Between the Lines #4 [Misanthropy]

EMT suspended for trying to save choking girl 

 "was suspended because it is against company policy to make a stop without being called."

A number of things come to mind as we read past the headlines, and these are the kind of questions left unaddressed by the report.

1. Is not being recognizable as an emergency vehicle an invitation to  being flagged down on street for an unofficial call?
2. Is not an unofficial call -- lacking paper work but still one made because you are recognized as an official emergency agent -- still a call?
3. Is not a trained EMT professional really a kind of officer, and has been trained to make executive decisions in triage situations?
4. Is there a concern by the company that there might be legal ramifications arising from an unofficial call and could be financially ruinous for them?
5. Precisely due to such concerns, are there not good Samaritan laws on the books to protect them and their employee?
6. If not, why not?

If the legal system is ready and willing to allow people to die because all the I's are not dotted and the T's are not crossed, is this not another example of how the sanctity of human life is given second place to such things as legal niceties and financial worries?

As the reader who tipped me to this story opined:  "our society is going to hell."

While it is true that the ever more present misanthropy we find in our legal system may not have been planned to be that way, the number of "leaders" who are trying to prevent reform legislation appear to be able to control the majority of votes in state and federal legislatures.

One thing is for certain: those who believe that the planet is overpopulated are thrilled by stories such as this because it threatens all those -- such as the majority of EMT personnel --  who still exhibit basic human decency.

Between the Lines #3 [Flawless Women]

What do we read between the lines when Glamour Magazine pronounced Bruce Caitlyn (whatever) Jenner Woman of the Year?

• Well, he "she" doesn't have to menstruate once a month.
• S/he doesn't have to endure the often terrible cramps associated with that biological function.
• S/he will never experience the hormonal swings, some debilitating,  that many women have to endure.
• S/he will never complain about or be condescended to due his her suffering from PMS.
• S/he will not have to endure all the complications associated with menopause.
• And finally, s/he will never have to worry about a potentially cancerous fibroid turning up in her uterus such as the one that killed my wife 12 months after it turned up in stage 4 bleeding.

In fact, I'd say it was a safe bet that the most glamorous women you've ever met would never call any of these specifically womanly traits glamorous.

So clearly what we read between the lines at Glamour Magazine is that its judges have had an epiphany. Because GM is certain Jenner cannot be troubled by a single one of these unglamorous womanly issues, s/he must be a superior woman, and thus worthy to be called Glamorous Woman of the Year.

Between the Lines #2 [Cashing In On AGW]

From the news of "Monster" and "Worst Storm Evah" Hurricane Patricia.

The clock is ticking up to the moment that Mexico sues the United States for the damages caused by the hurricane.

The stage has already been set by the Progs and their climate fraudsters that American prosperity is the cause of greater and greater storms.

The thinking man will be wondering if this worst storm is really the worst on record because of all the lies about last summer being the hottest on record (when there's been no warming for nearly 2 decades). Alas, we know the SSM is not heeding the thinking man, and indeed is seeking to have him prosecuted.

That's what you can expect from reading today's headlines and reflecting back on all the CAGW staged preparations that preceded it.

Between the Lines #1 [Treason]

How often have you heard a conservative talk show host declare something is a conspiracy?

Well, I just heard it on one of their shows.

On Hugh Hewitt of all places. Early in the first hour of his Oct 22, 2015 show.

What I heard was a report of the Benghazi hearing by Hewitt’s guest whose name I didn’t catch.

What he said was approximately this:

‘there was clearly a conspiracy between DOS and the WH to deny that Benghazi was a terrorist attack so as not to undermine Obama’s reelection narrative that Al Qaeda was on the run.’

[Anyone can capture this comment from a podcast it will verify what I heard. I don’t know if there is a free one and I won’t pay that hack to hear his show. If a reader can capture it I will add it to this post. Thanks.]


Hewitt didn’t call him a conspiracy nut like his colleague Medved likes to do most every day. He accepted it and engaged him in further discussion.

Reading between the lines I get the following.

What I think this open talk of a conspiracy does, however, is deflect from the thought of the deeper conspiracy. The one that might come to wider attention but for the notable lack of more probing questions such as

“What happened to over 1000 of Gaddafi’s ManPADs?” and
“Where does intelligence say some turned up?” and
“Why exactly was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi in the first place?”

