Despite the alleged separation of church and state, BELIEF in Sustainability is widely held in American secular government. Judeo-Christian moral guidelines have been incrementally supplanted by what can best be described as neo-pagan ones. Consequently, notice where rulers never utter a harsh word against Malthusian, Utilitarian, Green and Islamistophilic nutcases. There the ruled are at grave risk.
"I'm trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can't think of one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one." -- Sonia Sotomayor in Senate confirmation hearings.
Well, she was wrong; no doubt remains.
Since her testimony, fourteen separate cases wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the right to self defense is a natural right (not a right granted by any government) were revealed by author Alan Korwin. So that you may be fully informed, here is the article.
Well, no matter. It seems that the U.S. Senate is on track tomorrow to elevate to the Supreme Court this jurist who thought -- poorly as you now know -- that your right to self defense does not exist unless the Supreme Court rules accordingly.
That she was witless as to your right to defend your own life is now proven. In light of this evidence, it should send more than chills down your spine that a majority of your representatives in the Senate of this once great innocent life-defending nation tomorrow will prove to be deliberately witless for your life.
On the other hand, can anyone be deliberately witless? Or is that the sneeringly thin disguise of fifty plus evil human beings?
Stewart Cink birdied the 18th hole and a few minutes later Tom Watson bogied it for a two stroke swing. Result: a tie at end of regulation play.
This forced a four hole playoff that Cink won. And he was classy in his win and his salute to Watson. However bittersweet was the win for Cink and us, it was a great day in that God destined there be a champion with class.
Tom said he regretted that he didn't offer Stewart more of a challenge in the playoff. He had lost whatever had allowed him to stay in the lead for four days of regulation play. Badly. Tom lost a four hole playoff by six strokes. Clearly, that was not characteristic of his play during all the rest of the tourney. It is my guess that his miss on 18 was simply more deflating than many will ever experience themselves. So he lost the playoff.
Clearly, Watson lost the tourney before the playoff. When he blew that last 8 foot putt for par that would have earned him the clean win, the old man may have been physically and mentally tired to putt well one more time.
There have been and will be no few commentators who will say he choked. And maybe he did. But, so what?
This is what.
What prompted me most to publish this update to Class of yesterday was a quip today by one of the ABC sportscasters.
He said "Tom Watson's deal with the devil lasted up to the last 30 minutes."
He may claim he was joking with a lame allusion to the old musical, Damn Yankees; but I have my doubts that more than 2% of the audience would get it. I'm not buying that it was anything but an attempt to kick Watson for his blowing it all on one last shot. Because it is exactly the sort of thing I expected.
As I predicted yesterday, "TV rarely gives us a chance to witness [class] without it self-consciously trying to tarnish the champion." Sad how predictably rotten TV has become, is it not?
How much more tarnishing could they have been had Watson won?
The best observation by the sportscasters followed right on the heels of Mr. jackass above:
"Had Tom Watson won this it would not have changed his life. But for Stewart Cink, it is a big event."
The people who currently are TVs lifeblood, its sponsors, may still allow the employment of broadcasters who understand common human decency and its desire to applaud efforts well done. What your humble commentator finds troubling is that foolish men, such as the first commentator, are more apt to find a welcome spot on national television in future.
Why? Our elitists believe that jackasses serve as perfect examples for how they view the rest of us.
The jackass who thought it cute to suggest that the devil had double-crossed Tom Watson today was certainly crass. The fact that the jackass was put in that job and will probably remain there is pretty much an indication of a much deeper problem.
Those at the top of our entertainment and news chain -- the moneyed backers -- are the crassest of all.
Tom Watson, at the end of the third day of the British Open, holds the tourney lead by one stroke.
It is said that golf is the classiest game. Despite that being merely an opinion of a highly subjective quality, it's an assertion that hardly ever gets contradicted. Certainly those who govern its rules and professional tours work hard to build class in its players. But like so many activities in which man engages, men tend to meet the challenge with differing degrees of success.
I do not play golf anymore. I haven't for over twenty years. Maybe my lack of talent for playing golf says that I am lacking something more than merely playing skills.
Still, I know class when I see it. And I like seeing it. So I appreciate watching golf even though I don't play because it provides me an opportunity to witness more of that quality.
