Saturday, November 22, 2014

Ecclesiastical References for Health Care

My last post touched on the Ecclesiastical References used at BYU.

BYU is a university system with some 30,000 students and several thousand employees. Students are required to obtain and sustain their ecclesiastical references throughout their course of studies. If a student sours on the LDS Church, the student is summarily expelled.

I was summarily expelled from the education department of the University of Utah for supporting school choice. My sympathies fall to students who are expelled for well reasoned beliefs. Being flunked out of school for regressive ideological reasons is devastating.

Anyway, BYU has some 30,000 students. Maintaining ecclesiastical references for this many students implies that there is a system for ecclesiastical references.

The ecclesiastical reference system is a stasi-like system that sits on the peripheral of the public education system here in Utah that tracks the activities of members of the community.

The ecclesiastical reference system is also handy for things like employee references. The LDS Church has a well established employment system to help local businesses be assured that their new hires are members of the church in good standing.

I also encountered this system while working for a local insurance company.

A policyholder would file a claim with the company. The claims adjuster would call telephone numbers owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The conversation would not be recorded but appeared weigh heavily in the decision to approve or deny claims.

Management claimed that calling people with local knowledge of claimants was a good fraud prevention technique. I argued if that if ever a lawyer subpenaed the insurance company's phone records that the insurance company would be sued into submission.

(Yes, I tend to have rocky relationships with employers. Personally, I think I did the company a favor by telling them to stop making the calls on the company's phone records.)

Now, fraud is a big problem in insurance. Local knowledge is a great way to cut down on fraud.

As for the charitable aspects of health care, I have no objection to the church or politicians weighing in on who should receive charity or how much they receive.

If a person decides to leave the church and become an apostate, then that person has no claim on charity from the church.

Problems arise because insurance confuses the charitable and basic aspects of health care.

In our confused insurance company, people pay into crazy insurance pool.  If they are denied basic care because of the same system that would deny charitable care, then we are doing the people a disservice.

I don't care if a person is Mormon, Gentile or Jack-Mormon. (In Utah, the term "gentile" refers to anyone outside the LDS Faith. So, if you are say Jewish; you are a gentile). I want a health care system that first secures basic care for people, then starts providing advanced and charitable care for people.

Utahans are a regressive lot. I suspect that few members of the LDS Church have a problem with denying apostates and gentiles the basic care they paid for. But, to me a system where people are denied care because of a covert stasi-like monitoring system is a broken system.

But this might make for a interesting debate: Should the same system used to deny students education at BYU  be used to deny health care?

Friday, November 21, 2014

Ecclesiastical Endorsement and Expelled Students

This is telling. Students at BYU must obtain an ecclesiastical endorsement from their local bishop each year. Apparently, if a student loses their ecclesiastical endorsement they are summarily expelled. Here is the stated policy.

Continuing Student Ecclesiastical Endorsement Students are required to be in good Honor Code standing to be admitted to, continue enrollment at, and graduate from BYU. In conjunction with this requirement, all enrolled continuing undergraduate, graduate, intern, and Study Abroad students are required to obtain a Continuing Student Ecclesiastical Endorsement for each new academic year. Students begin the Continuing Student Ecclesiastical Endorsement process online at http://www.endorse.byu.edu.
I've been reading stories claiming that BYU students who are caught associating with apostates (ex-Mormons), researching Mormonism from non-official sources or who question the veracity of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith are getting expelled. Such students lose their housing, lose their jobs and are simply put out.

A group called "FreeBYU" advocates ending the policy of excommunicating students who engage in open inquiry. The mainstream Utah view seems to be that these students are apostates who should be expelled from school and forced to live as second class citizens.

The fact that BYU expels students who talk with people outside of their religion helps explain why I've been unable to find people in Utah willing to talk about Free Market Health Care Reform. People who are banned from engaging in open inquiry in College are loath to engage in open inquiry outside college.

Thursday, November 06, 2014

Racism Place in a Reflexive Paradox

Raymond Davies of Payson, Utah provides an interesting example of the reflexive paradox in this tweet:

"@yintercept Any reference to a person's race is racist. Your noting the officer's and the person shot in this incident is blatant racism."

Racism is considered a negative.

Mr. Davies applies an absolute to a premise to create a self-reference to cast a negative.

