Unequivocal

Og likes to play the Neanderthal. The key word there is play.

Last night our repartee caused me to observe the following.

Few people understand the word equivocal when they first hear it. In fact their first inclination is to think "that sounds like BS." So they really do know, don't they?

When he's not full of shit, he's unequivocal.

Agency of Lies (AoL)

Now that the former conservative owner of the Huffington Post also owns America Online, I no longer fear creating confusion using the acronym AoL for my rebranding of MSM as the Agency of Lies.

The Fourth Estate has been granted a privileged role in American governance. Press credentials are issued to members of the journalist class to provide the public a view of how well and/or honestly their public servants are performing their duties.

But the bulk of the journalism institution is now so corrupt, its apparatchiks think of themselves as part of the governing ruling class. They are known now to more and more Americans for supporting ideas they favor and ignoring, marginalizing or villainizing ideas and people they do not favor. But that's fine with them, because they feel that their audience is filled with ignorant yahoos -- mostly thanks to their malfeasance.  They are PROUD of their role in transforming many Americans into unknowing sheeple (or in Orwell's words, Proles). For me and my readers, their actions speak so loudly that we can hear it over their double-speak lies.

It really is up to us on the blogs and with the tweets to help get the truth out there. We should be the new Fourth Estate, each of us. But the press credentials are still reserved solely for recognized members of the AoL. Press credentials and the access to news makers they provide are currently given just to a closed club. This is NOT want the American Fourth Estate is supposed to be.

The only solution for us Americans is that we insist that trusted members of the blogosphere be granted press credentials.  It would seem that any block of say 25 or 50 readers (after all, this is a representative republic dammit) could insist that their favorite bloggers be granted this privilege, subject to open security reviews, at least to cover local events. And then build up credibility from there to move onto bigger and wider access.

And when such credentials are denied, then broadcast loudly to everyone you can reach how it PROVES that the entire MSM must be the AoL that I've been asserting they are. The hounding out of power of all these lying agents who effectively work for the government needs to have been done 20 years ago. Better late than never.

We need to clean out the journalism profession and start over with new members who gradually work to earn our trust.

Herman Cain's Fed Ties

"Herman Cain, former Chairman and CEO of Godfather's Pizza and radio talkshow host" is how Fox News Channel* host Brett Baer introduced him to America at the first candidates debate.

Given its perceived influence in the political world, why was Mr. Cain's more significant chairmanship -- of the Fed Reserve Bank of Kansas City -- not mentioned?


Did you know? Do your friends know? Of those who believe Cain looks good, do they know? Mr. Cain became a member of the board of directors of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank in 1992 and was its chairman for about 18 months beginning in 1995.

During the debate, no mention of the Fed and its involvement in our economic malaise and inflation was questioned. Did the audience polled by Frank Luntz on Fox News immediately following the debate know of Cain's ties to the Fed when they declared him the winner of the debate? I would bet that the answer is nearly 100% "No."

New Media members: this is a bit of information that needs airing and Herman Cain needs to be probed about before he advances further in his quest of the GOP presidential candidacy. Surely the media will pound him on it after he is nominated. We need to cynically question Mr. Cain's role in and support of the Fed before the Left gets to do it.

Wait too late to test Mr. Cain on this connection, and the anti-Obama, anti-Statist American voters will not have a candidate we are happy with.

*The entire MSM is untrustworthy and appears to be silent on this subject-- for now. Just because Fox News Channel is more balanced than other news outlets, that does not it put its motives beyond question. FNC is a subsidiary of Newscorp. Its Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch is neither American nor in favor of enforcing our border with Mexico. FNC may appear to be less Leftist, but it still is operated with the approval of many of the same customers who sponsor the rest of the MSM Agency of Lies.

**Update**
LOL: Less than an hour after I posted this, at 8:10AM PDT Glenn Beck began interviewing Mr. Cain on his radio program.

He asked, “You were a member of The Fed?”[emphasis by Mr. Beck]
Mr. Cain answered it cagily, saying that was in the days when "Alan Greenspan would not permit politicization of the Fed." Mr. Beck did not press.