Conspiracy to gain election seems to be accepted as par for the course in America today, at least when the Dems are caught at it. What felonious conduct?

But conspiracy to commit treason rises to another level entirely. So don’t expect your favorite conservative talkshow host to call that one out.

Thinking Beyond the Trump Headlines

Billionaire Donor: Rand Paul 'Alienated Anti-Establishment Voters' by Attacking Donald Trump

Rand Paul, like his father before him, is hardly a politician. We know that mainly because he's more apt to take a hard stance that his loyal followers adore but is not pleasing to a wider number of voters. But being a politician also implies that a man running to earn votes has the ability to assess a challenge for the loyalty of his followers. He senses he needs to find a way to work in stream with the challenge and to wait for a better opportunity to gain advantage. This headline shows how he's not even that much of a politician.

While "he's not like other politicians" is one of the things that has long made Paul attractive to Anti-establishment voters, it happens to be a glaring weakness when a Donald Trump comes along.

Trump came along and stole the Anti-Establishment baton from all other Republican (the alleged party of constitutionally constrained government) candidates in the field. It has been mostly the poor politician who lost ground. A better politician would welcome the newcomer to the cause (the anti-DC craze) and still keep himself relevant.

Ted Cruz, by comparison, has avoided the pitfall of a headline like this because he is a politician. And it appears that Ben Carson, while a political novice, has at least a politician's grasp of how not to alienate the one set of voters (other than the radical Left) who are most energetically involved in the politics of our time.


Donald Trump's great appeal to the Anti-DC base has been to say what is pleasing to their ear -- especially when he says things that they know that others are not nearly so bold to say loudly or even at all.


Many people opine how there's a reasonable chance that Trump is a stalking horse for the Clintons. How? He's running for the GOP nomination, not the Democratic one, right?

But what is even more important to the primaries is that there is even a greater chance that he's a stalking horse for sucking up air time for seemingly* principled conservatives: those who claim to defend against the growth of power centralized in Washington DC as the constitution was intended to do before the esquire-class nibbled away on DC's constraints.

If Donald Trump's message can drown out the messages of more principled candidates who hold views similar to the ones he gets applause for, and the GOP winds up nominating some milquetoast Prog Republican like McCain and Romney again, then his candidacy will have served as a stalking horse not only for party failure again, but more importantly for failure of reforming government that's grown too large and lawless. And it will then be no wonder, after the fact, why the SSM did its part to have aided his domination of air time and print columns.

But by then it will be too late to comprehend that the SSM would provide such a man (Trump or another possible pied piper) large gobs of free publicity, even if much of it is derogatory. When everyone is talking about Trump, who has time to left to discuss in depth -- give proper scrutiny to -- other Anti-Establishment candidates?

That is the hidden lesson to learn from this headline. The SSM is glad to help undermine any and all anti-Establishment types until there are none. Rand Paul did this to himself. The ways SSM will target the others remain to be seen. “We must all hang together or we will all hang separately.” (Ben Franklin.)

It's up to the rest of us who understand the threat to pass along this skepticism to others. I think a large number of us already are questioning why the media gives so much time to Trump. It's up to us to keep that question alive until the time for voting in the primaries has passed. If nothing else we need to see to it that the current domination of Trump does not lead to a GOPe getting the nomination and another Rat getting into the oval office.


---------------------
* The only reason I sound skeptical about the commitment of such conservatives is that I've lived too long not to be. It's one of the reasons I feel obligated to write warnings such as this. I don't need a 1955 university class in political science to have earned that skepticism: I earned it the hard way. There was a time that a politician who transgressed even a small promise could be embarrassed into altering course, or at least appear to alter course. But almost all politicians now are shameless (see my permanent assessment at the top right of this blog). For example, recall what Mitch McConnell promised Kentucky voters in his 2014 run for reelection ("we will defund obamacare" at the top) and his complete reversal the very day he knew he'd won. Or in 2010 what John McCain promised Arizona voters about his position on the border and how he betrayed their trust shortly after winning.

 I fear the 2015 variety political science class is far too biased against having skepticism of rapidly expanding government. Consequently I imagine I'm writing to a small audience in large part because the potentially larger audience has been trained to turn a deaf ear to the sort of warning I'm offering. Anyway, that's why I recommend, when saying good things about anyone running for public office, always modify principled with allegedly. It implies that I like the talk: now show me the walk.