In this logic one cannot ask if an incident, such as the shooting of Darrien Hunt, involved racism without being labeled a racist.

His statement is absurd. Racism refers to systematic judgments based on race and not on the existence of race. Aristotelian rejected all of the conclusions one draws from the reflexive paradox. Hegelian dialectics relishes in the reflexive paradox. You can inject the reflexive paradox in most arguments. Skillful dialecticians are able to use the paradox obfuscate and deflect arguments.

Wednesday, November 05, 2014

Scrutinizing the Lack of Scrutiny

Back in September a Saratoga Springs police officer was involved in a questionable shooting. The officer shot a young black man who was wearing a Samurai costume six times in the back because the costume included a replica samurai sword.

Officer Mark Schauerhamer wrote an article in Crossroads Journal advocating that we judge people on image. The article said that if you see a person listening to country music wearing a cowboy hat that the person is likely righteous, but if you see a person in Rastafarian colors that the person is likely a drug crazed menace to society.

Utah is an open carry state. In Schauerhamer's logic, if a police sees a person with a cowboy hat, listening to George Strait and carrying an AR 15; that guy is probably righteous and shouldn't be hassled. A black guy dressed as a Samurai with a bright shirt needs to be confronted.

In light of Mark Schauerhamer's public comments and the shooting of Darrien Hunt, I believe that Schauerhamer's career should be highly scrutinized.

On October 26th, a family reported that they believed that Schauerhamer used excessive force when he and fellow officers broke up a teenage party back in February.

If not for the shooting, breaking up a party would be non-news.

What is interesting about this story are the comments by Utahans in reaction to the party story. The self-righteous of Utah immediately turn and begin attacking the teens and their parents. These comments are from the Deseret News:

skibird from Spanish Fork said: "From what it sounds to me a bunch of high school kids got caught smoking dope and drinking and are playing 'the mean cops scared me' card to try to get out of trouble from their parents."

The article is scrutinizing the record of an officer involved in a shooting. Skibird reacts by attacking the motive of the family involved in the party.

Kora of Cedar Hills deflects scrutiny of the officers by attacking the parents: "I don't see misconduct here. What I see is parents who have quit disciplining their children because they want them to like them. Your job as a parent is not to make your kids like you, but teach them to be responsible adults."

The context of the article is the shooting. The party took place in February. We don't know how or if the parent's disciplined their kids. BTW, the party took place at a house of a Utah County police officer.

Hey It's Me of Salt Lake City has some twisted logic saying: "if a policeman tell you to move you better do it and if not you get taken to the floor with handcuffs and dragged to a room. You wouldn't have been in that situation at all if you weren't doing something wrong."

We have a better police force in the United States specifically because we scrutinize what they do.

DN Subscriber of Cottonwood Heights attacks the teens parents in a condescending manner: "Lots of teenagers are not the well behave angels their parents think they are. Sorry, parents, your judgment is badly skewed by the involvement of your sweet innocent children who were doing nothing wrong, or so you think. Did you know or care about what your kids were doing before the cops arrived to use 'excessive force?'"

The article is not about the party in February. It is an effort to scrutinize an officer involved in an actual killing.

Say No to BO of Mapleton demonstrates an advanced degree of cluelessness by saying: "This was news back in February. Now it's just jury coaching. S[h]ame [sp] on the Deseret News for participating in this defense strategy. Lawyers for the Hunt family must have a great deal of influence.."

I should repeat here: There was an officer involved shooting. KSL and Deseret News were investigating the officer involved in the shooting. These news sources have an obligation to investigate such news. Breaking up a party wasn't even news back in February. It is news only because it might show a pattern. Say No to BO claims the article was created by Hunt's attorney. Nkoyo Iyamba of the Deseret News said: "The Deseret News reached out to Schauerhamer's attorney for response and was told he was unavailable."

Say No to BO claims the article must be part of a "defense strategy" on part of the Hunts. That statement makes absolutely no sense because there is not a case being made against the Hunt family.

This next statement has to be read in light of the article. The Deseret News Article reads: "Kent [one of the parents] noted that despite this experience, he and other parents continue to teach their kids to respect authority."

Legal? of Saint George launched in saying: "One parent states that they teach their children to respect authority. Authority should also include the laws. These young people were smoking marijuana and some were drinking. They were underage at a home where there was no adult supervision. They (and their parents) need to go back to authority class. :)"

Legal needs to go back to elementary school to learn to read. The person in the article essentially said that even though you feel abused by authority, you should still respect authority. The commenter from Saint George attacks Kent for something Kent did not say.