Questions will remain here. For instance, Mr Cain was strongly against auditing the Fed last year presumably after it had been “politicized.”

Simply Cuz The Agency of Lies Has Buried Bibi's Speech

Apparently the MSM Agency of Lies has buried most of Netanyahu's speech to AIPAC. I guess it would be harder to demonize him if people actually heard him. An elderly Jewish friend (he doesn't surf the Internet) called me and said that Fox mentioned it, then cut away. He asked me if I could find it for him and email the link. At least one of his kids is married into a family of raving morons and he's hoping to rescue him with the reality spoken of in this speech. Good luck.

And then I got to thinking: hey why not also post it here in case nobody really thinks about it.  So, here it is.



Too bad far too many Jews haven't yet figured out how much danger to them comes from the Left. But don't be too smug my friends -- it's a shame so many conservatives have not yet figured out how much danger to them comes from RINOs SKUNCs. Capice?

Maybe one day Jews will figure it out. But I don't see much hope. For some understanding, how many liberal Christian organizations have also been lost to Leftism? Christians who can't stand the fact that their own religious institutions have moved way to the Left (and just about abandoned all that used to make them God fearing) may have an understanding of how isolated conservative Jews must feel.

What Would You Guess It Was?

Beginning just before 1 A.M. yesterday, the web crawlers started hitting my blog post Ayn Rand Loved Titans, Not Mankind?

Since that time I've had about 50 hits, the majority with the search term "Ayn Rand's Titan." (For some reason known only to Google, they place my post at the top. On other web engines I'm a bit lower.)

One guess it that this was prompted by a clue in a crossword puzzle. But most crossword puzzlers are pretty knowledgeable, so why would they have to use a web crawler to discover it was Atlas?

Could it be a contest on a late night talkshow host? But then why would the Googling continue into today? And they are coming in from all over the world.

Maybe I'll get lucky and one of the searchers may stumble onto this post.

Wazzup? What triggered this interest in who was the title Titan in one of Ayn Rand's novels?

Courage

In order to have courage, you first need something that is more important than your own life. Then you're ready to put your own life in the path of whatever threatens that something. Where your certainties have been undermined -- like by the moral relativism of the Cultural Marxists -- the ground you need to support that courage will not be there when you need it most. There is a moral absolute your author still retains. See if you can figure it out.

I cannot explain to myself why I feel this way, but for me I have found courage in my attempts to protect the idea of protecting innocent human life.  I've suffered slings and arrows and lost friendships and shunning in the process. I have to imagine that I'm not alone. I had hoped to meet more than I have in the years I've been on line. What bothers me is the number of smart people who once were my allies who have turned their backs without any cogent explanation. Maybe their courage is not found where mine is, so they rather not be associated with me.

The enemies of innocent human life (innocence as judged by the Judeo-Christian ethic) have established what I would call a liberal religion. I'll speak at length on liberalism as religion another time [future update]. Because liberalism does not call itself a religion, it thereby has managed to gain the upper hand in our governing bodies and in our institutions because it could not be declared in violation of the 1st Amendment of U.S. Constitution. Yet it is very clearly a belief system that is intertwined in both of our two major political parties in the form of "selective tolerance". What is tolerated is very subjective to change. The domination of this line of thinking achieved its hegemony by imposing a sort of intellectual bigotry -- "oh, he's good at his job, but he doesn't think like the rest of us, so is not a candidate for an executive position." What was once identified as the unspoken "gentleman's agreement" still flourishes on the path to power.

To speak against this situation is another (less clear danger) where courage is needed.
First it takes courage to address it so others can comprehend what it is.
Then it takes courage to see that it exists.
Then it takes courage to buck the power structure that exists because of it.
And have no mistake about it. Liberalism is not the religion of the most powerful, and they do not really believe it themselves. They have simply encouraged such beliefs and tolerance and niceness because it served their growing hunger for power. Their religion is their self.

The enemies of innocent human life also have allowed to grow lunatic fringe elements who traffic in much of the truth. Why? But putting the spotlight on lunatics who have been proclaiming the truth, then when normal people discover the truth they can be lambasted by the ages old demagogic fallacy of "guilt by association."  We saw this used against the TEA party movement. The lunatic left can be the pigs they are all the time in their demonstrations, but the media deliberately lied by associating the left's demonstrations with the TEA party demonstrators in every manner, even after the lies had been exposed.

