That Explains It

Information came to me from two different sources related to COVID-19 that I hadn’t known before. It is this: It is illegal for the FDA to approve an emergency vaccine for a disease that is treatable. Similar rules apply in other countries.

There was a push—from national and worldwide governmental organizations, from the WHO, from the CDC, from NIH, from pharmaceuticals, you decide who to blame—to use a vaccine to fight this pandemic. In order to get emergency approval, they needed to deny that treatments were working.

That explains why they claimed hydroxychloroquine, zinc, various vitamins, and other treatments would not work. A number of such treatments that were working very well from the beginning—in outpatients at the onset of symptoms. For reasons that seemed mysterious, doctors would send patients home to monitor their symptoms until they worsened enough for hospitalization. (A friend’s husband was still told this just a couple of weeks ago.) Then they would get the treatments that should have been given earlier, and at that point they weren’t shown to be effective.

I’ve been watching this prejudice against treatments that work for a year now, scratching my head. Why would they purposely allow people to die rather than use what was working? I’m still puzzled by the inhumanity of that, but at least this detail about emergency vaccines not approved for a treatable disease is an explanation.

I first heard this from an interview Tom Woods did with Ivor Cummins.  Then I heard it from a doctor in Idaho, a qualified immunologist and virologist, Dr. Ryan Cole. I’ll go through some of what these two said, and then add a third doctor with a related concern.

 

Dr. Ivor Cummins with Tom Woods

Ivor Cummins
image from his website

Ivor Cummins is a biochemical engineer who has been working on health issues like cardiovascular disease for years. He has spent this past year charting data related to COVID-19, which has made him somewhat controversial, or heroic, just because the data isn’t what people are being told. Tom Woods asked him about treatments. He said he has mostly stayed out of that debate because it’s so political. But he did relate the basics. Studies were done badly—it appeared purposely. Some were withdrawn, such as the Lancet report, which was, he said,

in the shortest retraction time ever post-publishing. And that’s because they got their data from a shady outfit that ceased to exist pretty quickly. So there was an awful lot of anti-HCQ stuff, which makes me very suspect.

He didn’t go further on HCQ. But ivermectin? That’s a positive. Ivermectin hasn’t really been on my radar, but it is getting more attention recently. It’s an anti-parasitic, often used for dogs, cats, horses, and other animals. And it has been used in humans for decades, safely. It’s also cheap.

Anyway, back to Dr. Cummins. He said this of ivermectin, and then gives what he thinks is the reason it's still unknown:

Ivermectin, though, seems to have very strong data. And even the WHO a few months ago gave it a nod, and in the US, courts allowed treatment. So I don’t think they could walk away from the strength of data on ivermectin. And yet still we hear nothing.

One of the reasons—and it’s not a conspiracy theory; it’s just business reality—for a vaccine to get emergency approval, one of the crucial considerations or caveats is there can be no alternative treatment available.

And I think that was one of the major drivers for the kind of propaganda campaigns against everything that would have helped, what everyone in the business and influence knew: if there’s a credible treatment that comes out, it may stop the emergency authorization. And there was so much money and intent built up in the vaccines—including the passports, which were planned since 2017 in the EU. They have a road for vaccine passports for 2021.

So these are things that are long wanted by the most influential bodies in the world. And they’re not going to see them canceled or stymied by a nuisance effective treatment coming up. It’s just not going to happen.

I hadn’t known that about the vaccine passport plan from 2017 either.

Tom Woods, on his libertarian podcast, talks about COVID-19 almost daily, bringing in experts and guests on various aspects. So that’s a good source. He passed along a chart in his newsletter the other day, comparing Texas and Mississippi, both of which “opened up” a couple of months ago, alongside several other states that haven’t opened up yet. It has been long enough for any sudden rise to occur. Both of those open states are doing better than those that haven’t yet opened up.

New confirmed cases of Covid-1 in TX, MI, NY, NJ, and MS.
Source: Financial Times analysis of data from the Johns Hopkins CSSE.

Woods has a collection of charts you can get for free, at ChartsTheyForgot.com.

 

Dr. Ryan Cole

Just days after I heard Cummins on Tom Woods’ podcast, a friend passed along a video of Dr. Ryan Cole, giving a presentation in Idaho. He’s the CEO and Medical Director of Cole Diagnostics, and knows immunology and virology.

The first near half of the presentation was on Vitamin D, which bears some coverage—another day. But, about today’s thesis:

Is there a treatment for outpatient COVID?... Unfortunately, the three-letter government federal agencies have practiced therapeutic nihilism. Apathy. Complete apathy….

When, in the history of medicine, have we said to someone, “Well, gosh, you have pneumonia. But once you’re sick enough to be hospitalized in the ICU, we’ll give you an antibiotic for your pneumonia”? Insanity. Insanity.

We as physicians have collectively lost our medical minds. Just saying, “Well, gosh, you have an illness that we know is killing people around the world; why don’t you go home and just see how you do?” Insanity.

The earlier you treat, the more complications you can decrease down the road.

And you know what—there’s a treatment. Unfortunately, if there’s a treatment for a disease, the federal government cannot approve a vaccine. By law. By rule. So the NIH, who is involved in approving medications, they control the patent on the vaccine with Moderna. If the fox is not guarding the henhouse there, I don’t know who is.

That also is insanity, to have the government in bed with a private company, vending a product that they want to give to everybody. And so, when they look at the potential “therapeutics”… Conflict of interest. Federal government in bed with the vaccine company. Absolute conflict. They don’t want a therapy to work, because then they can vend their vaccine.