In this article, which is about an officer who shot and killed a young black man, hockeymom of Highland says: "Sounds like police officers doing their job. Thank You Saratoga Springs PD."

Personally, I would like to thank the families who came out and reported what they believed to be excessive force used to break up a party. When you live in a society that is as mean and judgmental as Utah, coming out and standing up for others takes great courage.

The US Founders fought against the police state that was being imposed on them by Britain. To preserve our liberty, we must scrutinize apparent excesses of governing authorities like the local police.

I am appalled that the Utah County Attorney chose to release the official report of the shooting during election week so that the news would be overshadowed by the election. I am dismayed to see Utahans lining up to attack those who are investigating the shooting of Darrien Hunt. To maintain a free society, it is critical that the public scrutinize events like this shooting.

A Shameful Act on the Part of Utah County

On September 10th a 22 year-old black kid named Darrien Hunt was out playing alone in a Samurai costume with a replica sword. A calm 911 call informed the police that a person was dressed strangely. Officers confronted Mr. Hunt. The confrontation ended with officers Matt Schauerhamer and Nicholas Judson shooting Darrien Hunt six times in the back.

On Monday Afternoon, November 3rd, Utah County Attorney Jeff Buhman released the official report claiming the shooting was justified.

Costume Play In Utah

Costume Play is common in Utah. The event happened days after a huge Comic Con Festival 50 miles to the north. "The World's Largest" scavenger hunt took place in the same week. The neighboring town just opened a thing called "Castle Park" to host the "Fairy Princess Festival" and other costume themed events.

There was a half dozen costume runs in the county between the shooting and official report. The only strange thing about Darrien Hunt's situation was the color of his skin.

The report claimed that officers were justified in the shooting because Mr. Hunt was openly carrying a weapon. This is in a state where open carry is legal and one routinely encounters people openly carrying guns (which are much more dangerous than replica swords).

Saratoga Springs spokesman Owen Jackson all but broke out in praise of the shooting claiming that the officers "performed their duties as police officers with fidelity and professionalism."

While it is impossible to know exactly what took place during the shooting. I believe can and should judge the administrators of Utah County for their conduct during the investigation.

The release of this report was timed to coincide with the fog of the national election. The release of this report took place a full two months after the shooting. The one and only reason that County administers would release the report on Election Day was to avoid scrutiny.

The shooting happened in the heat of a moment. The decision to release the report during the election was a collective deliberate act on the part of Utah County. The decision to release the report under the shadow of the election should receive sharp and severe criticism from all quarters.

Tuesday, November 04, 2014

The Worst of the GOP Is Ascending to Power

The GOP spent the last six years engaged in base reaction to the Obama Administration. The unfortunate outcome of base reaction is that GOP has become significantly worse during these years.

The same thing happened during the Bush years. For the first six years of the Bush Administration, the Democratic political machine engaged in rank base reaction to Bush and by the time of the second midterm, the worst elements of the Democratic Party had ascended to power.

Unfortunately, this 2014 election appears to be a repeat of the 2006 election with the worst of the GOP rising with the best of the GOP being shoved to the side.

It is the nature of partisan politics that parties are at their best when in the minority and at their worst when they ascend to power.

I looked at the ballot. I do not see a single positive thing. All I see are partisans grubbing for power though the use of disinformation. How can one vote when there is not a single positive thing on the ballot? There is simply a choice between evils.

Which form of evil do I want to see destroy America? Do I want to see it destroyed by the zealot radicals of the left or the reactionary conservatives on the right?

I do not want to see America destroyed by either of the parties.

I am so discouraged by what I see in the GOP that I am secretly hoping that they fail to gain a majority in the Senate. If the GOP of 2014 rises to power, we will see 2 years of partisan discorded in Washington followed by a Democratic majority and Hillary Clinton in 2016.

If the GOP loses, Republicans might return to the drawing board and actually bring ideas to the table for the 2016 election.

As for my vote, I am simply staring at the polling place in abject horror. There is not a single positive thing on the ballot.

The lack of positive choices on the ballot is a direct result of the way that Conservatives engage in politics.