An example of this was sent to me by email. Am I wrong, but isn't Alex Jones associated with Trutherism?
Well, here he is speaking of the video "The Soviet Story" which I highlighted here and here early this year.


If you watch that, please stick to the first 70 seconds. Here is what you'll hear

 "You must all know half a dozen people at least who are of no use in this world. Who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say; 'Sir or madame. Now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?' If you can't justify your existence, if you're not pulling your weight on the social rope, if you are not producing as much as you consume, or perhaps a little more, then clearly we cannot use the big organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive. Because your life does not benefit us, it can't be of very much use to yourself." -- George Bernard Shaw as the Utilitarian/Eugenicist/Misanthrope in his own words.

I personally can't stand hearing Jones' voice. Still, Jones rightly focused on the segment. Jones is simply another broken clock there. Please don't let that deter you. Our enemies certainly are counting on our fear of their slander campaigns.

You see our problem. Because Alex Jones highlights this video and this segment, it will put off many people from looking at it and the truth it exposes. If they overcome that fear, and they DO watch it, there's more fears to overcome. They next will fear guilt by association for responding as Jones did.

Or it could be even worse than that. They could fear guilt by association simply for coming to the unmistakable conclusion I've highlighted just below my masthead: "If our 'leaders' are so humanitarian, how is it that we never hear them direct a harsh word at the Malthusian, Utilitarian and Green nutcases?" How is it our cultural mavens still considers George Bernard Shaw a genius without reservation? Silence is agreement.

I've had the courage to call out our leaders on their silence in this matter for a very long time -- long before the Johnny-come-lately Alex Jones got here.

Dear Readers, it is always nice to hear I am not alone, and I do enjoy hearing from you. But it would be a Godsend to hear many more calling out our "leaders" on this, their ignominious silence.

It takes courage to know what is right and accurate no matter how complex the lies have been arranged, and stand firm with courage to defend what is worth defending. In my case, it is for defending innocents and the meaning of innocence from those who hate humanity. In about 12 out of 13 instances (based upon our enemies' plans), that means I am trying to defend you.

Modern Yes, Postmodern No.

So that you may understand what I’ve been fighting all these years.

I invariably use postmodern when referring to the trend, and use contemporary when I wish to refer to the now. I reserve modern to refer a thing or condition that came about as an incremental improvement over whatever preceded it.

The modern age was filled with the byproducts of the Age of Reason and the Industrial Revolution.
The postmodern age is what comes from permitting rulers to assign to all us subjects LIMITS to our seeking improvements. Postmodern portends the bleak future that our rulers intend for us.

My using the terms in this manner has not prevented others from maligning modernity when they use modern to refer to what the policies of “Progressives” Statists have done to our way of life, but at least I try to apply the terms consistently. From time to time I call others on their error when it appears they have simply failed to notice how newspeak has been creeping in, and -- surprisingly enough -- have often been received pleasantly.

Using postmodern to refer to this growing oppressive state then frees up modern to preserve the spark of that vision of seeking improved living conditions for all of humanity.

Huck's Judgment

Mike Huckabee has launched a laudable campaign. His stated purpose is to provide parents with entertainment materials that would fill the void in their children's education about what is great about America.

Here is the initial evidence of this endeavor:



Up to this point, this has the appearance of a news blog -- merely laying out the facts.

However, this is an opinion blog. Many say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.This cartoon presentation is trash. My initial reaction, when I first saw it at JWF, was as if I were addressing Mr Huckabee: "Not everyone who claims to be your friend is your friend."

