Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Ol' Stompy Foot finally got up the nerve to say 'radical Islam,' but it upset him greatly

James O'Keefe, dressed as Osama bin Laden, crossing the Rio Grande
    President Stompy Foot finally got up the nerve to say Voldemort.
    Actually the words he dared to use are “Radical Islam,” which up until now he has avoided like a Hogwarts student afraid to say the name of “He Who Must Not Be Named.” Obama insisted that the use of the phrase doesn’t matter; but it does matter, a lot.
    Honesty from our elected officials is important. The Obama administration has repeatedly tried to declare that acts of terror committed by radical Islamists are in instead simply garden-variety crimes. So he told us, with a straight face, that our ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were murdered by citizens upset about a Youtube video, rather than admitting it was a planned terrorist attack. When a Muslim army major in regular contact with Islamist extremists murdered 13 of his fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood, Texas, while shouting "Allahu Akbar!,” the administration refused to label the attack terrorism, calling it instead “workplace violence.”
    And now we have the murder of 49 people in Orlando, murdered by a man who cheered the 9-11 attacks, who recently took two expensive trips to Saudi Arabia, and who pledged allegiance to ISIS during the murders. Obama blames the murders on a lack of gun control. And Obama insists that immigration wasn’t a factor in the Orlando shootings since the shooter was a native-born citizen. Of course, the man’s father, who has been known to support the Taliban, immigrated to this country from Afghanistan, and if he hadn't been allowed to do so his son would never have been a citizen; another reason to do away with Birthright Citizenship.
    The problem isn’t Youtube, an unfriendly workplace, or the administration’s inability to confiscate all of our weapons. The problem is that Obama and Hillary Clinton have done very little to stop terrorists, and in many instances have actively aided them. And we have no control whatsoever over our immigration process, as Obama simply refuses to enforce our laws. Our borders are so unguarded that filmmaker James O'Keefe was able to wade across the Rio Grande border wearing an Osama Bin Laden costume. He wasn't stopped, because we have virtually no border security.
    Libya was a success story of the Iraq war. When Muammar Gaddafi realized the United States meant business he agreed to give up that country’s weapons of mass destruction. While maintaining innocence, Gaddafi paid the family of each victim of the Pam Am Lockerbie bombing $10 million in compensation. Libya became a reliable ally of the United States in the war on terror.
    When the Arab Spring movement began, rebel groups with strong ties to al Qaeda began attacking government troops in eastern Libya. Obama immediately came to the aid of these terrorists, and used NATO to get the United Nations to authorize the use of force to create a no-fly-zone for eastern Libya; this was the only use of force the U.N. authorized. NATO immediately violated this order and began attacking the entire nation, as well as making assassination attempts on its leader. In one of these murder attempts NATO bombed the home of Gaddafi’s non-combatant son – killing several young children.
    The War Powers Act requires a president to seek Congressional approval for any military action lasting more than 30 days. Obama ignored this law, as he ignores most laws; it was more important to help terrorists than to obey the law. Obama won, Gaddafi was captured, sodomized, and murdered with his help, and eventually our ambassador to Libya would be murdered by some of the same terrorists that Obama supported. Libya is now and ungovernable mess and serves as a organizing point for ISIS. This was completely foreseeable, as I noted at the time.
    In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak had been one of our country’s strongest allies in the Mid-East. When the Arab Spring protests began, Obama rushed onto television to say that he must immediately be removed. With Obama’s support, the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood moved into action and was able to gain control of the government. When the military was able to remove the terrorists from office, Ol’ Stompy Foot really stomped his foot. He was furious that the terrorists that he had supported were no longer in charge of Egypt.
    Then there is Syria. I wrote five years ago that the Obama-Clinton team seemed determined to throw the entire Middle East into armed conflict. I pointed out the danger that Syria might descend into civil war. Everything I said would happen has happened. Obama and Saudi Arabia continue to support terrorists who are trying to topple Syria’s secular, elected government and replace it with a Sunni, Sharia-law regime.
    It is out of this huge power vacuum that ISIS was born. Even now the Obama administration continues to support Syrian terrorists; the result has a monumental disaster, as millions of refugees are trying to pour into Europe, or worse, the United States. There is no way to screen these refugees for ISIS agents or other extremists.
    Obama threw quite a tantrum over the fact that he was forced to say the words “Radical Islam.” But he finally said it! He told the truth, which for both he and Hillary Clinton is quite a difficult thing to do.
    To prevent future acts of terror we have to control our borders and limit immigration of those who might do us harm. We need a leader who will be honest and tell the truth. Clearly honesty and border control are beyond the Obama-Clinton pay grade. We need someone who can do the job.