The Conservative Party, as you may recall, rose from the Tory Party in the 1830s. Tories, of course, were the people who leveled their muskets at the US Founders during the Revolutionary War.  The goal of conservatism from the 1830s onward has been to restore the class society of the monarchy.

Conservatism is a Machiavellian philosophy in which one uses free market rhetoric to gain power then push economic centralization and crony capitalism once in power.

Conservatism works at the political realm by presenting issues in the negative which is why conservatives systematically fail to present positive choices on the ballot.

The Left/Right paradigm gives us a choice each year of directly destroying our freedoms by voting for the Left or undermining our freedoms by voting for the right.

What type of choice is that?

To restore freedom we need to find a way of rejecting the Left/Right dichotomy altogether, but that issue is never on the ballot. There is only a choice between evils.

Friday, October 31, 2014

Utah Halloween

I'm a native of Denver. As a kid I could remember throngs of kids moving from door to door in the annual Halloween Trick or Treat. I also lived in Oklahoma and California.

Here in Utah, there are very few kids.

Apparently, local LDS Churches have huge Halloween events. There was a flyer on our door discouraging kids from door to door trick or treating and ushering them to the local ward.*

I assume this is because parents think door to door trick or treating is dangerous. After all, you never know what gentiles* might put in the candy they give kids.

Anyway, I turned the TV on yesterday and ended up watching an anti-polygamy show. The show featured an ex-polygamist who was discussing the occult practices of her particular polygamist clan. She also discussed the many indications that Joseph Smith was actively engaged in the occult.

It is generally accepted that early Mormons, like the good people of Salem two generations before, held a magical world view and that Joseph Smith was a treasure hunter and that LDS Temples are adorned with bizarre occult symbols from a wide range of sources and that Temple ceremonies are largely based on Masonic and Occult ceremonies.

But to actually hear an ex-polygamist talk about being negatively affected by occult practices in contemporary America was kind of a wake up call.

Anyway, there are very few trick-or-treaters out tonight; so I am sitting here, munching on Halloween Candy, thinking about how a church that has origins in the occult is using candy to lure kids up to some big event at the ward house.

hmmmmm......this could be a good start to a Grimm Fairy Tale or modern horror flick.

I am not LDS. I dislike both the theology and ideology behind the LDS Church. For challenging this ideology, I've been called a "Servant of Satan."

I put the words "Servants of Satan" in quotes because I've heard neighbors and coworkers use those exact words to describe me.

So, on this All Soul's Eve, I am left wondering about the huge Halloween event hosted by a group that has strong occult ties.

Anyway, if you want to scare yourself, you can Google "Joseph Smith and the Occult." You will find many interesting things. There are not just anti-Mormon articles. Mormon Apologists are chiming in acknowledging the occult and magical world view.

----------------------------
*The LDS call their churches "wards." They call people who are not LDS (including Jewish people) "gentiles." LDS doctrine teaches that people who are not LDS are Servants of Satan.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Is Marriage an Institution of Hatred?

I just read an blog post that matter-of-factly stated that the Christian tradition of Marriage was all about hatred and that the sacrament of matrimony was contrived by evil people with the single minded purpose of oppressing women.

The line that marriage is all about oppressing women is not new. It was what they were teaching when I was in school. I am not married and I never really considered getting married because I do not want to be that horrible person who is oppressing a woman simply by existing. I never once considered having children because children exhale carbon when they breath.

Back in the 1980s, before it was the cool thing to do, I was a big supporter of Gay-Marriage.

Quite frankly, I still have no problem with people in same sex unions and believe that secular laws about monogamous civil unions should apply to same-sex marriage.

Having seen the terrible things happen to people in Utah because of polygamy, I am hesitant to say laws applying to monogamous relations should apply to groups.


Anyway, I want to repeat why I am opposed to the Marriage Equality Movement.

I was a supporter of gay-marriage back before it was the cool thing to do. I had some progressive friends who were opposed to all forms of marriage as artificial. We went to a lecture by a progressive lawyer.

The progressive lawyer then explained that by reframing the campaign for "gay-marriage" to "marriage-equality" that they could use the movement to attack the church.

A gay-marriage is not equal if it is not recognized by all churches.

I suspect that most most supporters of gay-marriage feel like I felt back in the 1980s and are simply seeking recognition of a civil union, but the title of the movement is now marriage equality.

