was an alcoholic and the father of two children. He fought alcoholism for eight years, losing his marriage in the process. After 21 trips to rehab or hospitals, Mark was tired of fighting and depending on his family to care for him. He asked to be euthanized.

The Life News account states that since he was physically and mentally ill, Mark met the minimum standard for death in the Netherlands. “A woman doctor in a black dress and sneakers arrived to give him his lethal injection. She confirmed his decision and then gave him three doses. He died quickly.”

According to the Telegraph, Mark is not alone. Euthanasia for people with mental illness and dementia are increasing. Euthanasia cases are up 75 percent in the past five years. Euthanasia for psychiatric reasons increased from 0.1 percent to one percent of the total. Dementia cases increased from 0.8 percent to two percent.

There have been several euthanasia cases for people with chronic depression. One euthanized patient was a sex abuse victim. Another was a victim of post-traumatic stress syndrome and personality disorder. The last was the mother of a three-year-old child.

The psychological grounds for euthanasia has been dumbed down to the point where, according to the Daily Mail, a woman with tinnitus, a ringing in the ears, was euthanized in 2013. The 47-year-old clarinet player said she was subjected to a constant noise in her head “like a train screeching or someone scratching their nails on a chalk board.” She was given a poison potion to drink by a doctor at the euthanasia clinic and left behind a 13-year-old boy and a 15-year-old girl.

The Daily Mail notes that euthanasia has become so common in the Netherlands that almost everyone knows someone who has taken their life. As many as one in 33 Dutch people have been euthanized, about 6,000 in 2014. Since the Netherlands is a small country with a population less than that of New York City, the total numbers are small, but they are increasing.

With increasing numbers of mentally ill and dementia patients, an obvious question is whether they are competent to make the decision to end their life or whether they are pressured by friends and family members. There have been reports that thousands of Dutch patients have died in mercy killings without their consent. That doesn’t include the hundreds of babies born alive who are then “killed by doctors each year because they are deemed to be in pain or facing a life of suffering” according to another report from Life News. For many elderly and disabled Dutch, the fear of forced euthanasia is so great that they carry cards specifically stating that they do not want to be euthanized.

The marked increase in the number of killings and the lack of objective standards for who is allowed to be killed have caused some Dutch to change their minds about euthanasia. The killings started with the terminally ill, but have rapidly expanded to many patients who should be treatable.

Theo Boer, a Dutch ethicist who changed his mind on euthanasia after seeing the increase in killings, said on Life News, “Is it because the law should have had better safeguards? Or is it because the mere existence of such a law is an invitation to see assisted suicide and euthanasia as a normality instead of a last resort? Before those questions are answered, don’t go there. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is not likely to ever go back in again.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Texas governor wants ban on sanctuary cities

Texas governor, Greg Abbott, has announced his intention to ban sanctuary cities in the Lone Star State. In a tweet on Sunday, Gov. Abbott said, “Yes. I'm going to sign a law that bans sanctuary cities. Also I've already issued an order cutting funding to sanctuary cities.”

A measure similar to the one supported by Abbott was proposed in 2014 but failed to pass. The bill would have provided that “government entities” in Texas “may not adopt a rule, order, ordinance, or policy under which the entity prohibits the enforcement of the laws of this state or federal law relating to immigrants or immigration.” The bill died without gaining enough support for a vote.

The term “sanctuary city” does not have a precise meaning, but generally refers to cities that have policies that prohibit their police departments from enforcing immigration laws or cooperating with federal immigration officials. In reality, it is questionable whether Texas has any cities that fit this definition.

Last February, Texas Monthly examined the question of whether any Texas cities could be considered sanctuary cities. Even though SanctuaryCities.info lists 15 Texas towns and the Center for Immigration Studies lists two, the criteria they used to determine which cities were sanctuaries was unclear. Texas Monthly found that no city in Texas had a policy that would fit the typical definition of a sanctuary city.

In August, the Texas Tribune reported that Austin, already believed to be a sanctuary city by many, was “likely to become the first true ‘sanctuary city’ in GOP-ruled Texas.” The move hinged on whether the Sally Hernandez, the Democratic candidate for sheriff in Travis County, won the election. Hernandez had promised to end cooperation with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement by not detaining county jail inmates that ICE wants to deport. The Republican candidate, Joe Martinez, had said he would end the blanket policy of cooperation with ICE, but would continue to turn dangerous inmates over for deportation. Hernandez won the election after softening her stance on immigration enforcement, but has yet to take office.

Hernandez’ election may bring new urgency to the effort to pass a sanctuary city ban. The Austin Statesman says that the bill has been refiled for the new legislative session and that Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick is making it a priority. The bill would cut off state money to cities that do not cooperate with enforcement of federal immigration law.

Local cooperation with federal immigration law is typically relating to honoring “detainer” requests from ICE at local jails. ICE requests local law enforcement to hold certain inmates who are illegal aliens until ICE can take custody and arrange for their deportation. Current federal policy prioritizes the deportation of illegals who are deemed to be “threats to national security, border security, and public safety.”

The Texas Tribune notes that “Texas law states that police officers generally cannot arrest people without probable cause of a crime, and immigration violations often are civil matters, not criminal cases.” Texas law states that police may arrest offenders without a warrant “when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.” This would exclude immigration violations that are civil matters or criminal offenses that do not rise to the level of a felony.

Gov. Abbott’s proposed ban on sanctuary cities would act as a deterrent to any city that decides not to cooperate with immigration laws, but since there are no cities in Texas that fit that description, the bill’s effect would be minimal. As a role of the federal government, the problem of illegal immigration can ultimately only be resolved in Washington.  

Originally published on The Resurgent

Venezuelan Hyperinflation Means Money No Longer Fits Wallets

David Holt/Wikimedia

The crashing Venezuelan economy has put consumers between a rock and a hard place. Shortages have caused prices to increase dramatically while, at the same time, the value of the Venezuelan currency has plummeted. The result is that wallets are no longer large enough to contain the wad of banknotes that are necessary to buy even small, everyday items.

According to the Washington Post, the exchange rate is so bad that the largest Venezuelan banknote, a 100 bolivar bill, is worth only about 5 US cents on the black market, far less than the official exchange rate of 10 bolivars to the dollar. That means that common items are increasingly out of reach for Venezuelans. A pack of cigarettes currently sells for about 2,000 bolivars, the current equivalent of $1 US.  This transaction alone would require the exchange of 20 of the 100 bolivar bills.

The large number of banknotes required for a typical shopping trip makes it difficult to carry enough money in a wallet or purse. Many Venezuelans are increasingly turning to electronic transactions to avoid carrying large amounts of cash. For others, the large quantity of paper money means using larger plastic bags or backpacks to transport their bankroll.