After another comment appeared later that described this as "dorky," I decided it was much worse than that. The cartoon representation of Ronald Reagan is hideous. My cartoonist associate tells me that it was the wrong cartoon generation program: too rough, too loud. Technical problems. But I noticed something even more sinister. In cartoon movies, it is hugely uncommon for the hero to be shown baring his teeth. And when he does it's as he smiles, not as he talks. The villain is depicted with a snarl, and baring his teeth. Mr. Reagan's image barely looks human here. And in the short scene where he's speaking the famous "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," he's shown with jagged teeth, and very unappealing, unlike the real life image where he was smiling. I'm sorry. The producers could deny any ill intent. You may deny to yourself that they could have had any ill-intent. But I'm sorry: they can't pee in my eye and tell me it's only rain. This video is an attempt to trash the great legacy of Ronald Reagan. Those responsible deserve to be hung in effigy and be known as pariahs wherever they go.

In my opinion, the little video reveals that the whole venture is infested with hucksters who've taken advantage of those who backed the venture with good money. They targeted conservatives as suckers, and I can hear their pitch now. "Aren't you sick and tired of watching your values being trashed? Here's your opportunity to fight back."

This is indicative of trouble on many levels that strikes at every American who may have, in the past, only mildly thought they were under attack. Indeed, we have long been the victims of many who claim to be our friends who have been slipping knives in our backs. Arianna Huffington, David Brooks, Chris Buckley. You ought by now recognize that there is an all out assault on you and the liberties that are at the fundamental core of what has provided you such a cushy life.

But how can I go about making this case not just strongly, but convincingly?

For starters, I resisted titling this post with a strident alliteration. There are several nasty words that rhyme with Huck that would be suitably descriptive of his judgment in backing this project.

No, I think it best to let Huck himself put the stake through the heart of any who still dream he'd make a good president.

Here's his eager promotion for this money making operation in case you think he's not 100% behind this atrocity.


As you see, he's backing this whole-heartedly. I think it raises a whole host of questions.

• Where is his common sense?
• Did he even look at the product? 
• Wasn't he even a little embarrassed?
• Even if he lacks the cultural sense, what does this say of his ability to choose advisors?
• Good money was poured into this project. Did Huck's name help raise funds?
• What is his fiduciary responsibility, his moral responsibility, to those who he drew in?
• Among the good money, how much stimulus funding -- our taxes -- was wasted?
• If there were stimulus funds, how much editorial bias came from the Obama cronies?
• Is there anything else Huck could disclose about this project that is not in the open?

Mike Huckabee is slated to make an announcement this weekend on his Fox News Channel show. It is rumored to be his decision about throwing his hat into the ring for the GOP candidacy for president. Let us hope that Mr. Huckabee has retained some good judgment that appears nowhere in this project, and declares he's not in the running**. 

**Updated 8:55 PM EDT May 14, 2011 is the time a broken clock got it right tonight.

Remedial Training for Americans

Ever the optimist, I have faith that it is not too late. Where there is life there's hope (and when Obamacare is discarded for its unconstitutionality, you may still be permitted to preserve your life without the approval of misanthropes in DC).

Anyway, thanks to a quip by the irrepressible Tam (and then thanks to the tip by Kevin Baker) I put together the first of a set of slides for a hypothetical PowerPoint presentation.

Derived from an observation Tam put in a nutshell. Click to enlarge.

I would hope others who think positively will create their own slides for "math" (or comparative logic) lectures such as this. Surely there are other quips that could be put together for other subjects. Let's hear ideas from the rest of you. (Or don't as one of my pessimistic fans relentlessly tells me you will not.)

You could pour thousands of your extra dollars each year into public education and never expect the educational professionals to offer lectures such as this. All you need do here is place your ideas into the hopper and hope others build on it as I did with Tam's. My version of Tam's quip may be seen as lame by many, but at least I'm trying to do something more. Do your part or finally admit that all you are doing is griping to those who already think as you do.

Natural Law Consequence

While I remain agnostic in a manner that very few understand -- "I think it means something different than you think it means" -- there is the question I've posed to the faithful.

"If God has given us free choice, is it possible that Revelation tells us what MUST come to pass?"

I know the answer to this question. Dear faithful -- can you say it?

What I find so very sad is how many who claim to be faithful have chosen the path of inevitable fate.

"For the Children"

Q: How can a Leftist/Fascist/Statist any longer say a socialist program is "for" the children (rather than for power-mad politicians, corporate cronies, agency heads, bureaucrats and union thugs) and keep a straight face?