In my opinion, as I stated yesterday, Tom Watson is one of the classiest players of the classiest game. Win or place tomorrow, I do not expect Mr. Watson to let me down.
So listen up people. (At least yee few who regularly stop by here.) Whether or not you give a damn about any game or no games at all, I think you may fully enjoy catching a rare peak. This is a quality that TV rarely gives us a chance to witness without it self-consciously trying to tarnish the champion. (And they may yet do that; whomever dares, I wish for them extra whacks in Hell for trying.)
So let me strongly recommend watching ABC tomorrow morning. Catch maybe the last televised and untarnished glimpse of class in action.
-------------------------------*** U P D A T E ***----------------------------------------- Please see my post for today, 7/19/09.
One of Golf's most classy players, Tom Watson, is tied for the lead of the British Open.
He shot a 65 the first day, and was in a 4or5 way tie for first.
At the end of the second day, he was the only one of those to remain in the lead as he shot par 70 while the others didn't fare so well in the weather. There are still two more days to go. You can do it Tom! You can do it in your sleep. You won the Brit Open five times before. The last time you were still a pup and under 40.
Oh, Tom doesn't usually play with the regular pros. He's been on the Senior tour for a decade now. That last major win was 26 years ago. That's right. This man is 59.Fifty-nine.
The following is a public service reminder.
As you hear nasty things about the ØCare plan DC is trying to force down the throats of us all -- such as: mandatory suicide counseling for all medicare recipients -- remember that sometimes even seniors can still teach the youngsters a thing or two.
Now, let us return to our joyous moment, however long they allow us we have left.
Sonia Sotomayor's cavalier assessment of American intelligence appears to be: "You all are a bunch of dopes."
Is that okay with you?
Analysis Summary:
Sonia Sotomayor(SS) has frequently scoffed at public expectations of judicial restraint. She has injudiciously mocked the faith of the public that judges will refrain from making policy. (Hear her laughing and scoffing in the video embedded below.)
SS now denies her past statements are how she thinks today.
SS has been evading questions that could reveal if her attitude has or has not changed.
By evasively answering questions, SS is exploiting senate traditions because she expects Republican Senators will demand their caucus stick to the conservative rules of senatorial restraint unlike the behavior of Democratic Senators were she a Republican nominee.
After repeated viewing of the videos, how can those who think SS is one of them, and so aid and abet SS in the evasions, be trustful of her?
Democrats, Republicans or independents: How in the world can such a scoffer of faith, and exploiter of courtesies extended to her, be trusted to respect your wishes tomorrow?
My fellow Americans: I know most of you have had your fill of politicians who hide their intentions only to go on prove their corruption. How much worse to watch our elected gatekeepers allow advancement of a power seeker who brazenly dares them to stop her despite her open contempt for the trustworthy?
Senators: Have you become so corrupt that you can stand there and take Sonia Sotomayor's exploitation of Senate's traditions and abuse of its niceties and also expect us Americans to believe you still have spines?
Sonia Sotomayor's cavalier assessment of American intelligence appears to be: "You all are a bunch of dopes."
Is that okay with you?
Preface: Our Constitution and traditions provide us safety nets. They are meant to keep incompetents and despots from attaining high office. Observations that the safety nets are badly frayed are too important for anyone to raise an alarm without providing details supporting the alarms. So details supporting my analysis follows.
Today's Alert: A commenter yesterday reminds us that
Judges enforce a demand for straight answers from those testifying on the stand by threatening them with contempt of court. Well, then is not it inequitable to permit a judge to evade questions?
Traditionally, yes, we have granted that exclusion, particularly about their inclinations and beliefs that inform their judgments. Because such questions tended to be political in nature, and we wanted our judges to be freer from the political process than our lawmakers and executives. It was part of a unwritten code of conduct carried over from noble and chivalrous times:
"We won't subject you to a political third degree because we have faith that you won't permit your political inclinations to color your judgments."
When faith in judges' political neutrality was consistent with the result, judges were spared intense questioning. When a judge has demonstrated with his or her record to have kept faith with that expectation, then they have earned our trust.
