Never Elect ANY Muslim to ANY Position of Public Trust

Yes, this is a highly contentious issue, but the consequences are far more severe than any contention.  The bottom line, up front, is that Islam failed its frontal attack and expansion throughout the world of 400 years duration and was beaten back to the Middle East over the succeeding 350 years of Crusades.  This time around, they’re trying the “Islamic sneak,” whereby they use taqiyya and similar Quran-approved lies and deception to gain access to decision-making positions with the governments they wish to conquer.
Case in point:  The United Nations, where only a minor number of member states are full-fledged democracies.  Specifically, out of 193 UN member states, only 86 are full-fledge democracies or “fully free” according to Freedom House and Human Rights Voices.
Even more specifically:
“The Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is intended to work together to promote the interest of Muslims worldwide, or in its words, the focus of the OIC includes “Islamic solidarity” and “non-interference in the internal affairs of member states.” The OIC is the largest single subset of both the G-77 and the NAM. It was established in 1969 and now includes 56 UN member states: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Côte D’Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yemen.”
That’s a whole lotta Sharia, and it’s already taken over London, UK, at the top, with London Mayor Sadiq Khan.  Given the fact that Muslims still number less than 2% of Americans, a disproportionately high number of Muslims are running for public office: 
“A record number of Muslim Americans ran for statewide or national office this election cycle, the most since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, made Islam a political target for many, according to Muslim political groups” (Raphelson, S. (July 18, 2018).  Muslim Americans running for office in highest numbers since 2001.  NPR aka National Public Radio.  Retrieved from:  https://www.npr.org/2018/07/18/630132952/muslim-americans-running-for-office-in-highest-numbers-since-2001).
Fortunately, the Constitution has already banned Sharia Law, but that will only be effective IF our elected officials act on it.  You can guarantee that no Muslim elected to public office will ever act to stop the incursion of Sharia Law.  They will instead, at best, do nothing as the Islamic incursion continues until they implement Sharia which means all of YOUR rights will disappear, overnight.  At worst, they’ll do everything in their power to help usher it along, as THAT IS THEIR ISLAMIC MANDATE, and THEY WILL FOLLOW IT.
 
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution:
 
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
 
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
 
ERGO, Sharia Law has absolutely ZERO PLACE in these United States of America.
 
By the way, it says, “…no religious Test shall ever be required…” but it does NOT say “…no political Test…” as clearly evidenced by the Oath of Office required by EVERY civilian and military member who served our nation. We are ALL REQUIRED to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic…”
 
The problem is, this doesn’t work for Muslims because Islam encourages them to lie i.e. “taqiyya” to further Islam. Therefore, an oath of office means NOTHING to them. It’s merely a speed bump.
 
Consider Obama’s case: He swore his oath of office yet before the ink was dry he was out not to support and defend the Constitution but change it with his, “I have a phone, and I have a pen…” Ergo, Obama was a liar. He lied when he swore his oath, and if he can lie, so can any other Muslim. They have lied, as clearly evidenced by London’s Mayor, Sadiq Khan, and they will continue to lie, as clearly evidenced by the Quran, Hadith, and many other writings of Islam’s religious leaders as well as the actions of those who follow it, who have been steadily infiltrating governments around the world.
Since no religious tests are allowed but political tests are allowed and Islam is every bit as much a political philosophy as any sort of religion…
Forbid public office by Muslims not on any sort of religious test, but by virtue of the political test Islam has taken over 1,400 years and FAILED.
If they complain, offer them one-way tickets to the country of their choice.

The Ridiculous Stupidity of Internet Sales Tax

So… A store in another state that pays no rent in Colorado, no employee salaries or wages in Colorado, no State Unemployment Taxes in Colorado, no utilities in Colorado, and whose employees also have absolutely nothing to do with Colorado, but that does pay all of these expenses in another states (or country) must somehow cough up extra dough, which absolutely will wind up being paid for by the citizens of Colorado.

Huh.  Ok…  And local mudstream media everywhere have become shills for their blitheringly idiotic state governments.

Let’s see what NOLO has to say about this:

“On June 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court fundamentally changed the rules for collection of sales tax by Internet-based retailers. In its decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc., the Court effectively stated that individual states can require online sellers to collect state sales tax on their sales. This ruling overturns the Court’s 1992 decision in Quill Corporation v. North Dakota. The Quill case prohibited states from requiring a business to collect sales tax unless the business had a physical presence in the state.”