A: Orwellian "double-think" let's them pull the lie off with grace. They do it much in the same manner that Bill Clinton would be convincing. He explained how, in his double-thinking, that "it all depends on what your definition of is is," allowed him to be believable as he lied.

Call them on it. "The word you left out of your sentence is enslaving."

The Statist smoothies are saying: "It's for           the children."
The Statist monsters are thinking: "It's for enslaving the children."

At this point in time, with the deficit spending and the mounting debts, the Statists are dead set on a course of enslaving our children with the debt used to keep them and their cronies at the top and in luxury.

Stop letting them pee in your collective ears and convincing your idiot neighbors that it is only rain.

FIGHT THE LYING BASTARDS. CALL THEM OUT ON THIS AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY.

Mitt Romney So Lacks Courage to be President That We Need a New Press

Straight up, so far as I know, this is something only I remember, as none of the few people I've told about this recall it. But I remember it strongly. I remembered it from just before I had anything but good feelings about Mr. Romney.  However, what I'm going to tell you does not undermine only a Romney candidacy. I will be clearer when I get done.

Mr. Romney ran against Ted Kennedy in the 1994 race for U.S. senator from Massachusetts. In October the pollsters had Mr. Romney in the lead by some margin that I do not recall. It was reported that the momentum favored Mr. Romney, and he appeared on track to defeat the scandalous old bird.

And then a funny thing happened. I do not recall exactly what it was that I saw televised. It was some time around Oct 20, 1994 -- a press conference, or a debate, or a campaign stop, whatever. What is on my mind is this:

• Mr. Romney was behind a bunch of microphones and speaking. 
• What came out of his mouth was very incoherent and his body language was edgy.
• He spoke like a man who'd had a stroke, or was frightened out of his mind. 
• I saw it in a newscast in Los Angeles about the campaign in MA.
• If it did happen, surely there are many from MA who remember this too.
• I'd heard him speak before, and since, and I've never heard him like that again.

At any rate, he subsequently lost. Having faith in my memory, I think Kennedy won heavily with over 55%.

What Mr. Romney's performance suggested to me shortly after the election was "here is a man who was made an offer he could not refuse."

So it was my near instant conclusion that someone literally scared him into blowing his appeal to MA voters in that race. Furthermore, it is apparent that whomever or whatever caused him to do what he did, they or it did not trouble him in later races. Maybe he learned how to control whatever it was, or maybe he'd proven to them that he was a controllable asset. In either case, such a man is not one I'd ever want as president

But what about you? If you could see that event as I saw it, I would think you'd have to lie to yourself not to arrive at the same conclusion.

Okay, this is where you come in. Does anybody reading this recall this event too? Or might anyone you know recall it? I'd love to hear from you.

More importantly, it is something that only us on the web are likely to bring to light.  How could such evidence have been allowed to fade into history? At the least it demonstrates -- again -- how incompetent has become the American institution that has been granted access to gather news and disseminate it. More troubling is that the media seems never to have been interested in shedding light on most dark political practices of which we catch only a glimpse from time to time. It is as if they deliberately spark all sorts of speculative conspiracy theories to fill the gap so that they can tear down the wildest of them and thereby never address real ones. However many events that the press has not uncovered, it seems to have served the purpose of power seekers. Look at how much power they have gained and how defeated are our famed checks and balances. Haven't you come to understand how this game is played already? Yet even though their shrinking audience proves that they have become widely untrusted, the NAILers still keep on pounding away so that America still believes lies or half truths. It is as if Joseph Goebbels never died. 

Hence it is highly unlikely that, were we to ask them, the NAILers would be forthcoming with archival footage that would back up what I am recalling for you about Mitt Romney.

So it's going to have to come from us. The recounting will have to by multiple eye witnesses to an event that happened more than 16 years ago. Who else remembers that crazy performance by Mr. Romney?

One other more reliable evidence may be available to us. One or more Americans may have the footage on their old VCR video tapes. If someone has it, PLEASE, as a public service, convert it to video that can be spread around the web.