In our current state of the courts there are a great many activist judges who have made their presence known. That informs us that procedures designed to prevent them gaining access have failed. Thus, we expect our elected representatives to revise the procedure. We expect them to take a harder look before acceding to a nominees promotion. We expect them to test on a case by case basis: "has this judicial nominee earned our trust?"
And so we have the case for the current nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. Has she earned our trust she'll be neutral? Has she demonstrated impartiality by not permitting her personal inclinations to color her judgments?
Since she became a nominee to advance to our highest court, her political backers and our media expect us to believe that the lady sitting in the dock of the senate is the epitome of the modest jurist. We are to believe that despite her past rulings that belied the faith placed in her before, she has since undergone a miraculous conversion? Doesn't that seems an odd belief and level of faith to place in a human? (And from those who run secular institutions no less. Well, it is miraculous, or something.)
But when Judge Sotomayor was questioned even indirectly into how deeply regretful she has been of her past remarks and rulings and current beliefs, she has been deliberately evasive. Does that not rate a prolonged procedural "Hmmmm?"
In matter of fact, in addition to the activist stances she has exhibited in rulings, she has been brazenly injudicious with political statements she has made in public appearances, on tape. One of those outright mocks the presumption that judges are not permitted to make policy. She laughs at the very idea that judges don't make policy.
That video show us a woman mocking you for expecting restraint from a judge, a person to whom you have granted your trust. It should not matter if you believe she is for your cause today. How in the world can you trust such a scoffer to respect your wishes tomorrow?
This video also sends another message. The candidate is counting on the Senate procedure to lack substance even as its participants carry out its formalities using polite and sonorous voices. She expects the Senate to go through the motions and never push too hard. She is saying the current confirmation process is a joke.
Listen again to that video people!
Listen over and over again to that video Senators until its meaning penetrates your protective layers long hardened by the grind! Have you become so corrupt that you can stand there and take Sonia Sotomayor's abuse of the Senate's traditions and also believe you still have spines?
What she is essentially saying in that video is: "Those people who extend to me the faith in judicial neutrality that they grant other judges are dopes."
I just heard a soundbite of the following question "Do you believe that an individual has the right to self defense?" and Sonia Sotomayor's response to it:
"I don't believe the court has addressed that issue.... but I could be wronnnnnnng."
Evading the question of whether or not an individual has the right to self defense calls to question her intelligence and her decency BIG TIME.
Charges are dropped based on the presumption of self defense all the time. People have been exonerated forever based on a determination of self defense. But Sotomayor, rather than simply say "Yes," the answer that God fearing human beings have been saying forever, demurred.
Let me observe that I have a right to demand that she promise not to introduce to the United States the kind of horrors visited upon our British cousins. They have been denied this basic right now for over a decade. Thus, I do not believe she was being stupid as some will claim. She is being devious.
This nomination is OVER.
Unless, of course, a majority of senators hate the innocent human beings whose inalienable right to life they have vowed to protect!
******************----------- U P D A T E -------------*************************
Let me follow up with one other question. As a citizen of this country, do you believe innately in my ability to have self-defense of myself -- personal self-defense? Do I have a right to personal self- defense?
SOTOMAYOR: I'm trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can't think of one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one.
I am happy to report, based on the above report, that my memory stood up well to the test.
The Emmanuel Goldsteining of Sarah P is what I conclude has been an ongoing two step process we have been observing and often participating in.
The statists and their media want us to focus on Sarah Palin to get the focus off them.
They seem to want us to think of her as the embodiment of their opposition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For those who do not recall details of George Orwell's novel "1984" I will mark* them as I mention them below: Emmanuel Goldstein* was the alleged leader of the opposition to the ruling party of the novel's totalitarian country. I say alleged because it was not clear if he exists or ever existed. He simply serves as the whipping boy for all bad things. And good party members were expected to participate in daily cathartic exercises called "The Two Minutes Hate"* in which images of Goldstein and his brotherhood* and allies were flashed across media (Ministry of Truth*) controlled viewing screens* everywhere (really everywhere) in the country.
I decided to write of this today because someone made the following proposal which seems to be the generic wish of most people who would rather focus on solving problems than the politicians who exploit them.
