Universal Filter

Here is a filter with which to identify leaders and followers who no longer abide the Judeo-Christian moral code of, essentially, "live and let live."

Wherever rulers foster Malthusian, Utilitarian, Green and Islamistophilic nutcases, there the ruled are at grave risk.

I pray this needs no further explanation. Nevertheless, in comments I will try to answer any questions you may have.

Fighting the Establishment of an American State Religion -- Part 3

I wrote the text below the break on September 25, 2014 but I did not publish it. I was waiting for more developments to evolve that would help make it abundantly clear how dangerous it is not to fight such developments before they are fully formed. When climate guru RFK Jr. stated he wished there was a law he could punish his opponents with, I observed that it was good he could only wish.

However developments have moved on rapidly to erase that sense of security.

Today, on episode 4 of LevinTV.com, viewers heard this:

 
This clip ends with these words:

"To use our laws to criminalize politics, to use our laws to compel a belief system, is as tyrannical as is possibly imaginable."

It is significant that people who lay claim to a higher understanding of life with their atheistic lens, routinely deny acknowledging that a religion -- a belief system -- need not center on worship of a god.

Religion: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

Mr. Levin almost got to the point where he sees what I see. It sounds like he's edging to fight increasingly heavy-handed government efforts to protect Climate Change belief in a way that is in violation of the 1st Amendment. That Amendment bans the establishment of a state religion. This essay is written in hopes that the constitutional lawyer in him will latch on to the idea.

For easy reference, here are links to part 1 and part 2.

Throwing the Election to the Prog Advancers

[The following was revised on late on March 5, 2016 to improve clarity.]
(When you finish below, here is Part II.)

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles."-- Sun Tzu

John McCain and Mitt Romney could have won the presidency. But neither man railed against the past of Barack Obama. And Romney also failed to rail against Obama's 4 year record,  a sure loser of a strategy given that it was Obama's record which cost the Democratic party control of the House of Representatives in the elections of 2010.

So half the voters never heard word one from the opposition candidates about the downside and risks of electing and reelecting Obama president. The majority of voters were left not knowing important details about the man who would wreak havoc on them by waging legal, economic and regulatory war on them. The larger majority were left uninformed by the very men they expected to inform them, and so they did not know their enemy.

And so America (as an idea in an historic sense) lost the last two political battles waged to fundamentally change her.

But did Americans really know themselves? More to the point, did Americans really know the character and intentions of her leaders selected to waging war against the fundamental transformers? Who would have chosen either McCain or Romney in their respective primaries knowing the kind of campaigns they would later run? Knowing more about either candidate might have better informed primary voters so that better candidates could have been considered.

I say "might have" because it's not all that clear even today that either men or the Establishment they represent really (given how that establishment has behaved these last 7 years) wanted them to do anything differently.

IOW, just as prize fighters have been known to throw fights, why not political leaders? Especially now that it well known that both party establishments work pretty much with the same lobbyists.

Furthermore, the 2014 elections that increased the GOP control of the House and won control of the Senate on the promise that "THEN WE CAN AFFECT CHANGE" has nevertheless -- disappointingly -- affected nothing in the advancement of the Prog (builders of the ruling class) agenda.  Borders more porous than ever. Obamacare funded via continuing resolutions despite promises not to. No resistance to the nomination of the radical Loretta Lynch to be AG. The list of thrown fights is endless.

Because of this Americans have come to recognize how much the GOP is hardly the opposition party we had expected it to be. Subsequently the acronym, GOPe -- GOPe(stablishment) -- has become the most common of pejorative words that express our disappointment with how the opposition isn't.

And I'm saying, if the GOPe has proven to throw fights on individual issues, why not conclude that they've been throwing the fights for the top job?

Now here is the most important graf of this short post. The GOPe still controls the banner under which Americans wage political war against her internal enemy.

So America. How much do you know yourself and know who is claiming to be your leader in the battle coming in November?

KNOW YOURSELF!

Equanimity?

Equanimity. What's that?

Yesterday I and some others were watching a racquetball match. I observed to a successful lawyer that one of the reasons Jim was so good at the game was how equanimously he took both good shots and bad ones. He doesn't admire his great shots and he doesn't grouse over his poor ones. The most he does is go "oh!" after a losing shot and then he goes right back into a ready stance awaiting the next serve.