Now it is fair to ask: "OK Pascal. Let's assume the sad footage you are recalling is found, and it does convince America that Mr. Romney is unworthy. How can we know if many or even all of the other front running candidates are not as bad or worse than Mr. Romney?"

We don't and we can't as things now stand. And that is the point of this effort. The younger Mr. Romney was probably as much a victim of the shadowy forces that control our politics as the rest of us have been at least over the last 20 years and probably much longer. Gathering the evidence that proves my conclusions is not really about the small consequence of putting an end to Mr. Romney's run. It is about exposing the bigger picture of how dangerous to our liberties are those who control the news.

Already so many of us trust little that the NAILers have produced except for their having the resources to gather facts. And we trust (heh) that they then suppress those facts they do not like. We have got to replace the entire institution that gathers and provides us news so we can make informed decisions.  We need a new and reliable institution -- and already much of the web is infested with those who control the old media. So we need to be vigilant. We need more trustworthy people. We need untouchables. I do not know how we can get them, but I'd like to inspire others to try. Someones with money, courage and pull.

Lenin's take-over of press and radio has been described as fundamental in his building of The Evil Empire. Our Statists have done the same to all forms of communication here. The long time suppression of this video so that Mr. Romney is still a major candidate, really does prove how bad they have been for our republic. I think its suppression -- "move along, nothing to see here" -- is so glaring that it could really kick off something which many know that we direly need -- the total replacement of the Fourth Estate,

More anon.

"They're Too Stupid to Beat 'Em"

A pessimistic friend of mine mocked my efforts at trying something different -- like putting my money where my mouth is a second time (he -- er, not so much) -- simply to provide an incentive for you individual snarkers out there to publicize your snarks and zingers and sound ideas rather than railing in an empty room at nincompoops trying to look presidential on the TV tonight. (Fox News Channel, 9 PM EDT)

My friend, after reading

$200 to TEApartiers Who Beat the GOP Candidate in Debate

responded with the following dismissal:  "You can't buy spontaneity."

Sounds like a communist. However, from all reports, he is known as a hard worker. I'm absolutely sure his being offered a bonus never added a bit of zip to his efforts in his life. NOT. LOL.

Folks. My friend has got to be the most pessimistic curmudgeon whose acquaintance I've ever had the pleasure of acquiring. Help me prove him wrong.

Help me publicize this contest so that we can get at least 500 different entrants made up of individuals or groups of individuals. I figure that number is what is needed to come up with maybe ten really good comments that would show our wannabe rulers what real leaders ought to be saying and trying to get done and putting the MSM NAIL agency in its place.

It would make my job more difficult having to go through the scores of potential responses in each of 500 entries, but I'm willing to do what needs to be done. I'm willing to do the work as long as you guys are willing to take your zingers, that otherwise are only heard in your living room, and submit them here.

And put in your bid to gain a few bucks. Maybe if this works, others will do it too. In time, we can both build and finance our TEA Party independently.

I'm not the fastest wit on the web, nor sharpest tack in or out of the box, but I'm willing to try anything that might break this deadly stranglehold the GOP has had on keeping conservatism and classical liberalism divided, marginalized, and out of power.

$200 to TEApartiers Who Beat the GOP Candidates in Debate -- Update 2

The GOP is having a presidential candidate debate tomorrow tonight in South Carolina. Fox News Channel, 9 PM EDT.

Your challenge is to listen to the questions and answers and decide what the best answer YOU would come up with.

In the past, TV tells us who wins, and they've rigged the set-up. IOW, they NAIL our minds with this set up time and again. I have myself come up with better answers, some of which were quite funny while being practical.

It is my thinking that the American public is far smarter than any currently serving politician or well-known spokesmouth. Here is your chance to prove that is true and get some publicity too.

I am going to do my part to drum up interest in unofficial answers.

To that end, I am prepared to divide up $200 for the answers submitted to my email box that I find better than the answers given by the GOP stiffs to the conservative unfriendly questions served up by the establishmentarian water carriers. And turning the tables on the water carriers by mocking their question before tailoring your answer can be a winner!