There have been treatments. Many. He went through several. He avoided argument on hydroxychloroquine, but he did say, “I took it for 10 months. I’ve swabbed thousands of sick people. I never got COVID. So that’s my story on that one.” He went through several others, when they’re best used as opposed to when they’ve been used:

·       Remdesivir: Six months ago the World Health Organization said, “Stop using Remdesivir. It does not add survival rate to anybody.” $3000 a pop. What are our hospitals still doing? Giving Remdesivir. When does Remdesivir work? The first 2-3 days of disease when the virus is replicating. By the time you are hospitalized, you are in a hyperimmune phase of a disease. Your immune system is what the hospital is trying to tune down. Remdesivir, again; it’s like peeing on a forest fire. It does nothing at that point, because the virus is already maximally replicated. Remdesivir—expensive, of benefit to the pharmaceutical companies and their back pocket; no benefit to your health.

·       Convalescent plasma: When does it work? The first 2-3 days of disease, when the virus is replicating. Do people get that outpatient? No, they don’t. They only get it in the hospital, when it’s not effective.

·       Monoclonal antibodies: When do those work. The first couple of days of disease, when the virus is replicating. By the time you’re in hospital, when the virus has reached maximal replication, does it work? No, it doesn’t.

·       Steroids: Do steroids work? To a degree they do, once you’re at an inflammatory stage in the hospital, yes.

Only that last one seemed to be given appropriately.

Dr. Ryan Cole at a Capitol Clarity presentation in Idaho
screenshot from here

Then Dr. Cole spent more time on the one he thinks is giving the best results: ivermectin, again:

We’re in farm country, horse country. You know, you give it to your dogs, your cats, your horses. It’s an antiparasitic. But it’s a molecule. It doesn’t read the textbook and say, “I can only kill parasites.” It’s a molecule. And, fascinatingly, it works against viruses too. Not just SARS-coronavirus, but a bunch of other viruses as well.

During the Q&A at the end, he was asked whether it was good for other things, and he added this:

It’s effective against dengue virus to a degree. Partially effective against Ebola virus. It’s effective against all coronaviruses. It’s effective against certain mechanisms of certain viral families. Yes, it is. West Nile included, which hits Idaho.

He said that in August of last year, it was found to kill coronavirus 99.9 % in petri dish studies. Yet the NIH recommended against it. They did some testing on monkey cells instead of human lung cells, and used too high a dose. “They fudged the data, unfortunately.” But it works.

The rest of the world went ahead and tried it:

So, what did the rest of the world do while we said, “Everybody go home and let your lips turn blue and come to the hospital”? The rest of the world said, “Well, let’s try it.” So what did the rest of the world do? A lot of trials.

Four billion people on the planet have taken this medication since the 1980s. This medication won the Nobel Prize for the discoverer. It is that safe. It is on the world’s safest and most essential drugs list. Four billion people have taken it, with only one or two deaths out of four billion, and those people had a genetic disorder. Super super super safe. We’ve given it to people at 30-40 times recommended dose, no adverse effect. In the world studies—and again, therapeutic nihilism here, we’re finally just starting to do some studies.

So what’s happening here in the US?

Some brave doctors in Texas, in Florida, in Wisconsin have been using it in their hospitals. They have decreased their death rates by 70-90% in their hospitals. 70-90%. In Houston, one hospital was using it; now all the hospitals in Houston are using it, because they saw what the one brave doctor was doing.

There’s this mixed prejudice about trials needing to be done by American doctors before the FDA will approve. And yet they approved the Pfizer vaccine with studies done overseas instead of here.

So it’s absolutely hypocritical of our three-letter agencies to be approving certain things that were done overseas and then not approving things that were done overseas. Placebo-controlled trials—there were 15,000 patients in meta-analysis. It has decreased the deathrate. No matter what your therapy is, ivermectin, if that is added to the mix, it decreases the deathrate by 75%, if given early by 86%.

But wait, there’s more:

100% percent of the world trials have shown benefit. Decreases acquisition. Prophylactically. I’ve been on it for two months now. In Argentina, in a hospital trial, it prevented 100% of acquisition in healthcare workers. 800 doctors and nurses were given it during their big outbreak. Of the 800, zero got COVID. Placebo group: 57% got COVID, that were not on ivermectin.

Scandinavian studies. Prevented acquisition by 88%.

And:

Multiple mechanisms of action of this molecule? Don’t have time. Long medical lecture. But it’s fun to know. The beauty of it—it can cover all the variants, because of its mechanisms. All the variants. Unlike, “Oh, we’re going to have to give you a new formulation of this vaccine or that vaccine or that vaccine.” No. The mechanisms of the action of this molecule against this virus don’t stop.

He can’t say enough good about ivermectin:

You can prophylax. You can treat. And not only that, down the road, if you have long-term symptoms, ivermectin can tune those down as well. It is a phenomenal medication. And it’s an immune modulator, not just a viral killer.

Add to that, the low cost of this treatment:

How much does it cost? Two cents. In India an entire province, 200 million people—COVID’s gone. They put little blister packs together for two cents, gave it out to their entire population. They’re at their grocery stores. They’re at their theaters. They’re walking around. They’re living normal life. Wherever it has been given in the world, they’re back to normal life.

In the US it’s compounded for about $2-5 per dose. You can get a full course of treatment for under $30 and decrease the deathrate by 75-86%.

Here’s the kicker, which agrees with what I said in February: 

Of the half million deaths we have in North America, we would have 375,000 less deaths. There is blood on the hands of bureaucrats in Washington, who have suppressed this life-saving medication. Blood on the hands of those individuals.

He mentions, by the way, that masks don’t work. The particle size is too small to be affected by a mask.

He spends some time talking about the vaccines. He’s not anti-vax. He’s used vaccines for himself and his children. But this one, he’s wary of:

By definition, a vaccine, historically, is giving a protein or an antigen or a part of the pathogen and/or a whole killed pathogen. Injecting a sequence of mRNA [messenger ribonucleic acid] into a human being is a medical device. Historically, what we’re doing right now does not fall under the definition of a vaccine.