Looks to me like the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 decision absolutely nailed it whereas their 2018 decision cow-towed to unlawful pressure by the states.

By “unlawful,” I’m referring to this gem from the Sales Tax Institute:

“For many years, states argued that they were losing a lot of money by not being able to collect sales tax on Internet sales to customers located in their states.”

Combined with this consideration:

“For many years, states argued that they were losing a lot of money by not being able to collect sales tax on Internet sales to customers located in their states.”

State legislators are undoubtedly jumping up and down in greedy glee, thinking about all the extra money they’re going to receive, but when reality sets in, most will be weeping and wailing at the destabilizing effect they’ve created and the massive tax revenues they will soon LOSE as a direct result of their stupidity.

Very soon, states will be arguing that they are losing money by not being able to collect sales taxes on Internet sales by businesses located in their states. Not only is this robbing Peter to pay Paul, but it’s a tremendous setback for the greatest justification for Internet sales to begin with:  It’s far cheaper for customers to pay for shipping, whereby their item represents perhaps a tenth of a mile worth of travel for that FedEx, UPS, or USPS delivery van than for them to travel all over their own state’s roads trying to find items, travel that tears up those roads at SIGNIFICANT EXPENSE TO THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY AND STATE.  Oh, those states who pushed for this failed to consider that one, huh…

Let’s look at this another way.

John lives in Colorado but travels to Wyoming to buy grass-fed beef, usually half or whole head that he’ll split with friends in his hometown.  He pays sales tax in Wyoming.  It’s not very economical to drive all the way to Wyoming so he and his friends jump for joy when the seller announces they’ll ship either frozen or refrigerated anywhere in the U.S.

But, oh, now John and his friends have to pay sales tax in Colorado?  What the hell?  Nothing has changed!!!  100% of the business remains in Wyoming, including state income taxes on the business, SUTA, workman’s comp, veterinary bills, etc.

The ONLY thing that changed is that instead John and friends supplying their own shipping, they hired a shipper.

So, instead of using the Internet, John and Friends are now phoning in their order and paying Wyoming sales tax like they were before.

Whoops!  What?  Yep.  John and friends now own the goods at the point of sale in Wyoming, and as private owners they have every right to bring their OWN PROPERTY across state lines, the same as if Dave moved from Wyoming to Colorado, driving his first car and shipping his second, brand-new car he’d just purchased the morning of his move.

Are you starting to see the full picture, here?  Are you beginning to understand why the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 was far better as it accurately reflected REALITY?  Whoa, what a concept, adhering to reality…

Here’s another scenario:

USAA Federal Savings Bank, headquartered in Texas, does a great deal of business with most people who are in the military or related to anyone in the military.  But those people are spread out all over the world.  In years past, if someone picked up the phone and made a trade with USAA’s brokerage services, taxes on the commission would be paid to the State of Texas.  But now, because that trade was placed through the Internet, Suzy in Cincinnati is now paying taxes to Ohio, who had absolutely NOTHING to do with that trade?  What?

And another:

State M is a high manufacturing state, but with a lower population, shipping 90% of products produced in that state all over the U.S.  Used to be, people placed orders through catalogs, with tax being paid to State M the same as if a person had driven to State M and purchased the goods in person.  I know, as I still have old copies of Popular Mechanics, which clearly state that if I buy that wood splitter, then I have to pay state sales taxes to New Jersey, even if I have that wood splitter shipped to Colorado.

Now, however, because a rather large number of blitheringly idiotic state legislators in most states convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to change their mind, New Jersey DIES for no other reason than people place their orders via the Internet instead of their Phone.  Speaking of which, my VoIP phone runs through the Internet, so if I place a phone order, is that really an Internet sale?

If you say, “Yes,” you’re completely missing the point.  The point is that our Constitution very specifically states the following:

Here’s another issue:

North Dakota passed a law in 1987 requiring out-of-state mail-order houses to collect and pay a use tax on goods purchased for use in the state. Quill Corporation refused to comply and the state of North Dakota took them to state court. The trial court ruled in Quill’s favor and found that based on Supreme Court precedent in a 1969 case (National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill.) the law created an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. In addition the Supreme Court found it conflicted with the commerce clause because, “The very purpose of the Commerce Clause was to ensure a national economy free from such unjustifiable local entanglements. Under the Constitution, this is a domain where Congress alone has the power of regulation and control.” – Source

Wait… What?  You mean this was decided before now?