  

Shortages have caused the price of food to skyrocket even as the money lost its value. As food riots rocked the country in August, CNN reported that staples such as flour, milk and pasta can cost a month’s pay… if you can find them at all.

In Venezuela, there are three ways to buy products. First, there are official government stores where the price is subsidized and kept low. Economic law dictates that artificially low prices cause abnormally high demand. The result is that people flock to the government stores and rapidly clear their shelves. Products disappear quickly even with rationing. Customers at government stores can only shop on certain days of the week. There are long lines and, when you get to the front, there are no guarantees that there will be anything left to buy.

Venezuela also has private stores. Since these stores are not subsidized by the government, prices are higher. Private stores still have to contend with the shortages as well.

“I've been waiting in line since 3 a.m. and have only managed to get two tubes of toothpaste, so, I guess I'm going to have to eat toothpaste tonight,” Monica Savaleta, a 19-year-old dancer, told CNN.

There is a third option, the black market. Buying and selling on the black market is illegal and can be dangerous. It is also very expensive compared to the legal stores.

“I make between 12,000 and 15,000 bolivars a month,” Savaleta said. “If I buy from the [black market] bachaqueros, my whole salary is blown on three kilos [6.6 pounds] of rice.”

Business Insider listed several black market prices for common grocery items. Fresh milk is impossible to find, so many used powdered milk which costs $700 US for a 2.2-pound box. A dozen eggs fetch $150 US. A box of pasta costs more than $300 US. Watermelons are $40 US each. A one-pound bag of coffee is $200 US. To put this in perspective, the Venezuelan minimum wage is about 15,000 bolivars per month, about $1,500 US. More than three-quarters of Venezuelans live in poverty according to the Wall Street Journal.

Venezuela’s situation is known as “hyperinflation,” a condition typically defined by economists as monthly inflation of greater than 50 percent. At that level, an item that costs $1 on January 1 would cost $130 a year later. The Venezuelan inflation rate has been estimated at between 720 percent and 2,200 percent.

There have been 55 other cases of hyperinflation, all of them since the onset of the 20^th century. The most famous was in the German Weimar Republic in the 1920s that eventually led to the rise of Adolf Hitler. As with many cases of hyperinflation, war and financial mismanagement led to the onset of the Weimar crisis. Germany had financed its war effort with debt, which was compounded after the war with reparations payments to the Allies. The Reichsbank began monetizing the debt, a process by which the central bank issued bonds to cover its debt which were then purchased by the same central bank. Using this process, the government could borrow money without having to repay it. The German government also began printing more marks to finance domestic spending.

In Venezuela, the economic crisis is primarily due to government policy and the oil slump. Former president, Hugo Chavez, a protégé of Fidel Castro, nationalized large swaths of Venezuela’s economy and funded much of the country’s consumption with foreign debt according to The Guardian. When the price of oil crashed, so did Venezuela’s revenues. As a result, Nicolas Maduro, Chavez’s successor, was forced to use the country’s gold reserves to service the national debt.

The Maduro government also printed more money, which contributed to the devaluation of the currency. Another basic economic law says that when there is more of something, it is valued less. More bolivars on the market made each individual bolivar less valuable.

Also contributing to the problem is corruption. Transparency International rates Venezuela as the ninth most corrupt country in the world. While ordinary Venezuelans suffer, Maduro and his cronies are doing well. The NY Post noted last spring that an estimated $2 billion has been exported from the country to private banks. The Maduro government is accused of bribery, money laundering, siphoning funds from the state-owned oil company and even drug smuggling.

In 1923, the Weimar hyperinflation ended when the German Reichsbank stopped monetizing the national debt and stopped printing new money. The Reichsbank pegged the value of the Papermark at 4.2 trillion to $1 US according to the Mises Institute. A new currency, the Rentenmark, was introduced with a value of 1 trillion Papermarks to 1 Rentenmark.

At this point, there is no end in sight to the Venezuelan crisis. A resolution will require a change in government policy and may require a change in the government itself. Dissatisfaction and food riots may eventually turn into a revolution or coup against the country’s ruling class. Until reforms are made, the best the government can do to deal with the crisis is to print money in ever larger denominations. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Jeb! calls for convention of states

In the weeks since the election, Jeb(!) Bush has been conspicuously absent. He ended his absence today with a surprising op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that, among other advice to the president-elect and the Republican Party, calls for a convention of states to amend the Constitution.

Bush, who acknowledges that Mr. Trump “tapped into the anger and deep distrust that voters feel toward Washington” and the belief that “our system is skewed in favor of the powerful and the connected,” points out that “This election was more about voting against something than voting for something. Americans voted against the ‘establishment,’ against the country’s changing culture, against a dysfunctional Washington, against the privileged, against Hillary Clinton—and, yes, against Donald Trump.”

Bush notes that, even though Republicans won a decisive electoral victory, neither Trump nor the party is popular. To assume that the election results are a mandate for everything that Trump campaigned on, even as he trails by more than 2 million popular votes, might lead to the same trap of federal overreach that ensnared Barack Obama.

Instead, Bush argues for a positive agenda that will appeal to the majority of Americans. “Americans, by wide majorities, agree that Washington is broken, so let’s send power back to the people and back to the states,” Bush writes. “Republicans should support convening a constitutional convention to pass term limits, a balanced-budget amendment and restraints on the Commerce Clause, which has given the federal government far more regulatory power than the Founders intended.”

What Bush is referring to here is typically referred to as an “Article V convention” or a “convention of states,” an alternative method of amending the Constitution that has never been used, but that has been much discussed in recent years. Article V of the Constitution provides that two-thirds of the states can call a constitutional convention and amendments can then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or conventions in three-fourths of the states. This would require 34 states to call for the convention and 38 states to ratify.

While the election of 2016 may give Republicans their best chance at a successful Article V convention, it is by no means a slam dunk. Ballotpedia shows that starting in 2017, Republicans will control all three branches of government in 25 states. While this is a historic high, it falls short of the number of states required to ratify an amendment or even call for a convention. Conversely, only five states are completely controlled by Democrats. This falls short of the 13 states needed to block an amendment.

These numbers give the Republicans have an advantage, but the 20 states with bipartisan government control will be decisive. A constitutional convention would be dominated by Republicans, but there would be no blank check. Republicans would be forced to compromise to amend the Constitution.