Nick asked "what was that word?"  I repeated the adjective equanimous and pulled it up on my smart phone. Equanimity is the noun. Nick liked that. It fit the case we were watching, and Nick already was thinking beyond the one man to others to whom the term fit. A successful lawyer enlightened on language by a retired engineer.

So the preceding events got me to thinking. If a lawyer wasn't familiar with the word, what are the chances that many more living in this media driven and poorly educated world would not recognize equanimity and its value to their lives?

In the current GOP field of candidates, the only anti-establishment candidate for whom this fits is Ted Cruz. The last candidate in my lifetime to display equanimity better was Ronald Reagan.

Cruz has come under relentless attack by the SSM, radical Leftist hacks (Google Robert Reich on Ted Cruz) by the GOPe (see the latest outrage by the idiot senator Lindsey Graham), and by both allegedly anti-Establishment candidates Trump and Rubio.

The abuse have come in many forms.

• He has been called a liar by proven liars who desperately need to engage in the fallacious argumentation  known as Tu Quoque -- "you also" -- to take the spotlight off their own lies.
• Indirect lies have been used too. Disingenuousness. The "news" that Ben Carson was leaving after Iowa that had been tweeted by a Cruz staffer was started by SSM outlet CNN which "reporters" mingled in blatant speculation about what the news item meant -- and their baiting snagged the Cruz staff tweeter.  The charges leveled at Cruz after this were disingenuous at best because the entire timeline indicates it was all about baiting and trolling. And Cruz's opponents capitalized upon it. If Cruz' opponents really are anti-establishment they'd be unanimously pillorying CNN and Jake Tapper for their biased reportage. 
• Trump lumping Cruz in as part of the establishment simply because he's a member of Congress -- as if Cruz has not consistently been under attack for behaving as the TEA Party rebel we all wish far more other "TEA Party" candidates would have proven to be.

Look my friends. I really don't like Cruz all that much for reasons I've mentioned elsewhere. I wish he'd embody some more humility -- indeed much as Reagan did.

Here's how I look at a Cruz presidency. A Reagan Presidency today would stand a far better chance of disestablishing awful Leftist advances because this time both houses of congress and many state houses across the country are in right of center hands.

• Ted Cruz could deliver on many more Reagan promises than Reagan could.
• Donald Trump would not do this because he's all about doing deals with the Left from which he has historically been much more connected. 
• Cruz is the candidate closest to Reagan and nobody is calling him a dumb actor. Trump is the closest candidate to Michael Bloomberg -- the former Democrat who bought the NYC GOP nomination so that he could provide New Yorkers a non-radical choice to run their city.

One more thing about equanimity. You, my dear readers, need to practice it now more than ever. Because you will be speaking with others who are EMOTIONALLY caught up in the media circus. You be your friends' anchor.

Make your equanimity your friends most vital commodity.  

Defeating the Progs and Critical Theorists

The thought that follows this introduction began as a comment to What is Cultural Marxism and What is Critical Theory? that Redbaiter posted at his blog, TrueblueNZ. This is not the first time RB has written about the Left's nihilistic tendencies, particularly its employ of Critical Theory to bring Western society and culture to its knees. But this time he brings to our attention a newer video "What Is Critical Theory" that he pleads that his readers watch so as to gain more familiarity with the tactic even if they are largely aware of it already. His reason for desiring that more of us are better educated and aware of the enormity of the threat he makes clear at the end. "They [Cultural Marxists and Critical Theorists] are a massive force, but we can defeat them if we unite in that one purpose and that one understanding. Go out there, and fight the Cultural Marxists at every opportunity. If you don’t, everything is lost."

I largely concur with that request. But I also know what a daunting task it is he is wishing that many more of us will take on. Daunting because overcoming denial of the very real existence of evil is far more difficult today when the religions that traditionally stood against it have been eroded both from within individual institutions and in the minds of the huge percentage of adherents it has lost.

So in the interest of building up RB's case I tried to show what was missing from the video he featured and what more can be accomplished once we look at what was not said. I ask that you read RB's post and view the short video, and including comments left by AF and EAD. I think it will help you greatly understand what I think is an important lesson to be learned.


As I think you know RB, I love history. With my recall and ease at synthesizing connections between the past with the present I can bore even you before you gain an inkling as to why I am mentioning some story -- say, from ancient Greece.

Speaking of boring. While this video's narration is somewhat informative even for me who has familiarity with Critical Theorists, it will bore a lot of viewers in part because of something critically missing from it.