They shifted the verbiage in some of the federal register back in October so they could approve this. So it was a sleight-of-hand to change the verbiage. What we have right now is an experimental biological gene therapy immune modulatory injection. We are injecting people with a synthetic sequence of nucleic acid. We have never done this on a large scale in human history. MRNA trials in mammals have led to odd cancers. MRNA trials on mammals have led to autoimmune diseases. Not right away. Six, nine, twelve months later.

They’ve created demand with the scarcity, so people want it. But,

The long-term safety data is not there. 50% of healthcare providers are absolutely not getting this injection. And that’s the reason….

Do the shots decrease severity of disease and hospitalization? Well, they seem to be. But they don’t fall under the definition of creating pure immunity and preventing transmission. If you’re immune after an injection, why in the world would you still have to mask and social distance?

Here's his main safety concern:

My biggest concern, honestly, is antibody-dependent enhancement reaction. You get a shot, you’re fine…. But, if you get a coronavirus shot—historically: SARS, MERS, animal coronaviruses—you get a shot, when you’re exposed to a wild type variant of the virus six, nine, twelve months later, the immune system can go haywire. In the SARS vaccine trials in the ferrets and the monkeys 100%—100%—of the animals, when exposed to wild type virus ended up with immune reaction.

I’ll quote one more doctor on that in a minute. But I wanted to add Dr. Cole’s three-fold recommendation concerning this virus:

1.       Pro hormone/Vitamin D: critical to every Idahoan’s immune health. That should be public health number 1, every fall and winter for every year for the next hundred years. Absolutely. [Worth hearing the first ten minutes of his presentation for details on Vitamin D.]

2.       There is an early prevention and treatment for COVID: ivermectin. [He suggested online pharmacies, such as MyFreeDoctor.com, if your doctor won’t prescribe it. Or share with your doctor the information from the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care website.] https://covid19criticalcare.com/

3.       Your body, your choice. In my opinion the vaccine is unproven, and long-term safety is not there.

Dr. Hooman Noorchashm

This third video was an interview on Tucker Carlson. Dr. Noorchashm is pro-vaccine, and particularly pro-this vaccine. He thinks it’s practically a medical miracle. But—and it’s a big but—he doesn’t like the way they’re pushing it. It makes no sense to vaccinate people who have a natural immunity.

Some people are having reactions, and that should be telling us something:

The signal is almost deafening. The people who are having complications and adverse events are people who have been currently or recently previously infected. I don’t think we can ignore this. There are some very, very strong anecdotal cases that are coming through, and I’m happy to talk to you about these. But I believe that we can’t trade safety for efficacy.

So, in other words, yes, this vaccine is going to be one of the most effective vaccines we’ve ever made. But if you take that efficacy and say, you know what, we’re going to sacrifice the lives of X number of Americans who are unsuspecting and trusting, I think you’re doing a real disservice. I think it’s a problem.

So there’s this disease, from which 99.5% survive—and most of the deaths are elderly with co-morbidities. You prevent people from getting treatments that are available, safe, and cheap—and censor information about them and threaten doctors who offer them. And you get people vaccinated, which is going to kill a certain number.

The people pushing this vaccine have already sacrificed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people—preventable deaths—so they could sell this vaccine. And the vaccine doesn’t necessarily cause immunity or completely prevent transmission, like an actual vaccine would. And people are at risk from it.

Harm to fetuses during pregnancy is already an issue. Harm to people who get the shot when they already have immunity is an issue. Harm to people who react to substances in it is an issue. By the way, it contains polyethylene glycol—antifreeze, to keep the vaccine from freezing in storage or transport—which 70% of people are allergic to. Some have only relatively minor reactions. Some could suffer anaphylaxis or death.

Do you want a government entity—or pressure from private businesses, for that matter—to be deciding you’re expendable? The people who prevented so many people, now dead, from getting prevention and treatment?

The vaccine passport topic is something we’ll need to cover another day. But anybody thinking that’s a good idea ought to have this information in hand first.

Divinely Inspired Constitutional Principles

Of the 195 countries in the world today (depending on how you count), all but three have a written constitution. All of these derive from the existence of the Constitution of the United States of America, which is the oldest, most longstanding of them all. Many states, as in the United States, in Mexico, and other places, may also have their own written constitutions. Texas does.

In our worldwide conference yesterday, President Dallin H. Oaks,[i] of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, talked with us about the US Constitution and the divinely inspired principles of freedom it embodies. Why was that brought up in a worldwide religious meeting?

President Dallin H. Oaks, of the First Presidency of 
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
speaking at Sunday afternoon's General Worldwide Conference
screenshot from here

 

As Pres. Oaks said,

The United States Constitution is the oldest written constitution still in force today. Though originally adopted by only a small number of colonies, it soon became a model worldwide.

And,

The United States Constitution is unique, because God revealed that He established it for the rights and protection of all flesh.

We believe our US Constitution was divinely inspired at a time and place that made the restoration of the gospel—the founding of our Church—possible, just three decades after it was written. But it’s not just for Church members; it’s for the benefit of all mankind.

US Constitution
image from Wikipedia

While there were other places and people in the world that spoke about human rights and equality—as opposed to a stratified society, which was the norm and had been historically—the United States Constitution was the first to put that into law. There was no place else in the world at that time that would have been receptive to Christ’s restored religion in which God is no respecter of persons but invites all to come unto Christ.

Pres. Oaks has the qualifications to speak on the matter:

·         He clerked for the Chief Justice of the United States.

·         He taught law for 15 years.

·         He served on the Utah Supreme Court for 3 years.

·         He has served as an apostle for our Church for 37 years.