Perhaps realizing the difficulty of amending the Constitution, Bush offers an agenda that can be accomplished through Congress. “Most critically, Republicans should reverse the Obama-era policies that have made America weaker, both here and abroad. We need to repeal and replace ObamaCare, eliminate business-killing regulations, and reverse the massive expansion of government. While we protect our borders and our laws, we should also take on the hard work of reforming legal immigration and affirming the role that immigrants play in building up our economy and our nation.” Bush also calls on the new president to “restore American leadership in the world” and “protect and reassure our friends and allies.”

He also calls upon Republicans to repair their party’s tarnished image. “Republicans must restore our brand as the party of conservative ideals, shared prosperity, liberty and responsibility,” he writes. He stresses that this should be done “without stooping to the identity politics of the left. Let’s not focus on angst, grievance and division over race, class or gender.”

Bush makes the point that Trump’s victory was neither a license for Republicans to take reckless action or an excuse to take the reins of power and then rest on their laurels. Democratic overreach and disregard for the will of the people is what handed the Republicans this victory. The voters will hold Mr. Trump accountable if he does not follow through with his promise to “make America great again.”

“The GOP has no excuse for failure,” Bush writes. “We are in charge of both the executive and legislative branches in Washington, and we dominate in the states like never before. We have the power to set the agenda, and we have the responsibility to govern, not merely on behalf of the voters who supported President-elect Trump, but for all Americans.” 

Looming recounts may extend election

If you thought the election was over except for the protests and the formality of the Electoral College, prepare to be disappointed. One recount has already been requested and experts are urging Hillary Clinton file for recounts in three states.

The first recount was requested by Pat McCrory, governor of North Carolina, on Tuesday according to Politico. McCrory, the Republican candidate, was trailing Democrat Roy Cooper, by more than 8,500 votes according to the Cooper campaign. McCrory’s campaign has alleged widespread voter fraud.

The first recount of this election season may not be the last. New York Magazine reports that a team of computer scientists has urged Hillary Clinton to file for recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania citing signs that vote totals could have been manipulated.

J. Alex Halderman, director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, was among the scientists who found a suspicious pattern of Clinton performing more poorly in counties with electronic voting machines than where paper ballots were used. The group said that the seven percent difference was large enough to raise the possibility that election computers could have been hacked.

So far no proof of tampering with the election has been found, but the large difference between counties with electronic voting machines and paper ballots is an anomaly that Halderman believes should be investigated. There may be other explanations for the discrepancy as well.

Donald Trump’s margins of victory in Michigan and Pennsylvania were less than one percent. Michigan has not been formally decided, but Clinton trails by 11,000 votes there. She lost Pennsylvania by 68,000 votes. Wisconsin had a margin of one percent, about 27,000 votes. Halderman’s statistical analysis, focused on Wisconsin, shows that there were enough suspicious votes to throw the outcome of these states into question. It would take a reversal of all three states to change the outcome of the Electoral College election, although faithless electors may change that total. As many as six electors have said that they will not vote for Donald Trump.

It is not clear if the suspicious pattern extends to other states as well. Also unclear is whether the North Carolina recount will examine presidential as well as gubernatorial votes.

The deadline to apply for a recount is looming in all three states. NY Magazine reports that Clinton supporters are lobbying for recounts and a forensic examination of voting machines, but the Obama Administration does not want the results challenged in order to smooth the transfer of power.

The possibility of Russian tampering with election results was raised prior to the election. The Obama Administration has blamed Russia for the hack of Democratic National Committee emails. Donald Trump has remained skeptical of the Russian connection, but Mike Pence has indicated that he believes that Russia was behind the email hack.

Whether Hillary will ask for a recount hasn’t been determined yet. The outcome of any recounts and investigation may not change the election, but it does raise the possibility that the election that everyone thought was settled might not be over yet.

Originally published on The Resurgent

How beer and football became a Thanksgiving traditioin

http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/42/163342-050-B59309B3.jpg

This Thanksgiving as millions of Americans settle into a turkey-induced afternoon coma, others will push aside their plates and prepare to partake in that other great American Thanksgiving tradition. The tradition that I speak of is not honoring the memory of the Pilgrims or thanking God for his blessings, although those are also important. The tradition that I speak of is football and beer.

Thanksgiving football games, paired with a cold amber, ale or lager, are a longtime American tradition. In fact, this tradition has its roots in history that predates even the first Thanksgiving turkey. Thanksgiving beer and football goes all the way back to Samoset and Squanto, the Indians who befriended the Pilgrims and taught them how to survive through the harsh New England winters.

On March 16, 1621, an Indian wearing only a loincloth walked into the Pilgrim settlement at Plymouth, Mass. The book, “The Light and the Glory” by Peter Marshall and David Manuel, tells what happened next.

"Welcome!" he suddenly boomed, in a deep, resonant voice. The Pilgrims were too startled to speak. At length they replied with as much gravity as they could muster: "Welcome."

Their visitor fixed them with a piercing stare. "Have you got any beer?" he asked them in flawless English. If they were surprised before, they were astounded now.

"Beer?" one of them managed.

The Indian nodded.

The Pilgrims looked at one another, then turned back to him. "Our beer is gone. Would you like ... some brandy?"

Again the Indian nodded.

The beer-loving Indian was Samoset, one of the few Indians in the New World who spoke English, having learned the language from English fishermen and explorers who visited the New England coast. Samoset soon returned and introduced the colonists to Squanto, another English-speaking native.

Squanto was alone in the world. He had been captured by Captain George Weymouth about 1605 and taken to England, where he spent about 10 years. After returning to North America, he was captured by another Englishman, Thomas Hunt, and sold into slavery in Spain. He escaped and returned to his home in 1619, only to find that his entire tribe, the Patuxets, had been wiped out by smallpox.

His meeting with the English gave Squanto a reason to live. “These English were like little babes,” according to “The Light and the Glory.” Squanto taught them to plant corn, catch fish and “helped in a thousand similar ways, teaching them to stalk deer, plant pumpkins among the corn, refine maple syrup from maple trees, discern which herbs were good to eat and good for medicine, and find the best berries....”

It was the Pilgrim gratitude to both God and Squanto that inspired the first Thanksgiving feast. The joyous celebration lasted for three days. It is truly miraculous that the Pilgrims, thousands of miles from England, would encounter two Indians who spoke their native language and who would take the time to teach them to survive in their new home.

If beer was present (or at least sought) at the earliest Thanksgiving, football came a little later. President Lincoln declared the first fixed Thanksgiving holiday in 1863 and the first Thanksgiving football game came only six years later.

The Philadelphia Evening Telegraph chronicled a Thanksgiving Day football game in 1869 between the Young America Cricket Club and the Germantown Cricket Club. This game came only six weeks after the Rutgers-Princeton game that is widely considered to be America’s first football game.