It's the AGW Scammers Who Are the Deniers

To keep the scam running they deny all evidence that contradicts their "theory." How you can prove that it's a scam is laid out below.  

When the proponents of anthropocentric climate change resolutely refuse to look at evidence that undermines their "theory,"  what you are witnessing is the rankest violation of the scientific method (a theory, however respected, becomes a failed hypothesis when contradicted by new evidence.)

It reveals that the proponents of the AGW theory are engaging in a sham at the best, and at worst are running out a monumental scam that, if left unchecked, can't help but lead to misery for uncountable millions of people (a goal that is even embraced by its proponents, so much so that they are indoctrinating our young into believing that such a future is their duty).

By extension, the continuation of this project appears to be leading to the deaths of billions of people by any means necessary. (Here's the latest on that score. Hat tip to Doug Evans by way of Alec Satin It's another example that what we are fighting is nothing less than a neopagan belief system that's quickly become an undeclared Nationally funded religion that runs contrary to the Judeo-Christianity upon which the nation was founded, and is about as fundamentally unconstitutional as any Federal action can get.)

When one couples this with the coincident political behavior of the rest of the Progs — their fomenting, fostering and protecting of cruel Islamic death cults world wide — we see that the Establishment's pattern of behavior is very consistent.

The following is only one example of a denier. While I've seen it many more times than this. this is the first time I've seen it in Congressional hearings (exposing the shamelessness of most other congressmen). Just in case it disappears from Youtube, it's title is "Sen. Cruz Questions Sierra Club President Aaron Mair on Climate Change."

After you hear Mr. Mair repeatedly say “We concur with the 97 percent scientific consensus with regards to global warming,” you must know that he is either a man fearful of running afoul of the scammers who fund his organization and pay his salary, or is a scammer himself.

Whichever he is, his position is the exact opposite of scientific. Relying upon a consensus of scientists that is 18 years old to justify new legislation while refusing to look at the new data — some provided even by scientists that comprised that consensus — is nonsense, is not science, and therefore must be driven by other forces not yet wishing to expose themselves.

Indeed, Mr. Mair's broken-record responses to all questions is reminiscent of the testimony by communist sympathizers in the HUAC hearings of the 1950s: "I refuse to answer on the grounds it might incriminate me."

What do Mr. Mair and countless others have to hide? When one peels away at that onion, more and more hideous things are exposed. Over the years I've exposed many of them elsewhere on this blog. Use the labels below to find a few. (I'm not the only one to have done this; but I may be the one who does it most consistently. G-d: I hope I'm wrong.)

Updates with links providing additional cause for concern.

• “Judges Plan to Outlaw Climate Change ‘Denial’ Debunkers” : wherein the scammers feel the need to protect themselves by outlawing any and all who might undermine their schemes. Essentially outlawing the scientific method so it can't be used to expose them. 

• "I dream of a world where the truth is what shapes people's politics, rather than politics shaping what people think is true." — Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) January 24, 2015 : wherein a Sustainability priest preaches his "truth." The rotten irony is that this scientist has purloined the very words of those who actually use the scientific method (the same people the judges above wish to outlaw). This Sus priest-celebrity has the advantage because he has been provided the bigger bully-pulpit. He is paid by the SSM to endlessly repeat his dogma, and his words then are used to indoctrinate new true believers and to bestow a glow of saintliness on the priest. Some merely charge him with colossal failure of self-awareness. In my opinion they in turn fail to see the gain for the priest in preempting his opponents. Many more naive will fall to the confidence men — "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matt 7:15) — wherever the defenders of truth are short-sighted or fail to fight back against the schemers with full force.

Climate change denial IS far worse than Holocaust denial.

One Response to “Salon: ‘Climate change denial is actually much worse than Holocaust denial’; How About ‘Climate holocaust co-conspirator’?”

1. Pascal on 13/13/15 at 7:08 pm

   It’s TRUE. Climate change denial IS worse than Holocaust denial.
   Those International Socialists who insist on denying the evidence that AGW is a fraud are hell bent on reducing the planet’s population down to 500 million from 7 billion. I think denying that that is their goal is far worse than their denying that 6 million Jews were killed by National Socialism.
   
   Jews have been declared the canaries in the coal mine for very good reason.