I could add that he also happened to be the President of my alma mater, Brigham Young University; his term ended at my graduation. That doesn’t have anything to do with his expertise on the Constitution and how it relates to the Church, but it adds to my respect for him.

He speaks clearly and lays out his points logically. Always. And yet, he tends to stir up the occasional hornets’ nest when he speaks. Maybe because he’s willing to state things at odds with current culture or political correctness.

I suppose in today’s climate, you’re not supposed to say that something one country has is better than what other countries have. But if it weren’t true, we wouldn’t have a border problem. So let’s just admit that there’s something good here in America. And whatever good we have probably stems from the freedom and prosperity we have directly resulting from our Constitution.

Freedom relates to agency—our ability to choose, and therefore to be accountable for, our actions. He said,

The most desirable condition for the exercise of that agency is maximum freedom for men and women to act according to their individual choices. Then… every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. Therefore, the Lord revealed, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. This obviously means that human slavery is wrong. And, according to the same principle, it is wrong for citizens to have no voice in the selection of their rulers or the making of their laws.

So individual freedom is the overriding principle. But he further distills what makes the US Constitution such a good pattern for the world into these five principles (but not necessarily limited to only these):

1.       The source of government power is the people.

He adds that,

Sovereign power in the people does not mean that mobs or other groups of people can intervene or intimidate to force government action. The Constitution established a constitutional democratic republic, where the people exercise their power through their elected representatives.

2.       A division of power in which only limited, enumerated powers are granted to the central government, and all other rights are reserved “to the states respectively or to the people.”

3.       The separation of powers among independent executive, legislative and judicial powers. More than a century earlier “the English Parliament pioneered the separation of legislative and executive authority when they wrested certain powers from the king.” But it was an inspired innovation to have all three branches co-equal, so they “could exercise checks upon one another.”

4.       The Bill of Rights, guaranteeing individual rights as well as limits on government authority.

These are not new, as he points out:

Here the inspiration was in the practical implementation of principles pioneered in England, beginning with the Magna Carta. The writers of the Constitution were familiar with these, because some of the colonial charters had such guarantees.

5.       The rule of law, as opposed to ruler’s law.      

He says,

We are to be governed by law, and not by individuals. And our loyalty is to the Constitution and its principles and processes, not to any officeholder.

Here in Texas our state constitution was patterned after the US Constitution, so I thought I’d take a look and see if it held these five principles.

The opening of the Texas Constitution, handwritten 1876
image from Wikipedia

Bill of Rights, check. Instead of amendments, Article I is the Bill of Rights. It starts with Freedom and Sovereignty of the State, saying this:

Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.

This is the basis of the contract between Texas and the United States of America.

Going on, it covers being a republican form of government—representing the voice of the people. That’s the first principle of Pres. Oaks’ list, so check that. Then comes equal rights for all—no special privileges for any. Then comes equality under the law, saying it this way:

Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. 

There are several in a row related to freedom of religion: no religious tests to qualify for office or public trust, provided that a person acknowledges “the existence of a Supreme Being.” Without a Supreme Being, there are no God-given rights to preserve; that would be a problem. Then witnesses cannot be disqualified based on religious belief nor lack thereof; “but all oaths or affirmations shall be administered in the mode most binding upon the conscience, and shall be taken subject to the pains and penalties of perjury.” Next is freedom of worship—and this is longer and more detailed than the First Amendment in the US Constitution. It says,

All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.

There’s one more related to religion: no appropriations can go to sectarian purposes—that is, to the benefit of a particular religious sect. No financial religious favoritism.

Next comes freedom of speech and press. Then no illegal searches or seizures. Then rights of the accused, which look similar to in the US. Listed separately are rights of bail, and denial of bail after multiple felonies, which is somewhat long and detailed, with a couple of sub-sections.

Then is the writ of habeas corpus, which shall never be suspended. And that is followed by an inclusive one with no excessive bail or fines; no cruel or unusual punishment; courts must be open; and there must be a remedy by due course of law. Then comes no double jeopardy, and the right to trial by jury.

Things are getting detailed. I’ll add that there are specific limits to imminent domain, including a definition of “public use” to prevent taking property for economic development purposes—which was an amendment in 2009.

There is no deprivation of life, liberty, or property except by due course of the law. There are a couple of others related to law and life. And then a definition of treason against the state:

Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it, or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort; and no person shall be convicted of treason except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

We can’t leave out the right to keep and bear arms. Then military is subordinate to civil authority, and there’s no quartering of soldiers in houses.

Let me add this one, added in 2005: “Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” And “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” The US Supreme Court is currently at odds with the Texas Constitution.

President Oaks, by the way, mentions this, saying:

Despite the divinely inspired principles of the United States Constitution, when exercised by imperfect mortals, their intended effects have not always been achieved. Important subjects of lawmaking, such as some laws governing family relationships, have been taken from the states by the federal government.

He also mentions other infringements such as "The First Amendment guarantee of free speech has sometimes been diluted by suppression of unpopular speech," and some messiness concerning the separation of powers. People definitely make divine inspiration go awry when they don't follow it. 

Nevertheless, these principles, Pres. Oaks says, make it so all individuals are equal before the law. That is the goal. Unfortunately, that is not always the outcome.

The Texas Constitution has a total of 34 rights in that Article I, all coming ahead of the code of laws.

So are all five principles covered in Texas? Yes. We have rule by the people. We have rights of state government that have not been granted to the federal government. We have the separation of powers: executive, two-chamber legislative, and judicial (divided into civil and criminal state supreme courts). We have the Bill of Rights, which we’ve detailed. And we abide by the rule of law, rather than ruler’s law.

Hurray for Texas!

So what do we do about this love of the principles of the Constitution?