Yale and Princeton played Thanksgiving Day games from 1876 through 1881 according to Wikipedia. In 1882, the Intercollegiate Football Association began holding a championship game in New York City on Thanksgiving Day. By the time the NFL was organized in 1920, football was already a Thanksgiving staple.

Thanksgiving is properly a day to reflect on God’s blessings. We are truly fortunate to be heirs to the religious liberty sought by the Pilgrims and to live in this land of plenty. But as you celebrate God’s gifts, don’t feel guilty as you enjoy a football game. And if you want to have a Thanksgiving beer, consider raising your glass to Samoset and Squanto, without whom the story of the Pilgrims might have ended very differently.

Originally published on The Resurgent

US military rated 'marginal' to 'weak'

Wikimedia Commons

The Heritage Foundation has released its 2017 Index of US Military Strength, an objective survey of US military infrastructure, its ability to operate in different regions of the world and an assessment of threats currently faced by the US. This year Heritage found that threats to the US were high while the ability of the US to meet them was “marginal” to “weak.”

Heritage notes that the military is assessed on the basis of being able to accomplish three core missions: Defense of the homeland, successful conclusion of a major regional war and protection of freedom of movement through areas in sea, air, space and cyberspace in which the world conducts business. Since WWII, US leaders have consistently worked to maintain a military size that could fight two major regional contingencies (MRCs) at the same time.

The different branches of the US military were rated on capability, capacity and readiness. The Navy, Air Force, Marines and nuclear forces were rated as “marginal” by Heritage while the Army was rated as “weak.” Heritage notes that the Navy is deferring maintenance and facing delays in modernization. The Air Force has a fleet of 1,159 tactical fighters, but lacks the ability to fly all of them due to shortages of pilots and experienced maintenance personnel. Current operations and shortage of funds for the Marine Corps mean that the USMC has only two-thirds of the units that it needs. US nuclear forces depend on older weapons systems while competitor countries are upgrading and expanding.

The Army’s weak rating is the result of trading strength and modernization for the current readiness. Even so, Heritage says that only one-third of army units are at acceptable readiness levels. Budget cuts have forced the Army to increase its reliance on contract maintenance. Brigade combat teams and combat aviation brigades have been reduced by about a third due to budget shortfalls. Heritage says, “The Army is smaller, older, and weaker, a condition that is unlikely to change in the near future.”

In the index, Heritage also rates the threats that the US military is likely to face.  There are six threats that Heritage considers “high” risks. Russia and China are both expanding their militaries and acting aggressively. North Korea reportedly has a missile that can deliver a nuclear warhead to the US and is also working on submarine-launched missile technology that would allow it to park missiles off the shores of American cities. Iran is another potential nuclear threat in spite of President Obama’s deal. Terrorism in the Middle East and in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region round out the largest potential threats.

The bright spot in the Heritage assessment is America’s ability to operate around the world. A strong network of allies in Europe and Asia bolsters US capabilities. These regions are rated as “favorable” to US operations. The Middle East is rated as “moderate” where US advantages are being offset by unstable governments and a reduced presence due to the withdrawal from Iraq.

The change of course signaled by the recent presidential elections may provide a boost to US military budgets. Nevertheless, National Defense Magazine notes that, because of the debt crisis, any increase in military spending will likely be small without entitlement reforms. Such reforms would be fought by the Democrats and possibly by Donald Trump as well. As a candidate, Trump opposed conservative plans to restructure entitlement programs.

In summary, the world is a dangerous place with maturing threats from a number of different countries and terrorist groups. Budget cuts have forced the US military to trade modernization to meet future threats for the ability to maintain current readiness. The Republican victories this year may provide an opportunity to get military readiness back on track.

Originally published on The Resurgent

New oil find in Texas should keep prices low

The U.S. Geological Survey announced this week that it had discovered the what may be the largest untapped supply of oil ever found in America. The discovery sits in the Permian Basin of West Texas near Midland, an already booming oil town that was the childhood home of President George W. Bush.

The find comes amid a two-year oil price slump that has caused pains among Texas companies as well as foreign oil producers like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Russia. Many oil companies in Texas have already filed bankruptcy and many more hover on the brink.

“The fact that this is the largest assessment of continuous oil we have ever done just goes to show that, even in areas that have produced billions of barrels of oil, there is still the potential to find billions more,” said Walter Guidroz of the USGS. “Changes in technology and industry practices can have significant effects on what resources are technically recoverable, and that’s why we continue to perform resource assessments throughout the United States and the world.”

The new find and the oil slump are both made possible by new technology that allows oil to be harvested that was untouchable in the past. Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and the ability to drill for shale oil have vastly increased the amount of the world’s recoverable oil reserves.

The New York Times reports that US domestic oil production has almost doubled in the past few years, largely due to these new technologies. As US production of oil has increased, the need for foreign imports has fallen. Foreign oil companies have struggled to find new markets and prices have fallen as a result.

Over the past few months, oil prices have recovered from less than $20 per barrel to the current $40-50 range. Many wells are not profitable at current prices and have shut down. Likewise, new exploration and projects have lagged because they are not cost effective without a higher price for oil.

Most analysts have predicted that oil prices will take several years to recover to the $60 range where many more wells and projects would be profitable. The likelihood of oil returning to $100 per barrel prices that were frequently seen from 2008 through 2014 seems remote.

The new oil discovery also serves as a reminder of how rapidly things can change. Alarmists have been predicting for years that the world has reached the point of “peak oil,” the point where oil production has reached a maximum and will begin a decline due to diminishing reserves. Far from it.

In the past few years, US and world oil reserves have increased markedly due to new discoveries and new technologies. At the same time, the world is using its oil more efficiently thanks to technological advances in engines and aerodynamics. Even with more people and countries using oil, the world’s oil supplies should be abundant for many years to come. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

The decline of marriage may be over

Marriage on the mend (Public Domain/Pixabay)

It is still too early to tell, but the decline of marriage may be reversing. New data shows that the number of divorces is falling while the marriage rate has ticked up slightly. Both changes have occurred for several consecutive years.

“The decline [of marriage] has stopped,” Wendy Manning, co-director of the National Center for Family and Marriage Research at Bowling Green State University, told Bloomberg.

The center’s research, based on census data, shows that the number of divorces has fallen for three straight years and is currently at its lowest level in 35 years. Conversely, the marriage rate, which has been declining since the 1970s, seems to have bottomed out and stabilized.

The data is based on the marriage and divorce rates for women aged 15 and older. A comparison chart from the center shows that the divorce rate has hovered around 20 since the 1980s and is currently at a low of 16.9. The marriage rate has continually fallen from a high of 76.9 in 1970 and now stands at 32.3.