Yes.  It DOES NOT MATTER whether a person places an order by mailing in a cereal box top, by phone, or by, well, smart phone.  The mode of communication DOES NOT MATTER.  All that matters is where the goods were produced, and to a lesser extent, if there were any intermediate supply chain staging within the state of delivery (nexus).

Bottom Line:  Tie the sales taxes to where the goods and services are PRODUCED, not where they’re sold.  Please note that wholesalers may produce in one state, ship to retailer in another state, who will then pay sales taxes to the state in which they’re sold.  The taxes paid by the wholesaler fall under net taxable income, not directly off sales.

In a similar vein, when I purchase directly from Sony, they’re the wholesaler, and I’m a retailer with a customer base of 1.

So, to all the stores who sell goods on the Internet, here’s how to beat it:  WRITE YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS!!!  They have full Constitutional authority under Article. I., Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”  Demand they DO SO, putting a stop to this incessantly stupid and economic throat-cutting practice of states trying to change taxes on goods produced totally outside their jurisdiction.  If it doesn’t cut the throats of the states implementing it thinking they’ll be raking in more money, it’s certainly cutting the throats of states which foster the efficient production of goods consumed by We the People in all 50 of these United States, not to mention around the world.

Internet sales taxes indirectly but greatly harm economies in which goods are consumed.

Internet sales taxes greatly harm economies in states where goods are produced.

Internet sales taxes eschew low carbon footprint online shopping and efficient many-item shipping in favor high carbon footprint physical shopping and personal SUV one- to few-item hauling.

Oh, and Colorado, although I am adamantly opposed to pot, one day the U.S. will legalize it, along with interstate Internet sales shipments, and you WILL LOSE BIG TIME.  You’ll produce it here, but won’t be able to collect any tax here.  Meanwhile, all those workers you attracted by legalizing pot will FLEE Colorado’s high cost of living and high taxes so they can get afford to get high more often anywhere it’s cheaper to live, which is most places, these days.

Way to bring back the Ghost Towns, there, dipshits.

The Real 9/11 Lie

I came across this meme on September 11, 2018, seventeen years after that fateful day that killed nearly 3,000 American citizens and changed the lives of countless more.

I found myself getting royally pissed.  That’s not something that routinely happens to this combat aviator and veteran.  The principle flaw of all the “9/11 IS A LIE” memes, however, is the unbelievable ignorance if not outright stupidity that results in the minds of those blithering idiots who pass it around as if were gospel.  But that’s not what pissed me off.  There are stupid people everywhere.  Here’s what pissed me off:  HOW DARE THEY desecrate the graves and memories of those we lost on that tragic day when overwhelming abundance of evidence undeniably demonstrates that hijackers leveraged multiple loopholes in security — which had been identified on multiple occasions over the years — took over four U.S. air carriers in a rather skillful manner, and used those planes as weapons to attack the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and probably either the White House or the Capitol Building.  They were only 75% successful.  Their last effort was thwarted by Todd Beamer and other heroes aboard who turned the tables and attacked their hijackers.  The results of that day’s sad events can be found in The 9/11 Commission Report, a 585-page exhaustive summary of every relevant fact, socioeconomic and political environments, and sequence of events leading up to the attacks.  Encyclopedia Britannica’s September 11 Attacks entry provides an objective an complementary summary report and analysis of the attacks and their aftermath along with plenty of ancillary and corroborating links.

Now, if you’re one of the pin-headed mental midgets who can’t bring themselves to read 585 pages, if that’s too difficult for you, if all you can bring yourself to do is post a handful of mindbogglingly stupid memes on Twitter and Facebook, then I suggest you shut your God-damned pie hole, read the report, and learn something real for a change.

By comparison, the volumes of nonsense I’ve seen on anti-9/11 websites make this aerospace engineer absolutely cringe.

The first, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are perhaps the worst.  They claim, “More than 3,00 architects and engineers have signed our petition.”  Over the years, I have reviewed all the “evidence” they link to on their website, and none of it would stand up under scrutiny by a team of actual, licensed, practicing, and reputable civil engineers.  In fact, every one of their pet theories is rather damning of their incompetence.  Any competent engineer can spot the many flaws in their assumptions, knowledge, thought processes and conclusions in short order.