We use the moral agency God has given us to make the best decisions we can and use our influence for good. Pres. Oaks suggests some things good citizens can do:

In the United States and in other democracies, political influence is exercised by running for office—which we encourage—by voting, by financial support, by membership and service in political parties, and by ongoing communications to officials, parties, and candidates.

It’s a fine line, and he’ll be getting flack just for trying to carefully walk it. But he suggests both being politically involved and not criticizing others in how they are politically involved, or in the choices they make. As he says,

There are many political issues. And no party, platform, or individual candidate can satisfy all personal preferences. Each citizen must therefore decide which issues are most important to him or her at any particular time. Then, members should seek inspiration on how to exercise their influence according to their individual priorities.

You don’t know the thought processes another person has gone through, or what their particular priorities are—or even what they may or may not be aware of. So you shouldn’t decide someone is an unworthy church member simply because their political opinions may differ from your own. In a church where the membership heavily leans conservative, I guess that needed to be said.

Often when I hear Pres. Oaks speak, I am wondering which people is he speaking to concerning a particular point. In October 2020 he reminded us that our process is to accept the result of an election, and if disappointed work toward the next election. This was before the election was stolen, but I still took it to heart, since I saw election fraud as likely because of all the mail-in votes and other challenges to basic election integrity. But I couldn’t picture Latter-day Saints going out and protesting. This time he said,

Being subject to presidents or rulers of course poses no obstacle to our opposing individual laws or policies. It does require that we exercise our influence civilly and peacefully, within the framework of our constitutions and applicable laws. On contested issues we should seek to moderate and unify.

I of course agree. But did we members of our Church really need reminding that we influence only civilly and peacefully, within the law? That seems like a given. Or maybe I’m unaware of some rabble-rousing Latter-day Saints somewhere?

I was heartened to hear him say, “We should trust in the Lord and be positive about this nation’s future.” I do trust in the Lord. But I haven’t lately been positive about this nation’s future. He says we should all of us, around the world, pray for our leaders. I do that.

It may be that, while I love the US Constitution, as Pres. Oaks clearly does, he knows more about the future than I do. In my assessment, we are at a stage where we could call what we have the Democratic-Socialist Tyranny of America (that appears to be the intention of those currently in power and trying to make their power permanent), as opposed to the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America.

If I continue to support Texit, it will be with an eye toward influencing, where I can, to live where we have the divinely inspired principles of the US Constitution. I want that for my beloved United States as well the nation-state I’m living in. But if I can't get it in both, I'll aim for where I live.

In Daniel Miller’s book on Texit, which I’ve been reading this past week, he points out that other places that have separated, such as Scotland from Great Britain and Catalonia from Spain, when you ask a person where they’re from they don’t say the larger unit they’re affiliated with; they say their home place. But here in Texas—well, we sometimes do say Texas before America, as people in probably no other state would do, but we still pledge allegiance to the US flag just before turning toward the state flag and pledging allegiance to Texas (pp. 174-177). The two didn’t used to seem incompatible. They certainly aren’t incompatible when considering the actual US Constitution. But that’s not really what we’ve been dealing with for quite a while.

So I’m considering President Oaks’ words. I am loving an honoring the US Constitution—and our equally principled Texas Constitution. And I’ll watch and hope for America’s positive future, while also pursuing freedom, prosperity, and civilization where I think I have influence to do so.

_____________

[i] As of today, this link of the full session was available, but later this week each speech should be available separately, along with the transcript, including footnotes.

Beyond Words

For some things there are no words. That’s why we need music and art.

This Sunday we celebrate the most wonderful and amazing—beyond words—event in the history of creation: Christ Completing the Atonement by Rising from the Dead.

I’ll celebrate today with just a few words to tie the artwork to the events. The artists, I find, as I do this collection, both happen to be from my religion, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Walter Rane and Ken Turner (Ken is a personal friend here in Texas; I have highlighted him for his 9/11 piece "Out of the Ashes").

Palm Sunday—the Sunday before the resurrection—our Lord and Savior entered Jerusalem according to prophesy.

The painting is called “Triumphal Entry” by Walter Rane.

Walter Rane's "Triumphal Entry"

The crowds were in Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover. That is what Jesus was celebrating during the Last Supper later that week. According to custom the diners sat on the floor at a low table. It was during the meal that Jesus blessed and gave them the bread and wine as a covenant for them to remember Him and keep His commandments.

This painting is Walter Rane’s “In Remembrance of Me.”

Walter Rane's "In Remembrance of Me"

Christ also gave them another covenant blessing: the washing of feet, which showed them service, but also has meaning I don’t yet fully understand.

The painting is Ken Turner’s “Washing Feet.”

Ken Turner's "The Greatest Servant of All"

At the end of the meal, when “they had sung an hymn” (Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26), they went out onto the Mt. of Olives. According to the New Testament Student Manual on our Church website,   the hymn they sang

was probably the traditional Jewish recitation from Psalms 113-18, called the Hallel. Psalms 113-14 were traditionally sung at the beginning of the meal, and Psalms 115-18 were traditionally sung as part of the formal closing of a Passover meal.

The painting is Ken Turner’s “They Had Sung an Hymn.”

Ken Turner's "They Had Sung an Hymn"
found on his Facebook page a year ago, no current link

What happened in the garden of Gethsemane is significant beyond our understanding. It was here that Jesus suffered beyond what normal mortals can suffer, so intense that He bled from every pore.

There’s a song our young children sing about this part of the story, called “Gethsemane.” I first heard it in a recording by Claire Crosby—actually it was the first video I saw of her as well; I think she was three.

This painting is another Ken Turner, “Gethsemane.”

Ken Turner's "Gethsemane"

Walter Rane also did a version called “Not My Will But Thine.”

Walter Rane's "Not My Will But Thine"

When the soldiers arrived, seeking to apprehend Him, Jesus let them know which one was Him, so they would not harm the others.