There is no definitive answer on what has caused the trends in marriage and divorce to change. A major factor in the falling number of divorces could be that there simply aren’t as many marriages to begin with. Breakups by cohabitating or common law couples would not be reflected in the data.

More Americans are waiting longer to get married as well. ABC News reported in June that the average age at the first marriage had increased by about four years since 1970 for both men and women. Women are an average age of 25.1 and men are 26.8 when they first tie the knot. A few more years of maturity at marriage may contribute to fewer divorces.

“We’ve seen a decline of divorce among people who are younger and an increase among people who are older,” noted Manning.

In fact, the divorce rate might be much lower if Baby Boomers were excluded. Bloomberg previously reported that, while divorce rates were down for younger Americans, they were soaring for Baby Boomers. The high divorce rate among Baby Boomers may have contributed to both the delay in marriage and the lower divorce rate for younger generations by making children of divorce more cautious about getting married in the first place.

Whatever the reason, fewer divorces and more marriages is an encouraging sign and a possible antidote to America’s entitlement crisis. Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, pointed out that the “principal cause” of child poverty in the United States was “the absence of married fathers in the home.”

Even the liberal Brookings Institution argues that marriage is an important antidote to poverty. Ron Haskins stressed that children who follow three simple rules have only a two percent chance of growing up to live in poverty. Haskins’ advice? “At least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.”

The news of more marriages and fewer divorces is something that Americans on both sides of the political spectrum can and should celebrate. It means that Americans are improving their own lives as well as those of the next generation. It may also provide the means to shrink the welfare state and attack the debt and entitlement crisis. That is a very good thing.

Originally published on The Resurgent

The decline of marriage may be over

It is still too early to tell, but the decline of marriage may be reversing. New data shows that the number of divorces is falling while the marriage rate has ticked up slightly. Both changes have occurred for several consecutive years.

“The decline [of marriage] has stopped,” Wendy Manning, co-director of the National Center for Family and Marriage Research at Bowling Green State University, told Bloomberg.

The center’s research, based on census data, shows that the number of divorces has fallen for three straight years and is currently at its lowest level in 35 years. Conversely, the marriage rate, which has been declining since the 1970s, seems to have bottomed out and stabilized.

The data is based on the marriage and divorce rates for women aged 15 and older. A comparison chart from the center shows that the divorce rate has hovered around 20 since the 1980s and is currently at a low of 16.9. The marriage rate has continually fallen from a high of 76.9 in 1970 and now stands at 32.3.

There is no definitive answer on what has caused the trends in marriage and divorce to change. A major factor in the falling number of divorces could be that there simply aren’t as many marriages to begin with. Breakups by cohabitating or common law couples would not be reflected in the data.

More Americans are waiting longer to get married as well. ABC News reported in June that the average age at the first marriage had increased by about four years since 1970 for both men and women. Women are an average age of 25.1 and men are 26.8 when they first tie the knot. A few more years of maturity at marriage may contribute to fewer divorces.

“We’ve seen a decline of divorce among people who are younger and an increase among people who are older,” noted Manning.

In fact, the divorce rate might be much lower if Baby Boomers were excluded. Bloomberg previously reported that, while divorce rates were down for younger Americans, they were soaring for Baby Boomers. The high divorce rate among Baby Boomers may have contributed to both the delay in marriage and the lower divorce rate for younger generations by making children of divorce more cautious about getting married in the first place.

Whatever the reason, fewer divorces and more marriages is an encouraging sign and a possible antidote to America’s entitlement crisis. Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, pointed out that the “principal cause” of child poverty in the United States was “the absence of married fathers in the home.”

Even the liberal Brookings Institution argues that marriage is an important antidote to poverty. Ron Haskins stressed that children who follow three simple rules have only a two percent chance of growing up to live in poverty. Haskins’ advice? “At least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.”

The news of more marriages and fewer divorces is something that Americans on both sides of the political spectrum can and should celebrate. It means that Americans are improving their own lives as well as those of the next generation. It may also provide the means to shrink the welfare state and attack the debt and entitlement crisis. That is a very good thing.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump's election drives left beyond bounds of decency and civility

Twitter post of the "Rape Melania" sign (screenshot by David Thornton)

The election of the Donald Trump seems to have pushed many in the liberal left over the brink of sanity and common decency. First came the protests and violence. Ironically, this was the same sort of violence that some had expected of Trump supporters in the then-likely event that Hillary Clinton won the election. Even as the protests continue, the leftist response among many non-rioting leftists ranges from the irrational to loathsome.

In one bizarre case, Rachel Zarrell of MTV News tweeted a threat to mail Mike Pence a “monthly bag of period blood” if he “tries to regulate my uterus.” The tweet, posted on Daily Wire, was an apparent reference to Pence’s pro-life views, although another Twitter user answered Zarrell and pointed out her confusion. “Clearly you're ignorant of biology,” DC MCallister wrote. “A uterus and a fetus are two different entities. Saving the latter isn't ‘regulating’ the former.”

Zarrell may also be confused about Mike Pence’s role in the federal government. Laws are passed by Congress and Mike Pence, as the incoming vice president, will have a primarily ceremonial role in Congress. The vice president has very little control over anything. John Nance Garner, vice president to Franklin Roosevelt, famously observed that “the vice presidency is not worth a bucket of warm spit.”

Speaking of containers of bodily fluids, Zarrell might also want check into the Post Office regulations on shipping organic matter. Blood can be considered a biohazard and subject to hazardous materials regulations.

If Zarrell’s tweet was bizarre and disgusting, another anti-Trump protester’s message was, well, deplorable. The message on a protest sign spotted at a Washington, DC rally read, “Rape Melania.” This sign was all the more ironic and reprehensible in light of the campaign issue of Donald Trump and Bill Clinton’s treatment of women.

As the husband of a victim of sexual assault, let me just say that any call to rape or sexually assault anyone has no place in civilized discourse. Even in jest, the suggestion that someone would think that raping a candidate’s wife is an appropriate response to the democratic will of the people is morally bankrupt and indefensible.

Thankfully, as Heat Street pointed out, an associated #RapeMelania hashtag on Twitter was primarily used to condemn the sign.

If rape weren’t bad enough, some online leftists have openly called for and speculated about the assassination of Trump. The New York Post reported that the CEO of a California cybersecurity firm was forced to resign after tweeting a “flawed joke” about killing Trump with a sniper rifle. WCSH News reported that an Ohio man had actually been arrested for tweeting his intention to kill Donald Trump.