Monday, May 9, 2016

Baptist leader Moore goes off the tracks with heretical attacks on Donald Trump, immigration

Yazidis give us a clue to the appearance of ancient Jews.
    Neo-liberation-theologist Russell Moore, who is doing his best to turn the Southern Baptist Church into a Communist-front organization, has declared that true Christians shouldn't support Donald Trump for president. Moore is president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the public-policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.
    Oh, and in a New York Times article Moore declares of Trump supporters that, "A white American Christian who disregards nativist language is in for a shock. The man on the throne in heaven is a dark-skinned, Aramaic-speaking 'foreigner' who is probably not all that impressed by chants of 'Make America great again.'"
    For the record I don't consider either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton to be particularly Godly people. I was, and still am, a Ted Cruz supporter, but I vote for my candidates on the basis of their political positions, not on their religion. As a strong supporter of religious liberty, I certainly thought Cruz would have been a far better candidate than Trump. But it is apparently not to be. On a personal level, I don't like Trump, but I support some of his policies.
    If you Google Moore's statements over the past couple of years, what you'll find is there isn't a leftist cause he doesn't like; this blog post doesn't allow time to refute it all, so I'll limit myself to Moore's comments on Donald Trump.
    First, Moore blasts Trump's "Nativism." The first Google definition of "nativism" is "the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants." I think a more accurate definition, particularly to describe nativist thought in the current election, is "The policy of protecting the interests of citizens against those of non-citizens or illegal aliens." Given this definition, I am a proud nativist, and I would hope most American Christians would be as well.
    Jesus is recorded in Mark 12:27 instructing that we should show fealty to our earthly sovereign: "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him."
    We American's don't have a Caesar; we have no king, no emperor, no ayatollah, no pope. We The People are sovereign, and our fealty is owed to our fellow citizens, pursuant to Christ's command. Moore's assertion that favoring citizens over non-citizens is somehow wrong is in direct conflict with the instructions of Jesus Christ. It is heresy.
    Moore has repeatedly criticized Trump for his statements concerning "immigrants." Of course, when Moore says Trump has made these statements he is bearing false witness, because Trump's comments have been directed almost entirely at illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants. There's a big difference.
    Let's look at some of Trump's "objectionable" statements concerning immigrants:
As has been stated continuously in the press, people are pouring across our borders unabated. Public reports routinely state great amounts of crime are being committed by illegal immigrants. This must be stopped and it must be stopped now.

We're going to bring people in, but we're going to bring people in legally.