I attempted to point out to Rob, "Well, good luck with that" It is not as if it is we who determine what the Ministry of Truth and party hacks will consider important and promote into a brouhaha. Another pointed out the threatened trials of GWB and his officials would also become prominent; they would be persecuted in show-trials such as those endured by alleged members of "The Brotherhood."*
Look. I know there are people who think George Orwell’s dystopic vision is passé for any of a number of reasons, some reasonable, some silly. Nevertheless, Sarah P, whether she or we like it or not, appears to be serving as our ruling class’ Emmanuel Goldstein.
If only she was subjected to simply two minutes hate every day.
It’s more like an industry has sprung up to deliver to us some variation of it 24/7. And it’s been going on every single day for coming up on a full year. Will there be a first anniversary doubleplus* hate session? Count on it!
(How about, instead, a first anniversary memorial session to remind us that once, long ago, it was still okay to be normal?)
She has so been the target of BOTH party’s core leadership that it is bordering on proof positive that the “two” parties share the same central command office.
It has become cliché to say that aiming at Sarah is deliberate so as to divert our focus from the widespread thefts and multifaceted constitutional violations. Well, duh!
Bottom line: The attention directed at Sarah is so obviously diversionary, it is logical to expect that if any birth certificate is eventually made public, it will be hers.
The decline of the seemingly intelligent Progressives, "blessed" with an abundance of influence, money and power, is one of life's very sad ironies.
Progressives have so bought into the idea of population growth being a zero sum game, they've been blind to their inevitable fate due their contribution to the progress of Zero's home game.
BTW, Zero may aptly fit the current puppet of the power-mad, but it is to another, older Zero to which I allude.
Original Sin was revealed for its essence when the snake saw that Eve had an ego through which he could gain access to her soul.
By telling her that God had lied to her and Adam; that the reason He didn't want her to eat of the Tree Of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, was that it would allow her to know what God knows.
That is the original sin.
The desire to be as God has been used to mislead and harm mankind from the beginning. We are merely His agent. We fall short in our pursuit of our purpose when we seek to be as Him, insisting that only achieving the Zenith of Perfection can we really be satisfied.
It is a foolish insistence. Time after time there are those amongst us who overreach. That displays more than dissatisfaction, more than ingratitude; a hubris without equal.
And yet, there it is like a willful childishness that too easily leads to death. And that appears to be the aim, all along, of our stalker.
The folly in trying to be what we are not meant to be is hinted at in the story of "The Sorcerer's Apprentice."
You are major strategist for a large government program.
You know you will meet strong resistance.
You review your plans to pinpoint where you are weakest so as to know where your opposition should attack.
You discover that your weakest point cannot be adequately fortified.
So, might there be there some way to blunt your opponent's attack?
One strategy, a priori to widespread disclosure so that opponents lack time to ally and amass into too big a number, is to select an opponent -- preferably a hot-head -- who you fully expect will initiate an attack under circumstances controlled by you.
What sort of circumstances would you choose, and what kind of opponent?
Arrange a forum where you choose the moderator and only comments and not debate are permitted.
Choose an opponent who has a checkered past or questionable connections and with whom other opponents would not choose to be allied.
Expect that the reports of the interchange will be limited.
Expect that your allies will connect all who attack your weakest position with the initial attacker whom you chose because others do not wish to be associated with him.
Expect dissipation amongst attackers on your weak position as they labor around the obstacle of that opponent you picked.
Expect opponents to bicker amongst themselves over whether or not his being there is good or bad or matters or doesn't matter.
Expect many big names from whom you otherwise expected opposition to now exempt themselves from the battle. They've positions of respect to protect, and will not risk their reputations by attacking an obvious point that is closely tied to that pariah you had the foresight to pick.
The following video is of Ezekiel Emanual, BHO's chief health care advisor, being excoriated by an historian, who "coincidentally" works for a Lyndon LaRouche organization, at a forum where only comments are permitted.
Fully expect MSM to tar with a Lyndon LaRouche label all who point out the many ways ObamaCare really does resemble something out of the Third Reich.
No man, and no lesser god, has the right to decide who may live and who may die in the manner that herds of animals are kept in check.
The difference between a life affirming religion and all the other belief systems is this central message.
This story finally breaks the illusion that fear of radical human population control is nothing more than the product of a fevered imagination.
For instance, what is one to make of that item under the title Utilitarianism? "Saving the most socially useful?"