Gay-Marriage is not equal to hetero-sexual marriage until the Catholic Church has been sued and is either forced out of business or forced to submit to progressive dictates.

The sacrament of marriage, of course, is not about sex, it is about the children produced by sex.

The marriage equality movement flies squarely against the fact that heterosexual couplings naturally produce children and homosexual couplings do not.

That natural inequality is not the contrivance of some evil pope in the third century.

Sexual reproduction is the basis of evolution of most multicellular forms of live on this planet including all the creatures in the Mammalia Class along with most fish and trees.

The claim that hetero-sexual couplings are equal to homosexual couplings goes against basic biology and the fundamentals of evolution.

My direct personal experience involves being in a room with people who were opposed to gay-marriage then started supporting it when they realized a marriage equality movement would provide a legal means to attack churches.

As for claims that the Christian tradition of marriage was contrived in the third century by evil popes who hated women, I want to start by pointing out that neither I nor most* of the the people involved in the current debate were living in the third century.


I counter this claim because there is a solid logical argument for the Christian tradition of marriage. Hetero-sexual couplings produce children. Same sex couplings do not.

This is basic biology. When there is a clearly logically statement for a position, I will take the logical statement over psychic claims about the ability to see into the minds of others.

I have met married women who claim that they favor monogamous marriage because it provides a stable basis for raising their children. I have met multiple women escaping from polygamous situations who were in dire straits and single moms who were struggling and having a hard time lacking support.

Looking at churches, my observation is that women tend to be more actively involved in the church than men.

From grade school to present day, I've heard progressives repeating the talking point that marriage is all about evil popes who hate women conspiring with with evil men who want to oppress women, but I really have never seen it.

Progressives claim to be intellectually and morally superior to their neighbors, but my direct experience with people living in different situations keep telling me that the progressives are wing nuts.

When I look at the marriage equality movement, I don't see a movement driven by love. I see a movement of movement led by power mongers seeking to force their opposition into submission.

I do not have the ability to see into the minds of others, but if I were forced to identify which group was driven by hate: (The Christians who supported the Sacrament of Marriage) or  (Progressives demanding marriage equality); I would point to the progressives.

In this case the Christians appear to be driven by reason and science, while those demanding marriage equality seem to be driven by a desire to force others into submission. BTW: the name for efforts to force others into submission is called oppression. The Marriage Equality Movement is a movement is an anti-science movement driven by a desire to oppress an opposition.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Formation of the Republican Party

Conservatism traces to the Tories. The Tories are the people who fought against the US Founders. Conservative intellectuals tend to trace their partisan ideology to Edmund Burke or to Machiavelli.

Machiavelli preached that the prince must appear religious without actually being religious. When the words that flow through your lips are lies, you can puff out all sorts of sanctimonious spittle while playing the political game of rewarding friends and punishing enemies friend.

The people who believe the rhetoric that loosely flies from conservative lips are considered useful idiots who simply find themselves holding an empty bag of promises when the dust of politics settles. For over over a half century, the GOP has been electing "Conservatives" who promise to decentralize government. Instead they find the Right side of the aisle lined with people aptly described as "Republican in Name Only" (RINO).

This happens because of the Machiavellian nature of Conservatism.

To recap the previous post. The Conservative Party was established in England in the 1830s from the Tory Party. Tories, you may recall, were the people who fought against the US Founders.

The people who founded the Republican Party would be shocked to find that their party adopted the conservative view. Both in 1830 and today, Conservatives are Machiavellians set on preserving the class society of the ancient regime. If you call yourself a conservative you are standing with the Tories who leveled their musket rounds at the US Founders and who immediately set in on undermining the American Experiment in Self Rule.

The Republican Party of the United States, in contrast, was founded in 1854 by members of the Whig Party. The primary concern of the Republican Party of 1854 was to stop to spread of slavery and the plantation model in the West. The plantation model of society is one with a very small number of aristocrats who control society with the bulk of humanity impressed as wage labor or slaves. On nominating Abraham Lincoln, the GOP set its focus on preserving the Union.

The founders of the Republican Party were adamant defenders of the world view of the US Founders. They chose the name "Republican," because the US Founders loved the name.

The US Founders had a liberal arts education based on classical logic and steeped in Christian Ethics. They fought in a Revolutionary War with the banner of liberty. The founders created a Constitutionally limited central government whose primary focus was the protection of liberty.