The narrator in the video says “defining or categorizing Critical Theory is exceptionally difficult.” His reason — essentially that it’s too complex — misses the mark set by the title of the video. “What is” is not really answered dammit. When I’m done here — it won’t take long — I hope you might say it is his own intellectualism that gets in the way of getting to the point.

Yes the narrator finally decides to provide listeners with an oblique definition that I’ll shorten just a bit to aid clarity “Critical theory is the searching for … instruments of social transformation.”

Transformation of Western Civilization to what? This video leaves that out too.

Let me grant that he does do something very well. He lists most all the common varieties of attacks on Western Civ. But he never classifies it for what it is. Let me do that.

Critical theory is the application of criticisms beyond what those with common human decency call “constructive criticism:” criticism intended to aid the person or project criticized. Therein lies the answer to the question. Critical Theory aims for destructive criticism. Criticism for the sake of criticism. The social transformation sought by its adherents is the destruction of happiness, seeking to make everyone dissatisfied with life. Its ultimate end is the destruction of human life. Their perfect outcome would have every man at every other man’s throat.

What I’m suggesting is that Critical Theory serves a definition of evil that I’ve seen (most often in novels and film) but about which I’ve never seen written before. I think it was Mortimer Adler who defined love as the emotion wherein another’s happiness is essential to your own (others may recognize in it a similar line used by Robert Heinlein in one of his fictions). The form of evil we see behind critical theory is the emotion wherein everyone else’s misery is essential to your happiness. In other words, what I'm defining is beyond hate. It's love of hatefulness. Critical Theorists will not rest until everyone else is dead or wishing they were.

If you can see what I’m saying, then you know there is an antidote RB.  The problem lies not in that we people most inclined to behaving decently couldn’t win the battle. The problem is that most of us are too civilized to believe that such rotten people exist. But they are currently thriving. And they are doing so it at our expense, with the cooperation of many of us and with the unawareness (if not denial) of most of us.

The antidote is found in the basic decency code of the Judeo-Christain ethos. Critical Theorists have worked hard at undermining a lot of Western thinking, but never more hard than at undermining the fundamental message of the Western creeds. They do this by relentlessly using Alinksy's rule number 4 against western religions by as many angles as each religion has adherents, because every man will simply will fall short of the ideals they profess. Those failings provides an endless supply of low-hanging fruit. The relentless criticism achieves its destruction first by always focusing on the failings no matter how minor. Then they go on to downplay all the magnificent benefits to living that resulted from the civility induced by the religions into the individuals that provided those benefits.

The consequences of all of this criticism is that the very gains that have made living easier and the means by which they were achieved are belittled.  We are witnessing a large segment of the latest generation being misled into discarding it all. In essence they've been inclined to aligning with the notion that less civilized would make life better. Nihilism being mainstreamed. Proving that the Critical theorists' campaign has been supremely effective.

Think of it as Chinese water torture applied to personal morality. One gift horse after another has its mouth inspected by the torturers, linking any flaw, real or imagined, to the self-interests of the giver. No good deed goes unpunished is the message they have imbued in too many of us, but especially the current youngest generation. The Critical Theorists understood before the rest of us that anyone who takes them seriously will find it hard not to become invested in the same death spiral as our torturers.

Now here is where I begin to address all those who continue to value the older ways that have led to all the good things our Western Civilization has delivered. To you who continue to strive to make life better for yourselves and those around you.

When next you experience callous ingratitude, the sort suggesting dismissal of the many benefits you have provided others, I think it is where "turn the other cheek" has the power to change the world one ungrateful soul at a time.

Those who continue to provide comforts and warmth and happiness to others in the course of their lives mocks the efforts of these rotten death dealers.

And then there will be the time where the enemy, the neighbor who no longer can tolerate your happiness no matter how large or small, will have gone too far. Each of you at some point will come to recognize that no matter how many cheeks you offer to the enemy they will remain the enemy of common human decency forever. Each enemy will have clearly inscribed his name to his own proscription.

Love the Lord your God with all of you heart and all of your might and all of your soul.
And love your neighbor as yourself.

These two sentences can be stated in a secular manner.

Love that you have life; be grateful for the abilities with which you've been endowed to discover all about it that you can; strive to learn to feel to your depths life's worth and value it with your utmost to do so.
And offer to help your neighbor learn to strive for himself; because it will be harder for you to enjoy life when your neighbor does not know how and is afraid to try. It is in your best interests to carry him for a time whenever you are able. Make him aware that you are offering only a starter course and that he will signal its end.