For example, they scratch their heads repeatedly over the presence of sulfur, claiming, “no one knows where,” so they jump to the conclusion that it “must” have been in “thermate, which is produced when sulfur is added to thermite.”  Every engineer worth their weight in salt wonders how anyone could be so stupid, knowing that many construction materials contain vulcanized rubber (rubber to which sulfur has been added for strength) as do most bleached papers, including copier and printer paper.  In fact, “Many surfactants and detergents (e.g. sodium lauryl sulfate) are sulfate derivatives. Calcium sulfate, gypsum, (CaSO4·2H2O) is mined on the scale of 100 million tonnes each year for use in Portland cement and fertilizers.”

Well, there’s your answer, idiots:  Wallboard aka sheetrock.  It’s made of gypsum, which contains sulfur.  The buildings were chock full of it.  Specifically, “Calcium sulfate (or calcium sulphate) is the inorganic compound with the formula CaSO4 and related hydrates. In the form of ?-anhydrite (the anhydrous form), it is used as a desiccant. One particular hydrate is better known as plaster of Paris, and another occurs naturally as the mineral gypsum. It has many uses in industry. ”

You see, there, dipshits, REAL ENGINEERS know this.  We don’t stand around scratching our heads like fucking Goofy saying, “Well, gee, Mickey, where could that sulfur have come from?  They don’t make buildings out of sulfur, so it must have been thermite, guh-huh!”

Yes, Goofy, they do make buildings out of sulfur, in the form of calcium sulfate.  What did I say about shutting your pie hole and learning something?

The A&E 9/11 Truth website is the flagship, and if that highly un-educated rubbish is the best the entire movement can do, then the rest of the movement is even more stupid.

But I’m not here to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy theories.  You’ll find countless experts online who’ve done a fine job of doing just that, including Popular Mechanics, who has kept their Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report – The World Trade Center and related pages up to date.  They and many others have tackled and resoundingly rebuffed each and claim of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists six ways to Sunday.

And yet the blithering idiots continue in their errant beliefs, grossly disrespecting everyone and everything in their path, including science and the memories of those we lost.

Just be glad I know how to check my temper.  In response, I’ll say this:  The real 9/11 lie is that all the “9/11 Is A Lie” websites are lies.  Anyone with half a brain knows this, and those with full brains and civil engineering credentials have completely and utterly debunked the 9/11 conspiracy theory movement.

May God allow the souls of the dearly departed to finally rest.

Runny Eggs and Salmonella – The TRUTH

First, let me begin by saying, “I like my eggs runny!”  I always have.  There’s nothing more satisfying that sopping up runny eggs with butter toast or pancakes!

Oh, That “Dreaded” Disease

That said, let me also say this:  Salmonella can kill you.  However, in the U.S., that rate is pretty low:  450 deaths out of 1.2 million infections (0.04%), nearly all through severe dehydration.  But only 30 people die of salmonella from eggs, again, through dehydration.

Furthermore, the prevalence of salmonella in eggs is mighty low:  “A study by the USDA in 2002 (Risk Analysis April 2002 22(2):203-18) showed that 1 out of every 30,000 eggs produced annually is contaminated with the pathogen. That’s 2.3 million eggs per year.”  Eating two eggs for breakfast every single day gives you an even chance of eating a contaminated egg every 27 years and 5 months.

If you’re one of the “lucky” 99.96% of people who live, you’ll develop diarrhea, abdominal cramps, possibly a fever, and recover within 4-7 days, usually without any other treatment than ensuring you’re drinking plenty of fluids and maintaining your electrolytes i.e. eat food.

To be fair to salmonella, it’s pretty much everywhere.  Nearly all animals contain salmonella in their gut, and as researchers have well noted, “The elimination of salmonellae must generally be considered an impossibility.”

To Cook or Not to Cook

Fully cooked eggs are more digestible than raw eggs, with about 91% of the protein available in cooked eggs compared to only 51% in raw eggs.  Raw egg protein also interferes with the micronutrient biotin, critical in the metabolism of both fat and sugar.