Opponents of Donald Trump have the freedom to criticize and protest his election, but should remember that words have meaning. Some words go beyond the bounds of civility and decency and cross the line to criminal behavior.

Voice your opposition, but watch what you say. The Secret Service will.      

Originally published on The Resurgent

Who really won the popular vote?

Posts surfaced on the internet within days of the election claiming that the “final election 2016 numbers” showed that Donald Trump had won both the Electoral College and popular vote. While not all absentee votes have been counted and Michigan’s vote count is still incomplete as of this writing, it appears that Hillary Clinton will have received more popular votes than Donald Trump when the final count is made.

At present, all major news sources agree that Hillary Clinton is leading Donald Trump in the popular vote. A check of Fox News and CNN showed identical vote tallies for the two candidates. Donald Trump is credited with 60,834,437 votes and Hillary Clinton has 61,782,016. The reported returns give Clinton a lead of almost a million votes.

The claims that Trump received more votes seem to stem from a blog post on Nov. 12 that claimed Trump had won 62.9 million to 62.2 million when the “final election 2016 numbers” were in. The blog cites an unsourced Twitter post for its claim.  

The author of the blog updated his post on Nov. 15 to argue that his unsourced numbers were correct. “The popular vote number still need [sic] to be updated in Wikipedia or MSM media – which may take another few days because the liberals are still reeling and recovering from Trump-shock victory,” the blog states. The blog also says that 3 million votes “should be removed from Hillary Clinton” because of voting by illegal aliens and voter fraud. “Trump by default is the winner in the popular vote,” the site exults.

Different states have different rules and deadlines for counting votes, but they all face a common deadline in the meeting of the Electoral College. Members of the Electoral College meet in their states on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. This year that date falls on December 19. The final, official popular vote tallies should be available by that date.

It is possible that recounts could flip some states. According to the International Business Times on Nov. 14, Trump currently leads Michigan by just over 13,000 votes and Clinton’s edge in New Hampshire is only 2,700 votes. Nevertheless, it would take the reversal of more than one swing state to change the Electoral College outcome.

It is somewhat of a mystery why the popular vote is such a contentious issue. Above state level, it matters only for bragging rights. Popular vote is only used in determining the winner of each state’s electoral votes. If the current trends continue, Trump would not be first president to win with a minority of the popular vote. Factcheck.org reports that it has happened four times previously in U.S. history, including George W. Bush’s 2000 victory over Al Gore.

Originally Published on The Resurgent

Paul Ryan set to return as Speaker

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) appears set to return in his role as Speaker in the next Congress. A secret ballot election among the Republican caucus today will set the stage for the formal election of the Speaker in January.

If Ryan wins today’s internal election for leadership of the Republicans in the House, he will be all but certain to return to the speakership next year. Today’s vote requires a majority of the Republican conference while the vote for speaker in January requires a majority of all lawmakers present, typically 218 votes.

The relationship between Speaker Ryan and President-elect Donald Trump has been contentious since the primary and is likely to continue to be so. Ryan issued a qualified endorsement of Trump after he secured the Republican nomination, but declined to campaign for him after release of the “Access Hollywood” tape.

A point of disagreement has emerged since the election as Trump doubled down on his plan to deport large numbers of illegal immigrants. “I think we should put people's minds at ease: That is not what our focus is. That is not what we're focused on. We're focused on securing the border,” Ryan said on CNN. “We think that's first and foremost, before we get into any other immigration issue, we've got to know who's coming and going into the country -- we've got to secure the border.”

Ryan’s return also sets the stage for a conflict with Trump advisor, Steve Bannon. Ben Shapiro, a former employee of Bannon at Breitbart News, wrote in the Daily Wire, “Bannon opposes the Republican Party, hates Paul Ryan” and noted that “minutes after the joint Bannon/Priebus announcement, Breitbart News approvingly tweeted about a Congressional rebellion against Speaker Ryan.”

Ryan’s return as Speaker will set the stage for a struggle over the future of the Republican Party. Republicans and President Trump will be pulled between the technocratic reforms of Paul Ryan and the scorched earth philosophy of Steve Bannon. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Filibuster's days may be numbered

Many are assessing the future after last night’s Trump victory, an outcome that few expected. There are many questions about the future and the upcoming Trump Administration. One question involves the future of the filibuster.

The Senate filibuster rule requires a majority cloture vote to end debate on legislation before it can take a final vote on a bill. The filibuster rule is not specified in the Constitution but has been a part of Senate rules since 1841 according to the Senate website. In 1917, the Senate passed a rule requiring a two-thirds vote for cloture to end debate on a bill. The requirement was reduced to three-fifths, 60 votes, in 1975. Majority Leader Harry Reid ended the filibuster on many presidential appointments in 2013.

Since Republicans took control of the Senate in 2014, Democrats have successfully used the filibuster rule to deny cloture on a number of Republican bills. There were 54 Republicans in the Senate, six short of the 60 vote requirement to end debate and move a bill forward. This Democratic road block led many conservatives to call for an end to the filibuster. Under President Obama, this would have been a strategic error because Republicans still would not have had the votes to override President Obama’s veto.

In 2017, when Donald Trump becomes president, he will have a Republican majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Even with those majorities, Democrats still retain enough votes to block cloture on Republican bills. The road block will still exist.

To avoid Democrats bottling up legislation, the new Republican Senate may invoke the “nuclear option” and choose to eliminate or weaken the filibuster rules. Since the filibuster is not specified in the Constitution, it can be easily changed at the beginning of a Senate session by the majority party.

Democrats had already signaled a change to the filibuster if Hillary Clinton had won the election. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told Talking Points Memo, “If the Republicans try to filibuster another circuit court judge, but especially a Supreme Court justice, I’ve told 'em how and I’ve done it, not just talking about it. I did it in changing the rules of the Senate. It’ll have to be done again.”

Opinions of the filibuster vary depending on which party is in power. The filibuster protects the minority party so Democrats, who were critical of Republican use of the filibuster, can be expected to defend it fiercely with Republicans in the majority. The reverse is also likely to be true.

After six years of Democrat obstructionism in Congress, the temptation to eliminate the filibuster may be too much for Republicans to ignore. With a broad mandate and angry Republicans eager to start rolling back President Obama’s legacy, the filibuster’s days are likely numbered. 

Originally published in The Resurgent

Electors threaten to go rogue

The Electoral College system is a unique institution. Americans don’t vote for a presidential candidate. They vote for electors who then go to the Electoral College and vote for a president in their place. Normally the Electoral College election is a formality, but this year at least two electors have indicated that they may not vote for their party’s candidate. Two electors from party base states, one from Texas and the other from Washington, have threatened to go their own way due to their displeasure with their respective party nominees.