This painting is Walter Rane’s “I Am He.”

Walter Rane's "I Am He"

Peter was the apostle we often think of as impulsive. He drew a sword and cut off the ear of one of the soldiers. Jesus immediately healed the ear. One would think that would indicate to any soldier or observer or accuser that He was who He said He was.

This painting of the healing, and the instruction to Peter not to stop what needed to happen, is Walter Rane’s “Suffer Ye Thus Far.”

Walter Rane's "Suffer Ye Thus Far"

Then came the illegal trials, the scourging, and the crucifixion, until Jesus could say, “It is finished.” He was the sacrificial lamb, without blemish. The sacrificial lambs had just been selected for Passover, and then the Sacrificial Lamb that they symbolized began His ordeal. The lamb image is a screenshot of a video related to our Sunday lesson a couple of weeks ago.

screenshot from here

Then comes the cross. 

This is Ken Turner's "Surely He Hath Borne Our Griefs."

Ken Turner's "Surely He Hath Borne Our Griefs"

Jesus’s mother was one of the few staying at His feet during the ordeal on the cross. They needed to take His body down and place it in the tomb rather quickly, as the Sabbath approached. Imagining this moment is beyond pain.

This is Walter Rane’s painting “Christ Taken from the Cross.”

Walter Rane's "Christ Taken from the Cross"

Early Sunday morning the women went to the tomb to anoint the body with oils. They did not find Him, but an angel told them He was risen. I have heard people comment on the napkin that had been placed over His face. It was folded neatly. Tradition was, if a person got up from a dinner table, for example, and was not finished, he would fold the napkin neatly. It signified he would return.

This painting by Walter Rane, “He Is Not Here,” is one of my favorites.

Walter Rane's "He Is Not Here"

Was He truly alive again? Mary saw Him at the tomb. This is Ken Turner's "Empty Tomb."

Ken Turner's "Empty Tomb"

He appeared to his apostles, and ate with them. He appeared to them again when Thomas was with them. He appeared to some of them on the road to Emmaus.

This is Walter Rane’s “Christ at Emmaus.”

Walter Rane's "Christ at Emmaus"

He appeared to them again on the shores of Galilee. And He spent weeks among them, teaching them, guiding them in how to spread the gospel—the good news. That good news is that He overcame death for all, and He overcame the separation from God for all who would accept His atonement and keep their covenant to always remember Him and keep His commandments.

It is in keeping those commandments that our lives are different. They are not restrictions from a full and happy life; they are the very guidelines to a good life.

We are reminded, at Easter—and always—that it is not life, but the tomb, that is empty. He came that we might have life, and have it more abundantly (John 10:10). 

I’ll add one more piece of music. This is Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah!” redone with lyrics for the Easter story. I first discovered the words a year ago. (I’ve been arranging the piece for two dulcimers.) But this rendition was passed along to me several times this past week. I think it’s the prettiest one I’ve heard: “An Easter Hallelujah—Cassandra Star & her sister Callahan.”

He taught us how to love perfectly. And He promises to make up the difference for our imperfections if we simply love Him and earnestly strive to love one another as He loves us.

His love is beyond words. But it is not beyond what we can feel.

May you experience a glorious Easter!

Texit Is an Action Verb

I’m starting with a personal dental problem story. Bear with me. I’m going to use it as an analogy.

 

The Extraction Question

I had a tooth break last week. Three chunks fell off, one rather large, plus a couple of crumbles. So I went to the dentist. I was hoping for a repair, albeit a likely expensive one, where maybe they could do an inlay or crown.

There wasn’t much pain involved, which was a good sign. But, in examining the tooth, the dentist noticed a weak spot on another part of the tooth that was mighty sensitive to the touch of his tiny metal probe. Not good. He laid out the situation. This tooth has had a fair amount of damage; it’s next to a partial (a removable tooth that replaces a failed root canal from over two decades ago), and that means it’s more susceptible to bacteria and pressure. My hygiene is excellent, but some things are inevitable. And the additional weak spot, close to the nerve, is very concerning.

He could do a temporary fix to both areas, very carefully, and then give it a few months to see if it stabilizes or maybe turns into an abscess. If it goes well, he could follow up with a permanent fix. If that doesn’t work, I lose the tooth—and I'm out time, pain, and expense.

Or he could go ahead with an extraction. That could be followed up by a larger partial—however, that would connect to a further back tooth already under stress. Or we could try an implant—pending a retest of materials I react to, which has made this impossible in the past, but which my current good state of health might allow.

My first wish would be to keep my tooth. I like real. And I like the integrity of real. But I had him write up the various paths forward so I could go home and talk it over with Mr. Spherical Model.

Mr. Spherical Model, who has been through a few implants already, was saying, it’s just going to get worse. You might as well go ahead with the extraction and be done with it. In a few months, you have a new tooth there, and all is well (we hope).

I think that’s the final decision, although I haven’t set the appointment yet.

The thing I’m looking at is that decision point at which you realize a temporary patch job isn’t going to solve long-term issues. At some point you need to extract and rebuild.

 

To Texit or Not to Texit?

That brings us to the topic of the day: Texit. More formally, the Texas Nationalist Movement. But I learned you can use it, not just as a noun, but as a verb. To Texit, or not to Texit? That is our question.

We had an extraordinary Tea Party meeting this past Saturday, with two very good speakers. The room was packed, with a few people needing to stand in the doorway—on a perfect spring Saturday afternoon.