Alas, cooking eggs reduces or eliminates other nutrients, with the phenomenon increasing the more they’re cooked:

Vit A:  17%-20% reduction

Antioxidants:  6%-18% reduction

On a more positive note for us runny egg yolk eaters, cooking egg yolks creates oxidized cholesterol and oxysterols, which increase the risk of heart disease.

So, if you’re going to cook eggs, they’re healthiest for you when just barely cooked (a little runny is fine).  Adding plenty vegetables or veggies and lean meat in a lightly cooked omelet is even better!

Finally, believe it or not, a very small amount of butter is the preferred high heat stable oil, as it tastes great, remains stable at high temperatures so as to not oxidize and form harmful free radicals.  But if you’re a glutton for punishment, use extra virgin olive oil or coconut oil.

Conclusion

I’m not going to tell you that runny eggs are safe.  I will say follow the references below and reach your own conclusion.  In the meantime, whether with pancakes, toast, or even in an omelet, I will always prefer and relish slightly runny eggs!

References

CNN. (2018).  Salmonella fast facts.  CNN Library.  Retrieved from:  https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/28/health/salmonella-fast-facts/index.html

Murray, C.J. (1991). Salmonella in the environment.  Australian Salomonella Reference Library, Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science.  Retrieved from:  http://oie.int/doc/ged/d8193.pdf

Urban, S. (2014).  Just how risky are runny eggs?  Organic Authority.  Retrieved from:  http://www.organicauthority.com/just-how-risky-are-runny-eggs/

West, H., RD. (2016).  What is the healthiest way to cook and eat eggs?  Healthline.  Retrieved from:  https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/eating-healthy-eggs

Wikipedia. (2018).  Salmonella.  Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmonella

RED FLAG on Red Flag Laws

The rising tide of red flag laws does not bode well for the United States of America.  Not only are they fraught with many potential avenues of failure and abuse, they’re also highly ineffectual, stopping less than 1/10th of 1% of their intended targets  — a statistically and absurdly tiny fraction of the problem.

For the first time in many years, I’m at a loss for world.  These proposals and the laws that have made the books are so ridiculously, unbelievably mind-bogglingly STUPID that I don’t know where to begin.

So, let’s begin at the beginning, with our United States Constitution.  Here’s a couple of key points:

THE BEGINNING

– The States were already in power at the time they agreed to join the Union.  They already had powers.  They still do.

– The Constitution specifically delineated a few key powers to the federal government and normalized relations between the States, primarily in the areas of commerce and common defense.

– Just in case anyone forgot that the people and the States retain the lion’s share of authority, our Founding Fathers included Amendments IX and X in our Bill of Rights:

Amendment IX:  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

– Amendments to the Constitution become integral parts of the Constitution itself.  As the Constitution itself declares in Article. V., “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution.”

– Between December 7, 1787, and May 29, 1790, all thirteen states ratified the Constitution.

-Subsequently, whenever a territory has applied to become a State, they do so with the full knowledge of and consent to the U.S. Constitution.

– One of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, proposed in 1789 and duly ratified by the states on December 15, 1791, is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”  Our Founding Fathers were so adamant about protecting this right they added an absolute:  “shall not be infringed.”  Moreover, this isn’t merely about restricting Congress from passing laws, as stated in the First Amendment.  Rather, it applies to the states, as well, and on December 15, 1791, all United States at the time become party to it, whereas all subsequent States became party to it when they applied for statehood.

WHERE WE ARE NOW

Sadly, instead of focusing on legitimate, science-based policing, these red flag laws throw that science out the window, criminalizing gun ownership itself, in a flagrant and very dangerous violation of the “shall not be infringed” clause of the Second Amendment i.e. the U.S. Constitution.

 

Lesser of Two Evils Fallacy

This morning I came across yet another shining example of the Lesser of Two Evils Fallacy.  This fallacy’s premise is simple:  “When you vote for the Lesser of Two Evils Fallacylesser of two evils, evil always wins.”  On the face of it, that has a ring of truth, doesn’t it?  Yet only very shallow thinkers stop there and run with it, or spend all day coming up with cool-looking graphics like this one from Freedom Info.  Those who bother to think just a bit deeper might say, “Well, no.  If people vote for the lesser of two evils, then the lesser evil wins.”  And now, we’re finally getting somewhere.  But the truth is actually a good deal more profound, as we shall soon see!