The founders lived before the age of ideology, but I like to call their approach to society and governance "Classical Liberal." Modern Liberalism is a paradoxical approach to governance that appears to have accepted Hegel's modern logic as its foundation. Hegel believed freedom was slavery and slavery freedom. The Democratic Party was formed in the South with the bizarre belief that a plantation based society with a few phenomenally wealthy individuals and the bulk of humanity held in slavery or wage labor positions was a higher form of society. The plantation mentality (aka Progressivism) is still the driving fantasy of the Democratic Party in many urban areas.

The Liberal Party of England was founded in 1859. The Liberal Party of England pushed a radicalized definition of Liberal derived from modern logic (Hegel) which saw freedom as slavery and slavery freedom. In the English Parliament, the Conservatives defended the social structure of the ancient regime while the Liberals advocated social change through political and economic centralization.

In 1867, a German Philosopher living in England wrote a tome called "Das Kapital." Das Kapital described a society in which a ruling elite use control of the banking system to create a class society. Marx's capitalism is not a free market as envisioned by the Adam Smith, the US Founders and the classical liberals that established the GOP. Marx's capitalism is distortion of a market created by centralized banks and centralized financial exchanges.

Conservatives fell head-over-heels in love with Marx's Capitalism as Marx defines a direct path of re-establishing class rule in an age of revolution. To this day, Conservatives blindly defend Marx's Capitalism despite the fact that Marx's Capitalism is one of the greatest threats to freedom ever devised.

If you call yourself a "conservative," I beg you to please tell me why you blindly defend capitalism (Marx's distortion of the free market)? Why do you stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories who leveled their muskets at the US Founders?

Are you really so stupid as to think that we can restore the greatness of America by blindly following the enemies of liberty?

I beg you to read the history of Conservatism. It is an ideology that flows from Machiavelli. It holds Edmund Burke in esteem and belittles the US Founders as neophytes. Conservatism pushes the economic theories of "Das Kapital" to the detriment of the honest free market envisioned by the founders and Classical Liberals such as Von Mises and Hayek.

In every election for the last fifty years, the GOP screamed the words conservatism. Every single conservative administration has favored economic and political centralization over the principles of freedom.

The Party of Lincoln was founded on the same solid principles as the US Founders. The Founders had a liberal arts education based on classical logic and steeped in Christian Ethics. I like to call this approach "classical liberalism."

IMHO, Abraham Lincoln and the US Founders were among the greatest political thinkers who ever lived. Look at the great things the founders and Lincoln did!

Conservatives, in contrast, wallow on the ground before Machiavelli. Modern Conservatives accepted the perverted system of thinking called "modern logic" by Hegel and support the economics described by Karl Marx in "Das Kapital"?

If you are a conservative; Please, I am on my knees begging, tell me why you think we should turn our backs on the US Founders and Lincoln to follow the ravings of Machiavelli, Hegel and Marx?

If you are one of the blind idiots who follow Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck without bothering to research the history of Conservatism; then you have no right to complain about the RINOs because the RINOs that control the modern GOP are a direct product of conservative thought.

The Party of Lincoln was established by people who truly believed in the ideals of the US Founders (classical liberalism). Conservatives (the Tories) are a traditional enemy of these ideals. Conservative Republicans who are true to the conservative ideology (Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, Edmund Burke, Hegel, etc) are inherently Republican In Name Only. To expect conservatives to be something outside the nature of conservatism is naive in the severest form of the term.

Monday, September 29, 2014

Roots of Partisan Conservatism

Here in the former colonies (ie The United States), there is a large group of people called "conservatives" who use free market rhetoric and the image of the US Founders but who systematically fail to discuss free market solutions for our nation's problem and systematically undermine the American Experiment in self rule.

I believe strongly in the ideals of the US Founders and the direction set by their Experiment in Self Rule. As conservatives systematically undermine this experiment, I've set into exploring the origins of this strange partisan ideology.

A likely source of the partisan ideology called "Conservatism" is the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom. This Wikipedia Article claims that the Conservative Party was established in 1834, preceded by The Tories. The Tories, as you might recall, were the people aligned against the US Founders in the US Revolution.

The Conservative Party evolved directly from the group aligned against the US Founders.