When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. . .They're . . .sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting.
    Here are the facts: Central America, the source of the bulk of illegal immigration, used to send us their best and brightest, who were often denounced as traitors for leaving their home country. No more. We now get far more people likely to end up on welfare.  Immigrant households use welfare at twice the rate of native-born citizens, and illegal aliens with children have an even higher welfare rate. If we were getting the best and brightest, as we used to get, the immigrant welfare rate would hover around zero.
    The crime rate of illegal immigrants is a major problem, as the left-leaning Atlantic pointed out in a July 29, 2015 article. As that article reports, in 2011, there were an estimated 42,000 robberies, 70,000 sex crimes, 81,000 auto thefts, 95,000 weapons offenses, and 213,000 assaults committed by illegal aliens in this country.
    So let's get this straight. Moore bore false witness against Trump by indicating that his comments were against all immigrants and not just illegal aliens. This is a direct violation of Exodus 20:16, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
    Even worse, Moore has criticized Trump for telling the truth. And yet Jesus advocated the telling of the truth: "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (John 8:32). To attack trump for making a statement without first addressing the veracity of the statement is a direct, frontal assault on the teachings of Christ.
    When it comes to racial issues, Moore is no less obsessed than a Klan Kleagle in reverse. Thus we get Moore's claim that Christ "is a dark-skinned, Aramaic-speaking 'foreigner'."
    I don't believe Christ is going to have a skin color in Heaven, but I do think it's important to address the poison that Moore is spreading. We really can't know what Christ looked like; but we can make educated guesses. In all likelihood he didn't have long hair as always shown in the paintings, as men didn't wear their hair long in that time.
Bashar al-Assad
    But the people of the Middle-East are not necessarily dark in complexion. Some have light skin and deep, blue eyes, such as Syria's Bashar al-Assad (A clue, a clue!). And many Jews have blond or red hair; their skin is not particularly dark (A clue, a clue!). It is quite possible that many people who now live in the Mid-East may have dark skin due to intermarriage with other groups. I visited with a  newscaster for Al-Arabya some years ago, and in conversation he described a "true Arab" as having blond hair (his hair was not blond).
    The most endogamous group in the Middle-East is quite possibly the Yazidis, an Aramaic(!) group that lived directly to the northeast and east of the Roman-recognized state of Israel. Yazidis only marry each other, and therefore give us a clue (A clue, a clue!) as to what Jesus might have looked like. Yazidis often have fairly light skin tone and blond or reddish hair; sometimes they are darker.
Another clue as to Christ's appearance!
    With all of this said, even if Christ should have had a darker skin tone (and given exposure to the sun, he would have had a very deep tan regardless of his genetic makeup), what does it matter? Does Russell Moore really think it matters to anyone? Most of us have friends who are Lebanese, Syrian, Greek, Italian, and Hispanic. Many members of these groups have the type of darker skin that Moore is insisting that Christ had. So? Jesus is Jesus, regardless of what He looked like, so Moore just needs to stop race-baiting.
    I do agree with Moore that Donald Trump is a pretty awful person morally. I feel the same way about Hillary Clinton. As much as I dislike Trump, his political views are the most consistent with my own of the two likely major-party candidates, and I intend to vote for him if he is the Republican nominee.
    The most Christian thing any American voter can do is to vote for the candidate who will show fealty to our earthly sovereign, the citizens of the United States. I'm going to vote to elect a president who will best serve the interests of my fellow citizens, not a Sunday School teacher.

Monday, May 2, 2016

Liberals have specious arguments against border fence; all they want is more welfare recipients

    One of the things that America’s sheltered elites just don’t get is that most Americans want a wall built on our southern border to keep unskilled workers and terrorists from pouring into the country. And should people start pouring in from the north at some future time, we will want a barrier there as well.
    I remember as a young kid being asked to pass some item at the dinner table to one of my brothers. My response was to lean back just as far as I could in my chair and declare, “I can’t reach it!” I’m reminded of that as border security opponents bleat out specious reason after reason why we can’t have a border fence.

Specious Reason 1: Jesus is against it

    The most annoying anti-fence excuse is the religious argument: Jesus tells us to help the poor, therefore we can’t have secure borders and have to allow people to break the law. Even if this was Jesus’ teaching, which it’s not, America is not a theocracy; we are not ruled by priests, rabbis, or ayatollahs. Every decision of government should be made based on what is based on what is best for the American citizenry, not on somebody’s misplaced religious belief.
    But for those who insist on invoking Christ, I must point out that illegally entering a country is a form of theft from the legal citizens of that country. All a border wall would do is assist people in obeying the Ten Commandment prohibition against theft, in the same way that banks help people not to steal by keeping their money in a vault. I cannot believe that Christ would find such efforts anything but laudatory.
    Mexico isn’t exactly Somalia or Bangladesh. Although a developing country, Mexico’s per capita income has more than tripled in the last 15 years. In the bigger scheme of things Mexico is a wealthy country; it’s just not as wealthy as the United States. When compared to the rest of the world, Americans have average incomes in the top one percent. Mexicans are in the top three percent. Oh, cry me a river!
  

Specious Reason 2: People will find a way to get around a wall

    We’re told that some people might be able to breach a border fence. Yup, they sure will. But a fence will stop the majority of those who just dash across the border. If we can successfully stop most of the border jumpers we’ve accomplished our goal.
    Remember Andy Dufresne in The Shawshank Redemption? He managed to excavate a tunnel out of his prison cell with a little rock hammer. It only took him 17 years. So he is clearly an example that walls, no matter how carefully constructed, can be breached.
    And yet, the prison walls held him for 17 years. They continued to contain all of the other prisoners. Does it really matter that one guy managed to escape after 17 years if all of the other prisoners remained locked up?
    Walls are effective most of the time.