I call this a fallacy because it’s based on a faulty premise and employs faulty logic.  According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a fallacy is “a false or mistaken idea.”  More accurately, it’s “an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference.  Furthermore, the term plausible only means that it is “appearing worthy of belief.”  Something that’s plausible may look good on the surface, but such superficial appearance can be deceptive, and conveys absolutely no warranty whatsoever about the actual state of affairs under the hood.  Things might be good, they might be bad, or in the case of the Lesser of Two Evils Fallacy, we find they’re dead wrong.

As Dr. Jeremy E. Sherman notes in Psychology Today, the Lesser of Two Evils fallacy is “actually the lesser of two disappointing choices.”  He notes how we apply the lesser of two evils rule in many areas of our lives, yet reject it completely when we head to the poles.  The problem comes down to consumerism.  When it comes to products and services, we have a cornucopia from which to choose, but in elections, it often comes down to just two people, neither of whom floats out boat.  As a result, we’re so disappointed in the the choices that we tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater, meaning we see the entire process as evil because it fails to produce more palatable choices.  I have a sneaking suspicion this phenomenon is great exacerbated by the media constantly poisoning the well against one candidate, the other, or in some cases, both candidates in their money-grubbing clawing for ratings and advertising revenue taking precedence over objective journalism.

In his rather insightful article, “Fallacy Detective: Three Assumptions Made by ‘Lesser of Two Evils’ Voters,” Tobin Duby correctly identifies errant assumptions and the logical fallacies committed by those making the assumptions:

The “Lesser of Two Evils” reasoning fails to differentiate the person from his policies.  Fallacy: Red Herring, Ad Hominem.  Most people vote for politicians based on how they perceive their personal character, and not based on their actual policies or voting record.  As Duby notes, moral character is important, but competence is just as important.  A good man can bankrupt the nation just as fast as a bad man if neither one does the right things.

The “Lesser of Two Evils” reasoning restricts the argument to the current presidential term.  Fallacy: Framing the Debate.  Put simply, this falsely assumes both candidates will be on the ballot four years from now.  As Duby notes, “By framing the debate, [voters] are accepting a lesser good now and rejecting a greater good later.”

The “Lesser of Two Evils” reasoning assumes that there are only two options.  Fallacy: Exigency, Either/Or.  Again, put simply, voting requires both moral and practical decisions, yet the Lesser of Two Evils fallacy only considers the moral aspects.  From a practical standpoint, if there are only two candidates, then there are only two candidates!  Pick one.  You can either pick the candidate you think would do more good for the nation or you can pick the candidate you think would do less harm to the nation.

The problem with most people who buy into the “Evil Always Wins” fallacy is they view both candidates as poor choices, yet refuse to accept responsibility for minimizing damage.  That’s like a homeowner, seeing his house on fire opting to do nothing because the greater evil is that his home burns to the ground but the lesser evil is that his home winds up half-burned and neither option is acceptable to him so he does nothing.  It’s irrational, and to the extreme.

Interestingly enough, I just presented two different arguments.  Did you catch the difference?

The first says “when you vote for the lesser of two evils, evil always wins” is a logical fallacy.

The second says, “voting for the lesser of two evils” is a logical fallacy.

Well…  Which is it?

To answer that question, we really need to examine reality itself, namely, the three situations where we see this meme appear in federal elections.

First, here’s a situation we are very unlikely to see:  When we have multiple candidates favored by many people in both parties.  If Tom, Dick, and Harry ran, and all three were independents of good moral character and promising platforms, and they appealed roughly equally to both conservatives and liberals, we would never see the “…Evil Always Wins” meme.  That meme is only pushed forward by those who see both candidates as evil, and then, only by those who do not understand the nature of their logical fallacy.  Even so, the meme will still surface, as some people will see only two plausible options, both evil, or they may see all three as evil.

Second Situation:  Two candidates, one from each major political party.  The meme will surface.

Third Situation:  Three candidates, one from each major political party, and one who is either independent or running on a third party ticket.  The meme will surface.

So you see, regardless of whether we have just one candidate, two candidates, or even three or more candidates, we will always see this logically fallacious meme, for the simple reason that some people, ignorant of reality and the way things actually work, will see the one, two, or three or more candidates as being evil, and will employ this meme as their way of avoiding responsibility to minimize the damage by actually selecting the best (or least worst) candidate.