Alan’s Speech

Alan Vera, speaking at Cypress Texas Tea Party
on Saturday, March 27, 2021

Alan Vera was our first speaker, on election integrity, a subject on which he is a national treasure. I consider him and his wife, Colleen, to be friends in my local political circles. When we (the local Tea Party board) were looking for speakers, we hadn’t yet confirmed him, and I went ahead and asked the Texas Independence Movement whether they could send a speaker. (I had heard Daniel Miller in a Crossroads interview.) They said yes—the same day that Alan confirmed. I was concerned about fitting them both in, but it turned out to be serendipitous. They were old friends in this battle.

Alan went ahead and introduced our second speaker, Daniel Miller, by reading what Alan called “the best 90-second speech I ever gave.” It was from the 2016 Republican Party of Texas Convention—the world’s biggest political gathering.

I missed that convention (my only trip ever to London). I apparently missed a lot. There was an hour-long floor debate sparked by this speech, ending in a voice vote badly mismanaged by the chairman, squelching the issue against the obvious will of the body. The issue was on adding the plank on Texas Independence to the state party platform. This is Alan’s speech:

At the center of this motion is a simple idea: Let the people of Texas address the 10th Amendment elephant in the room.

The Republic of Texas became a state through a treaty, with the United States—a CONTRACT.

Embedded in every contract are terms, conditions and covenants, the frequent breach of which undermine the validity of the contract itself.

Many Texans believe that the United States has already grievously breached the agreement.

When this contract was signed, the United States was a constitutional federation of sovereign states—a Republic.

Many believe this is no longer true.

The government of the U.S. once respected states’ rights and the rule of law. Today it tramples states’ rights, and the rule of law is at the bottom of a landfill, covered by the tiny, torn bodies of 60 million murdered babies.

The citizens of the United States have the right to make one bad decision after another. The government of the U.S. apparently has the right to hurl itself toward a cliff of moral and financial ruin.

But the citizens of Texas have the God given right NOT to follow them over that cliff.

My fellow delegates, when the chair calls for the vote on this motion, don’t just vote “aye.” Vote HELL AYE! For our children and grandchildren. For this dream we call Texas.

I have had mixed feelings about Texas independence for a while. I was asking, Should we have some kind of trigger that, if the federal government crosses a line, we automatically put Texas Independence on the ballot? But I couldn’t come up with such a trigger—because it’s easily arguable that any line we could come up with, the federal government has already crossed.

But I love America. I love our Constitution. How could we consider leaving?

Daniel Miller, President of the Texas Nationalist Movement, gave us plenty to think about.

He started with a story about going to the border, to Laredo, the day before. There was supposed to be a rally for people, as he described it, whose message was, “The federal government should fix it, and we should shake our fists at them until they they do.” No one showed. Our turnout in one room in a restaurant on Saturday was half again bigger than that crowd. That is not a message people in Texas want to get behind. Their main speaker, he said, (a speaker from New Zealand now living in Florida and has no say in the matter) spent 20 of his 25 minutes railing against Texit. Then Daniel spoke, and turned them all.

Daniel Miller, President of the Texas Nationalist Movement,
speaking at the Cypress Texas Tea Party, March 27, 2021

The Question to Focus On

There’s one question that brings it all into focus. It is this:

As it stands right now today, if Texas was a free and independent nation, that we had our right of self-government, we had control of our own immigration system and our own borders, we had our own army, we had our own currency, we had our own passports, we had our own embassies overseas, we had our own Olympic team—wouldn’t that be great?—if we were a nation in every single sense of the word, free, independent, self-governing, and the question was put to us on the ballot that we were asked, “Do you want to join the union?”

The room, filled with US Constitution-loving citizens like me, shouted “No!” I didn’t really know to expect that.

Miller was there to persuade anyone not yet persuaded. So he added the “benefits” of joining the union, if we were to do that today:

So let’s just lay out the benefits. I don’t want you to make a snap decision, right? So, let’s talk about near $30 trillion worth of debt that we would inherit overnight. Let’s talk about being crushed under the weight of 180,000 pages of federal laws, rules, and regulations that turns every single one of us pretty much into a federal felon every single day—not a joke [someone said “I know”]. It’s legit. I mean, that’s a benefit, right? Would you want to live under that?

What about the fact that, if you print up all those 180,000 pages of federal laws, rules, and regulations, it’d be taller than the San Jacinto Monument? You want to live under that weight, don’t you?

Or what about the fact that federal regulatory accumulation costs you about 85% of your take-home pay? Or, what about the things that Alan Vera mentioned—about 60 million dead children?

What about the fact that your money is going to be devalued every time that they fire up the printing press?

What about the fact that they’re going to send our sons and daughters overseas to fight in the wars of self-determination for other people but will deny it to us at the drop of a hat? How does that sound? Does that sound like a winning strategy for you guys? Sound like benefits? I don’t think so.

What about this? What about the fact that, as Texans, no matter what decisions we make here on how we want to govern ourselves, they can be overridden at the stroke of a pen by 2 ½ million unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats? How does that sound? I didn’t think so.

This doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me. So, again, I ask you the question: If you had to vote today, would you vote to join the union? [the crowd shouted, “No, no, NO” and “Hell no!”] Well, I think I might have turned some of you guys.

If we, like America’s founders, were to write up a list of usurpations and tyrannies, it would be longer and more egregious than those British monarchy wrongs listed in the US Declaration of Independence—and at least on par with those that led Texas to declare independence from Mexico back in 1836. If you were just to list the executive orders of Joe Biden, each and every one is a breach of contract with the people of Texas—and every other state.

 

It’s Inevitable

Daniel Miller's 2018 book on Texit

Miller has been working on this issue since 1996. It has been a long, hard road. But he says Texas Independence is now an inevitability. The trend has been moving toward it for a while. And with the current occupant of the White House, it’s likely to take a leap.