Chris Suprun, a firefighter from Texas who is a Republican elector, told Politico in August that he may not vote for Donald Trump, assuming that Trump wins Texas, because the candidate was “saying things that in an otherwise typical election year would have you disqualified.” In particular, Suprun took issue with Trump’s foreign policy, characterizing it as “The generals are going to commit war crimes because I tell them to.”

“I’m still amazed he made it through the process,” Suprun said. “I’m not sure who his voters were or how they identify him with what I would consider Republican principles of small government.”

Suprun, who was a first responder at the Pentagon on 9/11, said that he ran for a position as an elector with the intention of voting for the party nominee, but had second thoughts because of Trump’s behavior and rhetoric. He also noted that his congressional district is a district that has a Democratic congressman and will not go for Trump.

Robert Satiacum, a Washington State elector, has gone a step further. “She will not get my vote, period,” Satiacum said of Hillary Clinton in the Associated Press on Monday. Satiacum is a member of the Puyallup Tribe and does not believe that Clinton has done enough for Native Americans and that she lied about her private email server.

Satiacum, who was a delegate for Bernie Sanders, told ABC News, “Maybe I'll vote Mickey Mouse. In all seriousness, maybe I should vote for Bozo the Clown.” In contrast, Chris Suprun indicated that he may vote for Hillary Clinton.

Some states have laws designed to prevent electors from defecting. Washington State law requires electors to pledge that they will vote for their party nominee. A violation is punishable by a $1,000 fine. Texas electors must take an oath to support their party candidate, but there is no penalty. Twenty-nine states have laws that prohibit electors from deviating from the will of the voters according to FairVote.

There have been “faithless electors” in the past. The most recent example of a faithless elector was in 2004 when an elector from Minnesota voted for John Edwards instead of John Kerry. In 1972, CBS News notes, the co-creator of “Little House on the Prairie,” Roger McBride, was an elector for Richard Nixon, but voted instead for the Libertarian candidate. The vote earned several footnotes in political history. It was the only electoral vote ever won by the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian vice-presidential candidate, Tonie Nathan, became the first woman and the first Jew to win an electoral vote. Faithless electors have never changed the outcome of an election.

The defection of electors would mean that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would have to win more than 270 electoral votes to clinch the presidency. Their final decisions may not be known for weeks and may affect the outcome of a close election. Members of the Electoral College meet in their states on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. This year that date falls on December 19. The winner of the election will not be officially declared before then.

With continuing revelations about both Trump’s and Clinton’s pasts, as well as Trump’s penchant for outrageous behavior, the month between the general election and the Electoral College election could see additional electors who find that they cannot support the candidate chosen by the people. It is possible, especially if the general election is close, that the end result of the Electoral College could be different than what the popular vote indicates.

Suprun argues that the Founding Fathers didn’t intend the Electoral College to be a rubber stamp. Electors should “take a look at all the facts, figure it out and make the right call,” he said in Politico.

                                        

“I would never say never to anything.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

What to look for on election night

After almost two years in the making, Election Day 2016 is almost here. Thanks to Russia, WikiLeaks and the FBI, the election looks to be much closer than many of us thought it would be. Polling is close, but favoring Hillary Clinton. At this point, it is by no means a blowout and Donald Trump does have a chance of winning.

There are several very important races on the East Coast where polls will close first. The swing states of Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia will all be among the first states in the nation to be decided. Virginia has been generally assumed to be leaning toward Clinton so the other three states are all must-win for Trump. Although wildly inconsistent, polling seems to show Clinton ahead in North Carolina and Trump leading in Ohio. Florida is a dead heat. If Trump doesn’t carry Florida, North Carolina and Ohio the race may well be over before polls close in the Central Time Zone.

There are also three blue states to watch that have been soft in their support for Clinton. Even if he wins all the swing states, Trump must flip at least one sizable blue state or states worth about 12 electoral votes to win the Electoral College. Some observers believe that Pennsylvania is his best chance to do that. If Trump manages to flip Pennsylvania and take the swing states, the Clinton campaign will have a long night.

New Hampshire and Maine’s second congressional district also give Trump a chance to peel off some of Hillary’s electoral votes. Polls in New Hampshire have closed in recent weeks with several polls showing Trump in the lead. These small prizes probably won’t decide the election, but could signal a shift in the electoral map.

There is also one traditional red state to watch. A recent poll in Georgia showed Trump with only a one-point lead. Other polls over the past few months showed a tight race in the Peach State. Georgia will probably rally toward Trump, but a Clinton victory there could mean a rout for Donald Trump.

In the central states, Iowa is the only traditional swing state. Trump is currently favored there and it is the most likely swing state for him to flip.

A bad night for Hillary Clinton might see close races in Michigan and Wisconsin. She is favored in both typically blue states, but by single-digit margins. Trump originally had high hopes of competing in these Rust Belt states, but was never able to gain traction.

The red state of Texas showed a tight race several weeks ago, but the gap has since opened in favor of Trump. Still, a large Hispanic electorate could mean problems for Donald Trump. If Georgia goes for Hillary, keep a close eye on Texas.

Moving west, there are four states to watch. Colorado and Nevada are traditionally considered swing states and both remain in tossup status. Colorado is favored for Clinton, but the race is very tight. The situation is the same in Nevada where Trump holds a slight edge in polling.

Arizona is another red state to watch. Over the past few weeks, Hillary Clinton was actually able to take the lead for a brief time in this border state that typically goes Republican. Trump regained some ground to take a slight lead, but is still running well behind Sen. John McCain (R) in his reelection bid. Like Texas, Trump’s weakness with Hispanic voters could cause him problems in Arizona.

The deep red state of Utah will be one of the most interesting states to watch. Native son Evan McMullin is mounting a surprisingly strong independent campaign and was in the lead for a short time. Trump is currently favored but uneven polling for third party candidates may mean that McMullin has a better chance than generally believed.

The presidential election is only part of the night. Equally, if not more, important, are several races to determine control of the Senate. Democrats need five seats to take control of the Senate and there are eight battleground races for Republican seats. The outcome here may be even closer than the presidential race.

Of the eight races, the Republicans are only the favorite in Florida where Marco Rubio should be reelected. The Democrats are favored in Illinois and Wisconsin. That leaves three tossup races in Missouri, New Hampshire and North Carolina. Indiana and Pennsylvania also recently moved from likely Democratic to tossup status as polling for the Republican incumbents improved.

Additionally, the Democrats are defending one Senate seat in a tossup race. Republican Joe Heck is fighting hard for Harry Reid’s seat in Nevada. The race has been within the margin of error of most polls.