If there were more people who thought deeply, instead of people who avoid responsibility, we would undoubtedly have a better selection of candidates!

New York Times “Op-Ed” Piece Does Not Pass Muster

Have you heard about The New York Times’ “Op-Ed” piece allegedly penned by “a senior official in the Trump administration?”
 
 
Second, as professional writers and editors know well, it’s often quite easy to spot the author of a piece by their writing style. This doesn’t appear to be written by anyone from within the Trump Administration.
 
Third, the reference to potential invocation of the 25th Amendment clearly identifies the author as a Demoncrap or Demoncrap sympathizer, as no one in the Trump Administration was calling for such action.
 
Fourth, the claim that “Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter,” along with other pro-McCain aggrandizement, who was largely reviled by and excluded from access to the Trump administration, strongly indicates this piece was written by a very pro-McCain sympathizer, if not by John McCain himself before he passed away. Heck, without any distinctive time signature, McCain might have written it last Christmas and given it to his attorney with an, “If I die…” request to mail it to The New York Times.
 
Fifth, what Republican would EVER use the very liberal Times as its publishing source?
 
Sixth, the piece discounts “the deep state” while lauding “the steady state,” clearly not the work of anyone associated with the Trump administration.
 
Seventh, there’s really no revelation of any inside information, no confirmation that this did, in fact, come from anyone within the Trump administration at all.
 
In conclusion, this is almost certainly a liberal fluff piece written by someone with ordinary access to the same public information, most notably liberal mainstream new media reports over the last eighteen months.
 
Its purpose, apparently, is to bolster Demoncrap confidence while swaying independent voters to the left prior to the elections.
 
And that’s the eighth and final piece of this puzzle: NO ONE within ANY Republican administration would EVER risk losing votes immediately prior to an election.
 
Ergo, this was NOT written by “a senior official in the Trump administration.” Rather, it was probably written by someone who works for the New York Times itself, but could also have been written by any of several hundred liberals or members of the Demoncrap Party in order to make it appear as if there’s a traitor in Trump’s midst.
 
I, for one, am not buying it. Are you?
President Trump isn’t buying it.  Smart man!

You know what else President Trump and We the American People aren’t buying?  Huffington Post’s ridiculous, single-word allegation that Vice President Pence was the author.  As we’ve clearly seen from the eight rock-solid reasons given above, the op-ed didn’t come from President Trump’s administration.

And, no, it wasn’t Vice President Pence.  That is absolutely not his style, at all. Ever.

It is far more likely some libtard Demoncrap wrote the piece and planted the word, “lodestar” hoping to get President Trump flustered to the point where he starts chewing up those within his own administration.

That didn’t happen. In fact, the exact opposite happened: The blitheringly idiotic libtards are steeling We the American People against the liars, cheats, and thieves known as “Democrats.”

Funny, but all of this seems to come down to some idiot calling himself, “Dan downLODESTAR Bloom,” @danbloom on Twitter.  Perhaps he’s the original author of the NYT’s op-ed piece.

Nah…  He’s just not that smart, and besides, he doesn’t write that well.

Update (9/7/2018):  Yahoo continues to publish a number of articles, as in perhaps half a dozen a day, attempting to point fingers at Republicans when it’s far more likely this piece was floated by the lying, cheating, and stealing Demoncraps as has long been their habit.  Even Omarosa “gives clues…”

Yeah, right, Omarosa.  Grow a brain.

Get a clue, people: NO ONE ” from inside 45’s WH wrote the @nytimes Op-Ed on page ((330)) of Unhinged.”

Cutting one’s own throat, or the throat of one’s own political party is never a motive, particularly right before midterm elections. That would be supremely stupid, and conservatives are not stupid.

On the other hand, a number of nefarious libtards and Demoncraps had Means, Opportunity, and Motive to write this piece. Complicit and liberal New York Times jumped at the chance to publish the piece, knowing they could hide their libtard/Demoncrap source indefinitely.

Then again, Omarosa’s recent book, “Resistance Inside the Trump Administration” is prima facia evidence that Omarosa herself (or her publisher) wrote the op-ed, as yet another mind-bogglingly stupid stunt to increase her book sales.  In fact, I’d say it’s a good bet she’s had this entire line of events planned for a long time.