This strange partisan ideology of Conservatism is the ideology that evolved within this Conservative Party.

In the UK, the Liberal Party was established in 1859 from the Whig Party. The UK Liberal Party was the primary opposition of the Conservative Party from 1859 to 1988 when it was replaced by a leftist party called the Labour Party. The Liberal Party of the UK developed a partisan ideology called "modern liberalism" which is fundamentally at odds with the ideals of the US Founders and with common sense and reason. The Labour Party has abandoned all pretense of defending liberty and is out in left field.

Truthfully, I don't care a lick about English politics. England is the concern of the English. I love the US Founders and the American Experiment in self rule.

The greatest threat to the American Experiment are the loud people who've committed themselves to the struggle between Liberals and Conservatives. This partisan dichotomy is an import from the old world. The false dichotomy itself is antithetical to liberty. One does not find truth on any part of the spectrum of a false dichotomy. A moderate committed to a false dichotomy is as false as the extremes. The only defense against false dichotomies is to call out and reject the dichotomy.

This false dichotomy that dominates all aspects of American politics came from outside the United States.

The US Founders despised the factions of Europe. Conservatives, who've carte-blanche accepted the partisan ideology of conservatism haven't a clue about what they are doing.

Conservatives are not defending the ideals of the US Founders. Conservatives are simply using free market rhetoric and the image of the founders to advance a partisan cause that is harmful to American freedoms.

I have to repeat this about the US Founders: The US Founders had a liberal arts education based on classical logic and steeped in Christian Ethics. They applied their liberal arts education to the question of liberty and came up with a Constitutionally Limited Government whose primary objective was to protect the liberty of the people. I like to call this approach to governance "classical liberalism."

Wikipedia defines classical liberalism as: "a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. "

Now, the US Founders predate the age of ideology. I personally find it problematic to call the founders' ideals an "ideology" when ideology is a construct of the French Revolution. But we must have a name for the Founder's approach to governance. Trying to call the US Founders "conservative" makes no sense as they were in direct conflict with the Tories. Calling them "liberal" makes no sense either as modern liberalism is a partisan ideology that came after the founders.

The best defense for the ideals of the US Founders is for people to understand the perversion of political ideas that took place in the early 1800s that led to the Conservative/Liberal partisan dichotomy.

The US Founders had a liberal arts education based on classical logic. The generation after the founders adopted a new style of think often called "modern logic." Yes, I know, modern logic came from the German University System. The Hanoverian Kings of England were German and funded the universities that conceived modern logic. The Hanoverian Kings charged the universities with the cause of making the monarchy look progressive. Modern progressivism is a belief that society progresses through economic and political centralization and the suppression of individual liberty.

This modern logic is often associated with Hegel. Hegel's modern logic places paradox at the foundation of reason and conflict at its surface (dialectics). Marx used the term "material dialectics" for his base philosophy. Marx was interested in fomenting revolution. To foment revolution, he used dialectics to create a false dichotomy to divide the people. In the tome Das Kapital, Marx (who moved to England in 1945) created a perversion of the free market called "Capitalism" in which corrupt financial system cornered the means of productions and created a class society. Marx then wrote "The Manifesto" to rally people against the system he created in Das Kapital.

The Conservative Party loves the idea of a class society and began arguing for Marx's Capitalism.

In the United States, we have a large number of people called Conservatives screaming at the top of their lungs a hatred for liberalism and a defense for Marx's Capitalism while wondering what is going wrong with the United States.

If you are an American Conservative wondering what is going wrong in America; you can find the answer by looking the mirror. That person who screams a hatred for "liberalism" and defending Marx's Das Kapital is an ignoramus who hasn't researched the origins of these ideologies.

If you are a partisan waving the Constitution; you need to sit down and read the Constitution asking the basic question: What does the Constitution have to say about the parties.

The parties that dominate politics are not in the Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers and you will find that the US Founders disliked partisanship.

Liberalism is not the problem and conservatism is not the solution, or visa-versa. The Left/Right dichotomy and partisan ideology is the problem. The solution is to reject the false dichotomy and to launch head first into a substantive debate about ways for a free society to move forward.

Plain and simple: The answers will not be found in modern conservatism, modern liberalism, modern progressivism, Marx's Capitalism, Communism, Socialism or any of the off shoots of modern logic. This modern system of thought has proven corrupt and failed at every turn.