In the House of Representatives, the Republicans are expected to lose seats, the big question is how many. There seems to be little question that Republicans will still control the House next term. This will provide a firewall against the Clinton agenda if Hillary wins and the Democrats take the Senate. It will not prevent Hillary from appointing radical judges, however.

Trump’s path to the presidency is a narrow one. Trump must win all of the swing states that are still in play plus at least one blue state. Hillary has an easier task. She can block him by winning Florida or North Carolina and holding Pennsylvania. The battle for the Senate is much less clear with six tossup races to watch.

One way or another, the long national nightmare of the 2016 campaign is almost over. We are about to embark on an entirely new one.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Why I voted for Evan McMullin and not Donald Trump

I’m a lifelong conservative who has voted Republican as long as I can remember. Growing up, I watched President Reagan swing Georgia from a state where a Republican couldn’t get elected dogcatcher to a state that was almost totally red. A defining moment of my political life was when I saw President Reagan live at a campaign rally in Atlanta. I started listening to Rush Limbaugh on talk radio in the 1990s and have been writing my conservative Christian blog since 2007.

This makes it all the more surprising for people when they find out that I’m not voting for Donald Trump. In fact, I voted early last week and cast my ballot for Evan McMullin, the independent conservative.

Why I voted for McMullin and why I didn’t vote for Trump are closely intertwined. The bottom line for me is that I don’t believe that either Trump or Hillary should be president. In fact, I don’t believe that either Trump or Hillary should be allowed anywhere near the White House. Not even on a tour group.

People say that if I don’t want Hillary to be president, I should support Donald Trump. The truth is that I oppose Trump for many of the same reasons that I oppose Hillary Clinton. The two candidates are evenly matched in many areas. Trump and Hillary both have deep character flaws. Both are chronic liars. Both are dishonest. Both are corrupt.

I had always said that I would vote Republican as long as the party supported my beliefs and values. Under Donald Trump, it no longer does.

Hillary’s corruption is well known, but when I looked into Trump’s background, I found a seemingly endless list of scandals even before the revelation of his sexual harassment problem. Not paying workers, using eminent domain to take the homes of less wealthy and connected Americans, and openly bragging about bribing elected officials are only the icing on the cake. His unsatisfied clients say Trump was literally a con man who stole tens of thousands of dollars from hardworking real estate investors through Trump University and then allegedly paid off state attorneys general like Pam Bondi in Florida to cover his tracks.

I’ve been told that Trump’s corruption is less damning because he was in the private sector or that the amounts of money involved were less than the Clinton Foundation payoffs. In truth, corruption is a matter of the heart. If Trump would steal from a guy who has to max out his credit card to pay Trump University tuition, why would he not steal from the taxpayers of the United States or use his position to line his own pockets?

If Christian conservatives like me put aside our ethical problems with Trump to defeat Hillary, what have we won? Trump is a New York liberal who, until he started planning to run for president, held traditional liberal views. Even while running as a Republican he has advocated universal government healthcare and raising the minimum wage, supported federal money for Planned Parenthood, and has even adopted Democrat positions on gun control. You would be hard pressed to find any of Donald Trump’s positions which involve shrinking government or making it less powerful. If we elect Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, we will only have succeeded in electing a different liberal.

Trump is even worse than Hillary on some issues. Trump bragged that his trade policy was “very similar” to that of Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders. An analysis of Trump’s tariffs and rejection of trade deals found that they would probably cause a recession that might cost as many as 5 million American jobs.

He is no less of an isolationist when it comes to military alliances. He has threatened not to defend NATO allies and called NATO itself “obsolete,” even as Vladimir Putin’s forces carve off pieces of the Ukraine. Trump has said that he is open to proliferation of nuclear weapons and threatened to withdraw American troops from South Korea and Japan where they have stabilized East Asia for the past 60 years.

It was not being too strong that caused the last world war, it was being too deferential to expansionist dictatorships. This is a problem for Trump as well. Trump seems to have a fascination with dictators, but his admiration for Vladimir Putin is particularly troubling, from their bromance last fall to the growing body of evidence that Russia is interfering with the election in a way that benefits Trump. Russia’s investment in Trump may have already paid off. This year’s Republican Party platform dropped a proposal to arm Ukraine against the Russian invaders. The change reportedly came from the Trump campaign. Trump also seems ready to yield America’s role in the Middle East to Russia.

I can find no evidence that Trump is the America-loving conservative that he claims to be. There seems to be no Emmaus road moment that he can point to that led him to change his mind on so many issues. I can find no evidence that he is anything other than an actor playing a role. He is a liberal playing a conservative and occasionally he lapses into his true beliefs or cynically changes positions where he sees a potential benefit.

The character problems, liberal ideology and erratic behavior are red flags that warn about Trump’s lack of judgment. Just as Hillary Clinton’s use of an unapproved private email server and solicitation of donations in exchange for access while Secretary of State are disqualifying, Trump’s many scandals are a warning to voters that he is not to be trusted either.

In fact, almost everything about both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton seems to resonate as a warning against making them president. I cannot think of two people that I believe are less equipped to handle presidential authority and responsibility than the Terrible Two.

Some argue that Trump would surround himself with good people who would keep him in line. I think the reverse is true. One need only watch Mike Pence’s debate performance to see the corrupting influence of Trump on the Republican Party. Pence made excuses for Donald Trump and transparently denied that Trump said things that everyone has seen him say on video. What would four years with Trump as leader of the GOP do to the America’s conservative party?

Just when I was considering voting for Gary Johnson as protest or even not voting at all since Johnson showed himself to be a nut, Evan McMullin announced his candidacy.

After watching several interviews of McMullin, I boarded the “Evan Express.” McMullin is essentially a traditional Republican. He is a pro-life, free trade, strong defense, small government conservative. After working for the Republicans in the House of Representatives as a policy advisor, McMullin knows his stuff. He seems to be more knowledgeable than any other candidate, including Hillary Clinton. It is unfortunate that he was not included in the debates.

What really sold me on McMullin was not his policy chops though. What sold me on McMullin was simply the fact that, in a race dominated by two people who are, to use Hillary’s word, deplorable, he was an honest, decent man. He is the sort of person who tries to bring people together, rather than drive wedges between demographics to glom onto a few more votes.

I know that McMullin is a long shot. On the other hand, McMullin’s odds of becoming president are far greater than the odds of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton becoming a president that I can be proud of. Given the choice between sacrificing my beliefs to elect an untrustworthy, liberal Republican who I believe would be a disaster for the country or supporting a candidate that who shares my beliefs, I decided to vote my conscience.

David Thornton is a contributor to The Resurgent