Do these things as much as it is in your power to do so and you will have thwarted the Progs in ways far beyond any reachable by argument.

Lessons in Humility, No. 1

Allegedly modern (meaning "seeking the best") man frequently derides previous generations as being primitive and, at best, benighted.  Behold.

1,000-year-old onion and garlic eye remedy kills MRSA
 h/t AoSHQ

Scientists recreated a 9th Century Anglo-Saxon remedy using onion, garlic and part of a cow's stomach.

They were "astonished" to find it almost completely wiped out methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, otherwise known as MRSA. 

Their findings will be presented at a national microbiology conference.

The remedy was found in Bald's Leechbook - an old English manuscript containing instructions on various treatments held in the British Library.
...

"But we were absolutely blown away by just how effective the combination of ingredients was," she [Dr Freya Harrison] said.

I fear that the more we think we are the best, the more we actually slip into post-modernism (meaning "get beyond this modernist seeking when we should be seeking to be simpler like the noble savages".)

As that is the condition that the self-assessed elite Progs want to inflict on us lesser humans, I offer this story as one lesson.

Let it help us recall that older -- and what is too often presumed lesser -- generations actually can provide us with not only good solutions, but remind us of something considerably more dangerous. That the cultures subjected to Prog dominance are flattered about their alleged intelligence. They are indoctrinated in complacency (read compliance) to have the carefree nature of Eloi: "Why seek more knowledge when you already are the best?"

The intent is to make the subjects dumber, more vulnerable to things like disease, and easier to control. That father of the Morlocks, H. G. Wells, set the Prog standard and it seems that they continue to follow toward his goal.

Even if this blog post got wider distribution, I don't expect very many people to take it seriously. That is truly sad.

Because if it were taken seriously, such a response would actually start some real countermeasures rolling. There is greatness to be gained in remembering to be humble.

For Those Who Accept SSM's Propaganda Unquestionably

Every once in awhile it is helpful to take note how easy it is to prank people. In this one, each unsuspecting mark undoubtedly feared for his or her life at least for a moment.

Enjoy "Fast & Furious Nerd Shocks Instructors."

Demonstrating How the Left Is NOT Liberal

When will the liberals you know finally understand how the Left is not Liberal? And, further has really only ployed that label in the past in order to make its gains?

I think In Left's Always Mutating Mutant Hierarchy, Muslims Are The New Gay by Ace of Spades  will help you get through to those liberals who know you and maybe even love you.

Excerpts:

Jamie Kirchick writes on a bunch of topics related to identity politics in this long piece; worth reading. He examines the Rock-Paper-Scissors hierarchy of victims; Muslims are now at the top of the Victim Period, and at the very bottom, of course, are Jews, who really aren't even considered by the left to be victims at all, even when they're murdered. Even as they lay dying on the street, they're Oppressors.

[Ace quoting Kirchick]:

Consider the administration's initial response to the murder of three Muslim-Americans in North Carolina last week, the motive for which, at the time, was unclear. The day after the incident, with the FBI inquiry into the matter having just been launched, the president himself released a statement declaring that "No one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship." It stands in contrast to White House spokesman Josh Earnest's deplorable remark that the victims of the Paris attack "were killed not because of who they were but because of where they randomly happened to be."
...
The latest FBI crime statistics report six times as many hate crime incidents directed against Jews as they do against Muslims. Likewise in Europe, Jews are more likely to be victimized by hate crime than Muslims, who are themselves usually the perpetrators of anti-Semitic attacks.

It's a good piece, deriding the left's vicious Jacobins....

All of these fanatical movements purge their least-monstrous members. In the French Revolution, the Liberals went to the guillotines first; then the Constitutionalists; then the Girondists. Each group went along with the guillotining of the next group, thinking -- or just hoping -- that if they agreed to guillotine the next batch, they themselves would be spared the National Razor.

But they weren't. Including, in the end, the Jacobins themselves, who were all fed into the guillotines.

I have copied the whole piece (with a different title for the email) and sent it off with a simple introduction asking the questions I asked at the top.

GOPe/Dem Coalition is STILL Steering

US over a cliff.


The elections just completed proves that a large number of Americans have had enough of the radical agenda.