Specious Reason 3: Border jumpers are only one source of illegal immigration

    Border jumpers only account for half of illegal immigrants in the United States. The rest enter legally and overstay their visa. Therefore a fence won’t completely solve the problem of illegal immigration.
    So what? It will solve half of it!
    And at least those who come in through the visa process have received some type of government scrutiny that presumably is designed to keep terrorists out of the country. A visa gives us a paper trail to use in tracking down and deporting illegal infiltrators, which we cannot do with unknown people who slither across our border undetected.

Specious Reason 4: We can’t possibly afford it!

    This is perhaps the most annoying excuse of all. The worst-case scenario for a border wall/fence is $25 billion. If for some reason we can’t afford that, we could at least put up a wall in all of the places where there are currently illegal border crossings, and they are legion.
    Given that illegal immigration costs federal, state, and local governments more than $100 billion Every Single Year, $25 billion to cut the number of illegal immigrants in half seems like a bargain.
    And for what it’s worth, I would guess that those who are just walking across the border are far more likely to end up on welfare or have uncompensated care at our hospitals than those who arrive by airplane, which makes a border fence an even greater bargain. A fence will keep out the worst illegal immigrants.
    So a border fence costs absolutely nothing, since as soon as it is built the taxpayers start saving massive amounts of money. We can afford to build it, since we will actually be paid to build it – it’s better than free.

The Real Reason Liberals Oppose a Fence

    We all know the real reason liberals don’t want a border fence. A large majority of those coming across the border are going to be multi-generational welfare cases. Since the Democratic party has become a party of fringe groups and welfare recipients, liberals have an interest in bringing in as many illegal aliens as possible.
    Think about it; in order to retain or gain control of government, Democrats are willing to destroy our nation, even to the point of having no barrier to terrorists entering the country. We can stop these people, or at least slow them down, and a border wall is the first step.

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Boeing's Dreamliner is appropriately named, as nightmares are dreams, too

    I’ve just flown the Edsel of the skies: the Boeing 787 Dreamliner that I flew on LOT Airlines to get to Europe. I’ve been wanting to fly on one of these; that desire has now been forever extinguished.
    The Dreamliner is a beautiful plane. It’s big and tall, with lots of bin storage; and it reportedly maintains a higher cabin pressure during flight, while means passengers will suffer less dehydration. Because of its large size, there is far less turbulence. And although the food was lousy, the LOT Airlines stewardesses wear little caps, which is a neat little throwback to the olden days of aviation.
    In fact, everything about the plane was great except for one thing: LOT Airlines, like almost every airline, is flying the Dreamliner with a nine-across seat configuration which results in a seat width of 16.9 inches – just about the narrowest airline seat in the air. These planes were originally designed with the idea that they would have 8-across seating.
    The trend towards super-narrow airline seats started a few years ago when some greedy airline decided to replace the 9-across, 2-5-2 seating on their 777 airplanes to 10-across, 3-4-3 seating. Seat width on these 777 airplanes decreased, from a somewhat generous 18.5 inches to 17 inches. Presumably this made the airline more money, but it did little for passenger comfort. Most airlines have adopted the narrower 777 seats with the exception of Delta. So if you want to fly the 777 in comfort, fly Delta (United was 9-across on the 777, but they have started to switch to the dreaded 10-across seating).  With the 787 Dreamliner, there are almost no exceptions to the super-narrow-seats caused by the nine-across format. As a result, if you fly this plane in coach, you will be miserable.
    At 200 pounds I am admittedly on the fat side. But I’ve flown far fatter and been far less uncomfortable. I’d grateful that I’ve lost some weight over the past few months, or otherwise my misery would have been compounded. I’ve simply never had a flight before where I was so aware of how uncomfortably narrow my seat was. No person will find a 16.9-inch wide seat comfortable, no matter how thin they are.
    The solution to this problem is to avoid it in the first place. Seatguru.com does a pretty good job of describing what the various seats are like on different airlines, including information about seat pitch (legroom) and width. I suggest never flying a long-haul on a plane with less than a 17.9-inch seat width. That’s only one inch wider than LOT's Dreamliner seats, but that one inch makes a big difference.
    I knew when I booked my ticket on the LOT 787 that the seat would be narrow. I just wasn’t aware of how miserably narrow it would be. Of course, when you’re trying to get a super-cheap fare to Europe, sometimes it entails some misery.
    I’m surprised Boeing allows the airlines to operate its airplanes in this manner. On one hand, it makes sense for them to just sell the planes and allow the airlines to use them as they will. But when everyone who flies a certain type of aircraft has an unpleasant experience they avoid it in the future, thus reducing that model’s lifespan. The Dreamliner could have been one of the greatest planes of all time, but by overstuffing it with seats the airlines have made it one of the worst. I know I will avoid it in the future, and anyone reading this would be wise to do the same.
    Most airlines allow overweight flyers to buy an extra seat. On the 787 everyone is overweight. In cases where major discounts are offered, it might make sense for two people flying together to buy an extra seat; since the planes operate with a 3-3-3 configuration, two people could just have an empty seat between them.
    I would advise my friends to never fly on a 787 Dreamliner if another plane is available at a similar price. If pursuing a hot bargain, couples should consider buying an extra seat, which would turn a miserable experience into a enjoyable one. You can contact the airline for information about how to do this.
    As I’ve mentioned, we paid $625 for a round-trip flight to Europe. At that price we really couldn’t complain even if we were forced to share a crate with a bunch of chickens. Even so, I’ll fly the Dreamliner one more time, and that’s to get home; after that, only if I fly with someone and share an extra seat.