Mind you, this was no crackpot publication this appeared in, The Lancet, penned by Health Care Czar Ezekiel Emmanuel. And as you read on, as you should, you'll find there is much more to be opposed to in the proposed health care legislation that our country's leadership is trying to rush through Congress.
Here is the one thing that I think every American should mull over in their minds, most especially those who revere those who fought World War II, "The Greatest Generation."
Obama's health care geniuses* think that the term “useful individuals” is now safe to use in public, but it is for the first time since its frequent use by the Third Reich.
Adding this to the recent “Electing God” thread ... even I am finding it hard to believe that our alleged supermen think they can be this brazenly open.
It is amazing how rapidly this sort of thinking went from “Hush, don’t wanna disturb the sheep” to “Oh, what the hell?”
When this sort of thinking was relegated to but a few comments here and there, and when the only high profile websites were lunatics like the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) and The Church of Euthanasia, many of you could sit back and say “Oh, it’s only a bunch of lunatic fringies and some Ivory Tower Elitists.”
Well, guess what? That thinking is now ruling in our White House.
I pray you all think that now is the time to spread the word, given this mountain of evidence, that the lunatics have taken over the asylum right at the top.
The oddly constructed word postmodern was invented by "Progressives" to refer to the future they envision. It is mostly a suggestive word.
Whereas normal people say "but who can really foretell the future," after they tell us of their plans and wishes, "Progressives" know normal people may not like their plans. So when they observe that some thing or action is to their liking, rather than become enthralled and proclaim: "Yay! That's more like it!", they may observe that it is postmodern, and then laugh and say "whatever that means."
To comprehend how postmodernist thinking incrementally assails normal thought, notice how often you hear "whatever that means" whenever somebody uses the adjective normal. Indeed, did you use it before completing that sentence? That is a postmodernist reflex inculcated into us by those who we have permitted to dominate our culture.
The more you think about postmodern, it is hard to imagine a word that better proves how abnormal "Progressives" and their goals for the future are.
"Your country is a den of dopes," snarked Ms Ann Thrope. "Your fans who run my nation's propaganda mills were too easily seduced for you to gloat," observed Pascal.
We are often gifted by Hollywood with productions that have a patriotic theme.
It was filled with a good mix of characters, some renowned, some unknown. Much of the action was filled with bathos, where with help from a swelling score, we are driven to patriotic nostalgia. Aside from the saccharin melodrama, there was something far more disturbing.
The film staged the first public readings of the Declaration of Independence as might have happened all around the colonies. Good. The actors in different scenes got to read and react to, or simply react to the reading of, our Declaration. Fine. And it was all put together in a good collage that conveys the feelings of hearing it for the first time.
But something was missing -- literally.
The viewer is given little more than a sense of pride in the product, plus much tight jawed resolve and dread due to --- what? Irritation? Discomfort?
Somehow, no doubt for editorial reasons that are above Joe Biden's pay grade, the long litany of abuses by King George III, written out at length in the Declaration of Independence, were completely left out of this reading. Not a single outrage was mentioned, many of which could have afforded the actors to demonstrate the hard feelings of the times.
And what is worse, I am sure most students today, and likely few of their parents, ever set eyes on that list of British excesses visited upon the colonies. Who ever reads the Declaration in its entirety?
Well, apparently I did. Long ago. It made an impression on me. Enough of an impression that I noticed the meat of the matter was written out of this Hollywood production. It is a production that could easily become part of misleading indoctrination for the next generation of grade school students.
Enough of an impression that its absence drove me to complain and publish after five months silence.
For your benefit, especially when you know people who are totally in the dark who might be awakened thanks to you giving them the facts, here is the list of grievances that our forebears found so intolerable that they formally revolted against the country that inflicted the tyrannies. My personal "favorites" are reproduced in bold type.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
I considered inserting little editors notes along side some of the items in the list. For example [Ruby Ridge] could easily have fit along side one of the items. I decided against it because I simply want the grievances highlighted in one place because they so often are forgotten (as all statists would wish).
I invite others to add what they wish to this list at their own sites. But better, simply print out the list (maybe edited a little) and give it to one of your "liberal" family members. Ask them where the list originated. The ensuing discussion could be helpful.
View My Stats