The problem is that the GOP is not really a conservative party. It's an amalgam of conservatives and Progs. And the Progs are in the leadership and control the agenda. The nicest acronym used to refer to them is GOPe (Republican portion of the Establishment). Readers of this blog know I deride RINO (Republican In Name Only) and prefer SKUNC (Statist Kooks Undermining our Nation's Constitution). Whatever label you use for the GOPe, every principled conservatives has felt how it hates them.


In each and every corner of America a discussion needs to begin today. More people need to know that whatever mischief the GOPe manages to pull off in the next cycle, it is not the fault of conservatives.

The aim of that discussion is to come up with ways to divert the Establishment's steering of our republic over the cliff.

I'm an old man and I'm quickly running out of steam. If you think this idea is worth pursuing, then please comment below. I cannot contribute my assets, limited though they may be, to this effort if I don't even know you really want to try.

Left Influenced Converted to Liberty Influence By a Single Word

Exploitation.


A liberal friend on becoming cognizant of real news:

"...the conditions of these youngsters from Central America who have been shipped one way or another North (media still silent on such details and seems not likely to investigate further) to be shoved across our borders. An organized invasion. I don't think it would be going too far to call it a warped update of the Children's Crusade. What is going on here?"

I suggested, "I think the word you are looking for, to hang on all this, may be Exploitation."

And a fire lit in her eyes.

Please welcome the newest member of the growing resistance to DC.

You too may have one budding near you.

Just be open to him and primed to offer just the right word.

Counter-Propaganda

I’ve been tweeting variations of this line at each CAGW related story in the hopes that many others begin to repeat its essence.

Marginalize the marginalizers. Rent seekers co-opting science to coerce consensus via expulsion are NOT scientists.

Others will repeat this sort of message until there will be no place you clowns go where your audience has not heard it.

We will pile the ridicule high enough and so that even the most brainless rent seekers among you will look for safer pickings. You will help bring sanity and adults back to proper prominence or you will lose to a Higher authority.

Envy As Admitted Federal Policy

Unbelieveably, the essence of Marxist class warfare, envy and its exploitation, was admitted today by "one of the prime architects of both the Massachusetts healthcare reform and the Affordable Care Act, Professor of economics at MIT, Jonathon Gruber." [source]

"That means that the genetic winners, the lottery winners who've been paying an artificially low price because of this discrimination now will have to pay more in return."

Sickening. Coveting the health of your neighbor is now fair game in contemporary America. Essentially this: 'If you are healthy, you deserve to be handicapped, and we have the power to do it to you.' You first Dr. Gruber.

Incidental report from the street:
I hear from soft-headed liberals who have been repeating the nonsense that gets aired repeatedly on SSM TV such as MSNBC declare that conservatives are anti-American because they disagree with President Obama. This revelation will not faze them in the least.

The real problem:
What is more of a problem are the conservative talkshow hosts who refuse to call this president a Marxist. And you know the old Leftist slogan -- "no enemies on the left." That would explain a great deal why talkers like Michael Medved and others at Salem broadcasting regularly call out others on the Right as traitors to the GOP before they'll call out Leftists as traitors to America. Or traitors to common decency. Or traitors to JudeoChristian ethics (thou shall not covet) such as this genius Gruber.

One Solution:
We of the TEA Party movement need to disassociate ourselves from the "Rightists" on the Marxist political spectrum of Left and Right. Let me repeat Ronald Reagan's vision for you. 

There is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: up to man's ages-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.

I am not on the Right any longer. There are too many Downs over there. I'm with the Ups.

To Hell with Downs like Medved, Hewitt, Prager, and anyone else who thinks like them. They are unfit company for people who need to recognize and fight all the enemies of freedom.

STOP Funding the Enemy

I received yet another email request for funds from the Tea Party "Patriots" Citizens Fund.

Here is the maddening segment of Jenny Beth Martin's reasons for her request for funds.

2) We need to bombard targeted Senators with ads. The constituents of every single wishy-washy “Republican” need to understand what is at stake. We just don’t yet have the funding we need to buy these ads. 

Someone this stupid has no business being in the business of fighting the Establishment. As far as I am concerned, she is essentially an antidisestablishmentarian. 

Hey, maybe I'm overly sensitive, but am I wrong is this? Speaking as a reluctant blogger, one who would rather be gardening and visiting his children among other things, my primary reason for blogging has been to provide counter-arguments, meager as they are, to the relentless propaganda issuing from the Soviet-style media (SSM).