Sunday, March 13, 2016

Thanks to a $625 airfare, we're off to Germany for Spring Break

    Thanks to a $625 round-trip airfare Ash and I are headed to Germany for Spring Break. We’re joined by his classmate Dylan Howard.
    Of course, to get a $625 round-trip fare to Germany the airplane doesn’t exactly pick us up at the Oxford International Airport. That would be too easy. A $625 round-trip ticket requires a sort of around-the-world trip all its own.
    Our flight was out of Chicago. Memphis never has cheap flights. So we had to drive for 10 hours. With cheap gas and a cheap hotel room, that didn’t add too much to the cost of the trip. And we plan to visit Northwestern and the University of Chicago campus before we return. Instead of flying directly in and out of Germany, we’re flying into Vienna and out of Prague; that was the only way to get the cheapo fare. We’re only spending four to five hours of sightseeing on each of these cities, split between evening and morning. They aren’t what we came to see, although I confess I will savor the four-hour glimpse as I’ve never seen either.
    The goal of this trip, besides just having fun, is to allow Ash and Dylan to actually hear and speak some real German. They are on their third year of high school German, and so ought to be able to speak a little. My understanding is that nobody in Germany actually speaks the formal German taught in the classroom during everyday life, so it will be interesting to see whether they will be able to communicate at all.
    In keeping with the educational nature of the trip, I had high hopes that I would be able to browbeat the kids into listening to a number of lectures from a Great Courses series called “Turning Points of American History.” They listened to exactly one before Ash revolted. But if their AP U.S. History exam in May has a question about the Great Epidemic that wiped out the Indians, they will be well prepared. Hopefully I’ll get them to listen to a few more before our trip is over.
    We’re at the airport as I write this, waiting for the boarding door to close. I’ll update after we hit Europe.

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

I correctly said five years ago Obama was intentionally creating regional war in the Mid-East

    The entire world seems to be banging on Europe's door demanding entry, and the Europeans seem to lack the will to protect their homes. Greece is complaining that they are becoming a dumping ground for Europe's migrants; more on Greece in a minute.
    I should note that the blame for all of this mess falls primarily on Barack Obama, who in violation of international law and of the War Powers Act ruthlessly attacked Libya, our ally in the war on terror. Obama not only murdered that country's leader, Muammar Gaddafi, but also his children and grandchildren.
    I pointed out five years ago that America's actions in the Mid-East seemed intentionally designed to throw the entire region, including Syria, into turmoil.  It was my belief five years ago that the United States was disrupting the Middle East in order to limit China's access to oil. With today's low oil prices this may not seem to be a factor, but when prices rise China will have lost access to many of its former energy sources. What I did not anticipate was the Camp-of-The-Saints-style rush of humanity towards Europe, which threatens European civilization as we know it.
    Let me quote from my blog post of April 19, 2011:

It's begun to seep out that the United States has been actively supporting efforts to destabilize Syria for several years. Americans played a big role in the overthrow of the Egyptian government. I suspect America is working to destabilize the entire region.