In 2018 Miller wrote a book, Texit: Why and How Texas will Leave the Union (which I bought a copy of and have started reading—and the intro includes that story of Alan’s speech at the 2016 convention). A lot of the details and difficulties are laid out in there—and on the website TexitNow.org (which redirects to the Texas Nationalist Movement). He mentioned some polling that surprised me, and it’s in the book:

Support for Texas leaving the Union grew from single-digit polling under Clinton to 35 percent during Barack Obama’s first term. The most recent polling in Texas shows that a majority of Republicans, approximately half of independent voters, and around one-third of Democrats support independence (p. 18).

He broke that down a few pages later:

The Research 2000 poll was a question about perceived benefit. The Reuters/IPSOS question was a question of political will. The results again broken down by political affiliation, showed 54 percent of Republicans, 49 percent of independence voters, and 35 percent of Democrats favored an independent Texas….

Support for Texit, on average, polls anywhere from 6 to 10 percentage points higher than those who want to stay in the Union (p. 28).

He told us that the Texas Nationalist Movement is the third largest and most influential political advocacy organization in the state—smaller only than the two main political parties. This is not just a fringe idea.

We talk here at the Spherical Model about the interrelationships of the political, economic, and social spheres, so I noted when Miller said this:

Texit is, at this moment, an inevitability. Not just because we can win a vote, but because there is no way that Texas and Texans can stay in a political, economic, and cultural union with a federal system that believes the way they do.

He colorfully added,

They literally just elected a head of state that went around promoting policies that make Joseph Stalin look like Jimmy Carter.

 

The Process

There’s a pretty complicated process to go through—as Britain experienced in Brexit. But the first step is simply to gauge the will of the people. Put it on the ballot for them to vote on.

The first step toward that was to put it in the Republican Party platform. That was finally accomplished in 2020 (an online convention with no floor debate—but the committees put it in and kept it).

The next step is to put a bill before the legislature. Rep. Kyle Biedermann has filed HB 1359. This simply says the question should be put before the people of Texas. (Ask your representative to sign on as a co-author.)

And the people's yes vote would not suddenly accomplish it; as with Brexit, it would require the legislature to lay out a plan to accomplish it in a given length of time, so all the details can be worked out. The question placed on the ballot would be:

"Should the legislature of the State of Texas submit a plan for leaving the United States of America and establishing an independent republic?"

 

The Battle of San Jacinto, where Texas first won its independence,
painting by Henry McArdle, found here

What About War?

We did have some serious questions—in that room, and that will need to be dealt with to educate the people of Texas between the legislation (and passing a bill its first session is a huge challenge) and the November election. So let’s deal with a couple.

One was, pointing out that the last time Texas tried to leave the union it didn’t go well: If it comes down to it, are we willing to fight our neighbors over this?

Good question. Miller had a pretty good—although not a yes or no—answer: We’re not in the 19^th Century anymore. He said,

We have literally seen an explosion of self-governing independent nation states around the world over the last 75 to 80 years. As a matter of fact, in most instances in recent history, independence has been the solution to years of civil war. Sudan is a perfect example. I think it’s one and a half million lives lost in the Sudanese civil war, and it was not until they decided to separate that the bloodshed ended. So, what we have seen here is a process that has developed over the last 75 to 80 years. And for us, it ultimately needs to get in a referendum.

He added that just over half the US military would side with us. They’re not going to bomb our local Walmart because we—what? We voted the wrong way? They’re going to behave like Khaddafi or North Korea while the world is watching?

They’ll be practical. Economically too. War would interfere with infrastructure and cause misery.

While some people would be happy to see us go, in general they would be against it (I’m thinking because we could set a chain reaction such as the USSR saw at the fall of the Berlin Wall). But there’s not much they could do to stop us.

 

Will We Have Freedom on the Other Side?

A question I got to ask related to whether we could keep our freedom after regaining independence. Our governor, who had certainly convinced me before taking office that he revered our US Constitution, had no qualms about locking us down and ordering us to wear facemasks this year, and then expecting us to praise him for finally setting us free a couple of weeks ago. And we have our cities the way they are now—Democrat-run. And Austin, our capital, Republican leaning but nowhere near as pro-freedom as we ought to have, based on both the US Constitution and our Texas Constitution. How do we know we can preserve our freedoms? Miller answered frankly:

How will government be any better? I’m going to tell you right now, post-Texit is not a utopia. It’s not. There is no guarantee that it’s a utopia. They’re not going to come out here, and suddenly there will never be a pothole again. You may not get your trash picked up one day.

It’s not a utopia. Nor is it a promise of that. But it is a promise that we can have the ability to make it better.

And here’s why. Part of the reason that our state and local officials are allowed to skate by with so much is because the attention of the people is distracted by the federal circus that goes on.

If you want proof, go out into this restaurant, grab a random person, and ask them who the speaker of the House is. They will probably tell you Nancy Pelosi. They probably will not tell you Dade Phelan [Speaker of the Texas House]. And therein lies the problem.

With the attention being drawn to Washington, DC—and rightfully so, because they’re the ones that keep their thumb on us so much. But it allows these folks to skate by. It allows our elected officials to treat elective office in Texas like a triple-A ball club, like tryouts for federal office.

The moment that Texas becomes free and independent again, that stops. There is no higher office than that which they can get in Austin. There is no greater service that they can give than to serve the people of Texas. And without that distraction of Washington, DC, who here would keep a much closer eye on what’s going on in Austin or right here in our own cities?

That’s the benefit of Texit.

 

We Need to Texit

I found Daniel Miller’s presentation of the Texit idea persuasive. As much as I would prefer a whole, intact United States abiding by the US Constitution, I think it’s time we recognize we can’t recover that. All we can do is patch up that cracked tooth to postpone the inevitable.

Extract. Heal. Rebuild. According to the principles that bring us freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

I haven’t been fully ready to say it before. But I’ve now come to the conclusion: We need to Texit.