I cannot see any gain in providing funds to run ads that will only provide those same rotten institutions material to editorialize against. But worse, if it is true that their ad revenue IS falling, why oh why would we help sustain them in any way? It's one thing not to storm their offices on a daily basis in protest, but it is another diametrically opposite thing to give them money. Sheesh -- this is NOT rocket science.

Ok. Tell me how to get through to this person allegedly on our side. If she is permitted to go on without the millions she is emailing hearing this perspective, that is potentially tens of millions of dollars she personally will funnel to our enemy for an ad campaign we already know our politicians will ignore because they listen to the people who actually give the pols money, not the SSM.

Rewritten:

If she is permitted to go on -- and the millions she reaches do not hear of this perspective I am warning about -- and then succeeds, that is potentially tens of millions of dollars she personally will funnel to our enemy. All for an ad campaign that we already know from bitter experience that politicians will ignore because they listen to the people who fund them far more than we do. And that is even assuming that those same politicians are not adhering to an anti-conservative, anti-constitutional agenda already.
It is worse than pissing our money away down a hole. It is giving our money to arguably our worst enemy, the SSM.

The Whole > Sum of All Corruptions

 

Heaven: We have a problem. The corruption is feeding itself.

Let us look at three relatively small items making news today alone, providing us evidence of much much more going on than is good for a healthy republic.

Item 1:
At the Politico column with the name “Behind the Curtain” no less,we have The New Power Triangle from which we find the following money quote.

“We have been looking literally for years for someone we can cut deals with, and finally someone has stepped up,” a White House official said. West Wing aides say they now talk with McCain roughly every other day.

This is nearly admitting to the American equivalent of the 1st Triumvirate of ancient Rome. Well, at least Crassus, Pompey and Caesar appeared on the same stage as equals. Here is our version:

I know that after this photo, there can hardly be anything worse from McCain. However, I see worse yet in this item from the Politico.

It has the audacity to label it The "NEW" power triangle? New? How about McCraven and Bummer talking since the summer of 2008, where, in the alleged heat of the campaign for the most powerful position in the world, the former declared the latter "a nice man?"

Item 2:
Selwyn Duke in Total Recall: Why Recall Elections are a Must, sees the solution to the unresponsiveness of our pols as one where if only those serving us were subject to recall elections. He concludes his analysis with:

"If politicians knew that breaking an election promise or stabbing good Americans in the back would result in an immediate recall effort, they’d be more likely to mind their p’s and q’s. "

Among other things I left in my comment (including a sample proof of his wrong assessment of our current electoral process) -- to which he has not replied -- is that his solution might have worked in another day when the voting rolls had not been compromised and the numbers who get their funds for existence from gub handouts had not been super-expanded by the community organizer.

Item 3:
From Reason: Cop Fired for Speaking Out Against Ticket and Arrest Quotas.

After the arrival of a new police chief in 2010, the department entered an era of ticket quotas and worse.

“When I first heard about the quotas I was appalled,” says former Auburn police officer Justin Hanners, who claims he and other cops were given directives to hassle, ticket, or arrest specific numbers of residents per shift. “I got into law enforcement to serve and protect, not be a bully.”

Hanners blew the whistle on the department’s tactics and was eventually fired for refusing to comply and keep quiet.

Maybe you think we should wait for the locals to run the police chief out of town on a rail. However, we learn that he retired (claiming medical reasons). So who hired this man? And who looked the other way as the scheme -- undoubtedly seen as a "revenue enhancer" rather than as a public safety measure -- was rammed through? Indeed, in case you think I'm alone in my conclusions below, we have this quote.

“You have a policy that encourages police to create petty crimes and ignore serious crimes, and that’s clearly the opposite of what we want our police to be doing,” [emphasis added]

I added emphasis so as to pin-point the sovietization of small town America. It's the end result of the ends justifies the means mentality of cynical pols: "Everyone is guilty of something, so what's the diff?" That attitude is precisely on the road to what Solzhenitsyn told us of the operations of the Soviet system: They were not interested in the truth. They simply want to arrest us and then not let go.

Conclusion:
When you see little things like this come to the surface, you are pretty damn sure you are witnessing merely the tips of the iceberg. So you know the sum of what you do see is surely far less than the whole. Furthermore, Item 3 provides yet another example of why Gresham's Law Applies to American Institutions. The bad elements fired the good. And on it goes unless we speak up.