Nations act out of self-interest. For France, Britain and the United States to make the decision so quickly to seek sanctions and to attack Libya suggest some motive other than concern for that country's citizens. NATO's decision to use just enough force to keep the government from restoring order suggests a desire to forment a long-term civil war, which should keep the entire region in turmoil for some time, thus endangering the region's oil production.
    If a nobody like me down in  Mississippi could understand the certain outcome of our Mid-East policies, then you can be sure that the experts in the State Department knew what would happen. The rise of ISIS, the Syrian Civil War, the death of hundreds of thousands, was all carefully planned. I thought it was to harm China, but it may well have been to promote Obama's vision of a world without borders, by pushing millions of desperate migrants into Europe.
    Europe has to find the will to simply refuse entry to these people. If they are fleeing a war zone, by all means provide them with tents and food in a safe location as close to their home country as possible, so that they may return as soon as hostilities have ceased. That is consistent with international law.
    As for Greece, they complain they are being stuck with the migrants as the Balkan nations erect fences to keep them from crossing their borders. And yet it is the Greeks themselves who are engaging in and profiting from human trafficking.
    These migrants aren't arriving from Turkey to the Greece mainland. They are arriving on various Greek islands. Greek ferry companies are then shuttling them to the mainland, at great profit. The head of the Greek ferry association announced last week that income from transporting migrants from the islands to the mainland had offset a drop in regular ferry income.
    All Greece has to do to solve Europe's migrant problem is to make it illegal to transport migrants from the islands to the mainland. All of these migrants had already reached a safe haven in Turkey; as such, they are not entitled to asylum and are all illegal immigrants. If they know they will be forced to live on various islands in tent cities forever, they will quit coming.
    If Greece wants to keep ferrying the illegal immigrants to the mainland, it's their business. But they have no right to complain about being stuck with them. That is the choice they are making by giving them a ferry ride.

Saturday, February 27, 2016

Marco Rubio gave Trump a taste of his own medicine after his silly health care comments

video

     I'm not complete opposed to the idea of Donald Trump as president. If my main man, Ted Cruz doesn't make it, I will likely switch my support to Trump. I don't like Trump, but I believe he and Cruz are the only two candidates who will actually do something about illegal immigration, and that's the only issue that really matters to me.
    But I do admire honest talk from political candidates, and found Trump's comments on health care during the Feb. 25 Republican debate to be intentionally dishonest or dumb beyond belief. I was glad to see Marco Rubio just absolutely mop the floor with him, as can be seen in the video, above.
    The question Trump was asked was how he planned to deal with people with pre-existing conditions if Obamacare were to be repealed. His solution was to eliminate rules that prevent insurance from being sold across state lines. That's it; just increase competition and nothing else.
    I hate Obamacare and find it to be the worst possible health care solution possible for our nation. But Trump's plan isn't going to help people with pre-existing conditions very much. Increased competition might reduce someone's insurance premium from $5,000 a month to $4,500 a month, but that really isn't going to solve the problem, is it?
    Asking insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions is like asking them to write a fire insurance policy after a house has burned down. It's a losing proposition.
    There are really only three ways to provide insurance to people with pre-existing conditions:

1. Charge people with pre-existing conditions a higher rate, or charge the same price for insurance that is more highly managed;
2. Shift some of the cost to other purchasers of insurance or health care, by mandated risk pools;
3. Direct subsidies from the state or federal government; or
 4. Some combination of the above.

    I'm not asking anyone to be specific, and in fact recognize that being too specific can bring certain death to a political campaign. But I think it's wrong to essentially lie and state that the problem of covering pre-existing conditions can be solved by removing the "lines around the states."
    Some sort of subsidy is going to be required. The issue is how much subsidy, how is it going to be provided, and who is going to pay for it. It's perfectly acceptable to dodge all of these questions, but at least acknowledge that the need for the subsidy is there if pre-existing conditions are to be covered.