Deadline for submission is 11:59 PM Saturday, 5/07/11.
I will decide which duplicate winning responses came in first. Any sign of hacking of the date or other portions of the email will invalidate the submission.
There is a minimum number of submissions needed before the full $200 becomes available. I reserve the right to reduce the total payout accordingly.
My decisions will be final.

You can work with as many others as you wish to come up with the best answers. Have a TEA Party teaparty and maybe make some money showing the GOP what answers YOU want them to make.

**Update**

It has been implied that you all are just too stupid to come up with anything that might be clever enough to show up and embarrass the party that claims to be fighting Obama and the SKUNCs in its own party. I clearly think that is a lie perpetrated by Judas goats.

**Update 2**

The contest is now closed to new entries. An entry was recovered from my spam folder, possibly because it was from a new contact. If you tried to submit and did not receive a verification email by today, Monday, leave a comment to that effect here and we will see what we can do. You have until 11:59 PM PDT Tuesday to make your claim.

World Class Mushrooms

As pertains to your global masters keeping you informed about their War On Terror, let's use the Osama Bin Laden takeout as an example.

1. They keep you in the dark [done].
2. They feed you BS [done].
3. And when you are past your useful date, they plow you under [coming].
4. They claim your corpse as a carbon credit [read Agenda21].

Atlas Mugged

I finally went to see Atlas Shrugged Part 1 yesterday. It was not any better than I imagined it could be. Ayn Rand built into her story physical limitations and ideological failings that I've mentioned before but which are not the reason I am writing this.

The movie does not deserve the bad press it has gotten. For one, at least two of the no-name actors are enjoyable to see. Why some critics would lambaste it for using unknowns positively stinks of elitism.

For another, it is so laughable that some critics gave it 0 stars. I'm not the first to point out that one of the villains in Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead was a critic (I think his name was Toohey). After yesterday's lambasting of Mr. Obama for being petty, I should point out that his level of petty vindictiveness pales in comparison to that of the critics of this film. How could anyone take Roger Ebert's opinon seriously ever again? Certainly not after realizing how he must be carrying an obvious vendetta towards a 2011 film for a book published more than 3-score years ago.

But let's look passed the clownishness of hyper-critics. More importantly, there is an ideologically damaging scene in this film for which the majority of NAILer outlet critics are paid to dissuade the public from ever seeing and comprehending its implications. (Just as Toohey was paid to destroy architects who built contrary to the wishes of the newspaperman that paid the critic's salary).

There is the scene where the industrialist goes to visit the director of the State Science Institute. It reveals to the viewing public, in a manner that mere words don't display, How Scientists On the Public Dole Are Pressured Into Standing Behind Fraudulent Studies.

Just for that scene alone, the NAILer critics panned this movie.

So, in complimentary fashion, just for that scene alone, pick one acquaintance who you believe is wavering about the global warming scam. Take them with you to see this movie.

In short, if you love the global warming scam, you want nobody to see this movie.

Yes Bummer is That Petty

I've gotten negative feedback about my NAILer post of early today.

Look. I'm sorry, but I know everyone with half a brain cell knows that the timing of Bummer's commandeering of the air waves at the time he did, for news that could wait and not require such a drastic act, was political payback to Donald Trump (even if it hurt the programs on all other networks too).

Yet how many this morning called him on it?

It is another instance where we see the emperor's new clothes syndrome at play. Years of implanting submissive behavior through political cowering has indeed yielded up vast numbers of political cowards.

And if this were a movie, most of you reading this, and a great many of the people you know, would recognize what Bummer did without waiting for Sean Connery to finish explaining it.


Simply put: WE KNOW BUMMER IS THAT PETTY. Yes, it is frightening -- and ought to be -- that he carries the codes to the nuclear football.

Dammit folks, call him on his pettiness while you still have the liberty. Force the alleged top public servant to tone it down. If he has any sense that has not been overwhelmed by his ego, he may just begin to hear you.

Don't deny that he IS that petty. Call him on it. As relentlessly as the NAILers mess with your head.

Essentially people: Tell Bummer to grow up.

NAILed

NAILED would be News Arranged to Inculcate Lies Every Day. At least that was when daily newspapers ruled the news.