I urge you dear readers to discuss these developments locally. Take note on your own of the various tips of the icebergs that you see. Not just for your own sake, but for what this Nation was meant to represent and the opportunities it was meant to provide.

Help preserve what's left.

Help restore what's lost.

He will ask you what you did not try to do. I don't know about you, but I keep looking for whatever I may have overlooked.

Countering the Undermining of Your Moral Foundations

The point of this screed is this. When you hear a popular talkshow host make a statement you know to be contrary to the views of the Right and its principles, or undermines our case that distinguishes us from the Left, speak out.  Don't let your inability to get past the call-screener stop you. Just tell as many people who are on the Right until there are many more of us who understand our need to watch our backs. We cannot be betrayed by an enemy.

One of the key foundations of Judeo-Christian morality is being able to recognize evil. And as I have constantly written here (so many times that I have a link to one near the top of my sidebar), the killing, murdering, sacrificing of children is one of the most distinct of evils recognized by this Western ethos.

I am currently battling a terrible cold while having a great many other things to do. This is but one of the reasons for my dearth of publishing.

However, while preparing coffee I turned on the radio briefly. It was Dennis Prager, a "conservative" radio talker whose niche is allegedly to keep moral issues alive and well in this overwhelming time of secular domination. Indeed, he often has many good and revealing things to contribute.

But as I warn my readers, it is very unwise to be an unwary fan of any man for his apparent wisdom. And there is abundant evidence that it is very unwise to do so with men who make their living in a medium that is constantly being monitored by licensing agents of an increasingly one-world-view government. There are some things they cannot say, and there are some untruths that they will propagate.

I heard Mr. Prager repeat one of those untruths, all the more angering to me given the latest news proving the contrary. It so angered me that I stopped what I was doing to write this down.

I hope what I tell you will be repeated widely. I know from experience that although Mr. Prager claims to allow dissident voices to his on first, that his screener will very likely find some reason not to -- such as "he's moved on from that" being one of the favorite lines.

At about 5 minutes to the end of his first hour, Mr. Prager was speaking about how easy life would be if both sides could agree what is good for society. Before he went on to mention distinct differences, he stated the following mind blowing statement. [paraphrasing as best I can since I don't have it recorded]

"Of course the Left and the Right agree that the killing of children is bad."-- Dennis Prager

I would ask Mr. Prager to square this with what his knows to be historically true, but even more so, by what is very current in the news -- or lack of it. Namely: The story of Kermit Gosnell and his "Women's Medical Society" is the precise opposite of The Preferred Narrative of the MSM. Mr. Prager is one of the first to assert that the MSM is dominated by Leftists. Yet he somehow overlooked without a moments hesitation that the MSM's determination to bury this story (as recounted at this link and many others) proves his statement to be completely untrue.

Get out there my friends. Make it clear that you and the Left are distinctly different, most especially in this issue as demonstrated in this matter.

And when you do so, you will now be prepared to be knifed in the back by the likes of Mr. Prager. When it comes you can now charge him and those like him with being an apologist for the Left. Here is your proof.

Fatherly Advice #1

"If you go around wearing a chip on your shoulder, sooner or later someone is going to knock it off. Is that what you really want or is it something else?"

Children, particularly boys, who grow up fatherless, or with fathers who don't give a damn, are often not getting good advice. And I think this may be the single most important bit of advice that can be given to young men who believe walking around looking intense or mean, menacing or macho,  is a worthwhile means for getting ahead in this world. Maybe in an uncivilized world. Maybe were an uncivil world actually what society wants.

If society is content in raising a generation of thugs, it will not encourage older men to advise young men that carrying around a chip for imagined or even real slights has a very poor return on investment.

Particularly to the ladies: Fight against the PC silencing squads. End this effeminate fear of upsetting some poor snowflake's feelings. Unleash the old goats with their stern verbal warnings. While a word from the wise may go unheeded, as sure as death it can’t be heard when society’s ninnies censure those who warn.

**UPDATE, Saturday April 21, 2011**

It may seem dumb to admit this, but it wasn't until the next day that I realized that this post was inspired by the quote of the day that I had posted a few hours earlier. (In fact, as a further consequence, "Connections" may be the title of my next post.)

The silencing of the male perspective was also an aim of the Frankfurt School. Critical Theory that exploited the tension between the sexes -- what they cynically labeled as "Feminism" -- has been used effectively to neuter far too many males, criminalize many of those who were not neutered, while the threat of being made out to be a misogynist intimidated most of the rest into silence.