The more concise acronym for today's media would be NAIL since they do it relentlessly now 24/7.

Now I never liked the acronyms for our lying media (Ministry of Lies, Administry of Lies, or Agency of Lies) that I've stabbed at in the past. But I do like the acronym of

News Aimed at Inculcating Lies. 

It is so damn descriptive is it not? (You could also use Arranged to Indoctrinate if that floats your boat.)

Have you been NAILed lately? How did you like it?

And last night, the NAILer in chief arranged to commandeer the air waves at 10:30 PM EDT -- and then was over an hour late. There is no sound reason to delay a 15 minute speech that could have been delivered without fanfare in 2 minutes at a quickly called press conference the next morning given that the news event was already days old.

No, the purpose in arranging the hour and then delaying the big news would be clear to the target of the arranged hit. In any movie about the mob, most of the audience would catch on immediately. And just in case the few dullards in the audience (and Kevin Costner) didn't get the message, Sean Connery would explain "it was the Chicago Way."

But in this day and age of Political Cowering, "not so fast there Guido." So Let me put it to you nicely.

Dammitall folks. Bummer's purpose was to deliver the message in no uncertain terms to Donald Trump, whose hit TV show was known to be in progress at 10:30, "That is what you get for messing with the big dog." You've been NAILed Mr. Trump.

Subtle, like a hammer, for The Donald

And a special thank you to Joan of Arrggh! for reminding me of this photo yesterday evening.

Seeking to Be The Sovereign Automatically Delegitimizes His Sworn Oath

Even when they act in this way, our rulers cannot admit they think themselves now superior over other Americans. It becomes up to us to ascertain whether or not it is mostly true that they seek to do so. And if so shown, demand their significant reform or their unconditional resignation.

Our rulers have not announced nor openly admitted the moral code under which they find themselves feeling good about what they are doing. Since it places them above us, and in America that is not functionally possible under the constitution, they may never admit it.

For to admit they have assumed superior status automatically delegitimizes them under the oath they took to the constitution, a constitution that begins with "We the people." Once any elected official believes himself above it all and unaccountable, he is no longer honoring his oath.

Compile the evidence. See if it is or is not mostly true that our leaders have assumed a superior status. Show that their acts are applied not equally under law, but arbitrarily to favor those who help them gain power. Show by a predominance of evidence which of the following is an accurate conclusion.

• They see themselves as having been elected to a position above equals in sovereignty to be the servants of the sovereigns, and not to rule, 
• Or they have assumed for themselves the power of a sovereign over the many, seeking to control every facet needed for the individual to be secure in his life, his liberty and his seeking of happiness.

***Update***
In comments, Og demonstrates the quick way to review the circumstances, discards the ruler's claim that all his pee is only rain, and concludes:

Anti-constitutional? You betcha. An American Monarchy? Got-damned right. Evil, on it's surface and in substance? Probably. Curable?

Anyone??

Bueller? 

And Joan of Argghh! is passing out banners.

More, Dammit!

American: Why Do Your Rulers Hate You?

American: Why Do Your Rulers Hate You?

I believe the answer can be found in understanding that your rulers are operating under a yet to be (and maybe never) openly admitted "new morality."

But first: How is it that you, a sovereign in your own right -- along with every other individual American who are the legitimizers of your government, all of you -- will come to that time when you finally (are forced to?) recognize that you now have rulers over you instead of officials elected by you?

Then: 

How is it that your rulers have grown to hate you?

The dream that inspired these questions, but has now faded, was so terrifying that it awoke me this morning and compelled me to jump up out of bed and write this.

I am saddened that I could only get this far today. It was all so clear up until I got to the point that I began writing this. (There is another small and vivid portion that I jotted down first and sent out to another who might help me understand it).

On the up side, I am amazed and glad I was able to get this far. Maybe the most terrifying thing about it -- what awoke me -- was that there was no open violence. It all came about, a rotten decaying situation, as a matter of the course of events. Right now. On-going.

I may have more, but I just don't know yet. I'm going back to sleep for a bit.

My dear fellow American: can you help me answer these questions?

Pascal (5:02 AM, May 1, 2011)

Updates below.