If I missed any other tactical ploy against men, tell me in the comments.

No GOP Money For Media

In keeping with my position that the GOP cannot be trusted to use properly any funds I give her, I am taking the pledge to provide NO money to any candidate who will use it for media ads.

Money to the major media will allow them to survive and to go on to torment me for another generation.

The major American media are the single worst, most rotten, despicable prostitution institution in the whole world. Their influence over the American people has allowed them to divide us into minorities, and then they go on to foment hatred between those groups. Most of us know that the Trayvon Martin case is only a peek at what they are capable of fomenting.  Nobody knows which of us those liars will be painted as the next George Zimmerman. It's got to be up to us to register our displeasure in meaningful ways.

The media's aim is to stymy us with internecine warfare in order to prevent us from thwarting their shadowy* masters' take-over of this republic. That takeover would mark the true establishment of the world's most powerful empire since Rome, by far exceeding in tyranny that ancient power that was lost to its own decadence. Whether the rest of the world knows it or not, they are hoping for the American people's success in preventing that event.

It is incumbent on us to defeat this global tyranny nearing its goal. We must find a way to defeat the media first, and the SKUNCs behind our lines second.

NO MONEY FROM ME FOR KEEPING MEDIA (THE AGENCY OF LIES) ALIVE ANOTHER DAY.

--------
*shadowy? Really? Don't take my word for it; take it up with Plato in The Republic.

The Writers And Broadcasters For the SKUNCs

This was in response to a key element in Fran Porretto's first screed at his new home, Liberty's Torch, Addicted To Fear And Trembling.

Neither one of us should be surprised at the tack of a good number of the professional "Right" writers. Being the propaganda arm of the GOP "Progressives," SKUNCs, they are now more often providing us a peek of their masters' hatred for the individual, which is the masked version of what we hear from the radical Left.

I don't see how there's anything with which we on the real Right can effectively threaten these power-mad wolves in sheep's clothing. Their incrementalism seems to have succeeded in gaining control of all govt (however tenuous and inept it might be in practice). And especially since there are almost certainly nihilists near the top, theoretically willing to end it all if they can't rule it. At least that is what they want any potential rebel allies to believe.

About our only solution seems to be to divide them half as effectively as they are at dividing us (over and above what we individuals do on our own in that regard) while patching up our differences, plus a good number of us appealing for help from a higher Authority.

I have good reason to know you would like to believe that that solution is the true path. It's just that most of the time we find it to be so terribly difficult to practice.

Could Smoking Buy You Time?

I saw yet another news item over the weekend where another town council was considering banning smoking. This time it was in all the city's apartment complexes. And for all the real or imagined healthscare reasons you've grown accustomed to reading.

And I also noticed that the majority of the critics had comments that fall under the subheading of "Nanny State intrusiveness."

Now most of us know how badly the Left is infested with radical Greens and thus influenced by Malthusians.  Given such live and let die sorts at the top of the food chain, "Nanny State" sounds far too benign a label for such actions, let alone giving them a label that fits places so civilized as to have nannies.

So let's think about smoking and its effects a little bit more.

First hand smoke, on average, takes decades to actually kill a smoker (if he dies from it). All in all, it only really takes about 10 years off the average life span of all smokers.

But nowadays there's a big push for people to live healthier. Healthier hearts, lungs, kidneys, livers, etc. One might even call it a propagandizing push. Propaganda to improve the health of the population overall can't be a bad thing, right? Bwahahahahaha.

Let's simply concentrate on the smoking issue again. Think of the people who have lung ailments. If they smoked they probably now wish they hadn't. On average it's safe to say that a very large majority of people who are now suffering, and are eligible for a lung transplant, would want the lung of a recently deceased non-smoker. What sense would it make to take a lung from a preserved cadaver that smoked? Thus, the lung from a non-smoker is much more highly prized.

Now many of you have heard the rumors of how China harvests the organs from its prisoners and makes them available on the world transplant market. For some reason it is not publicized. I can't imagine why not. It's not like the rulers of China are like our Western rulers, right?

For instance, we know how open and honest our Western "progressives" are. They'd surely be open and aboveboard with the purpose behind all their machinations, right? Like climate change scientists.

Anyway, if you think about how much more a certified smoke free human lung could fetch at auction, all this effort begins to make sense. Well, in China anyway.

Surely, over there, you can forget about calling it the Nanny State — that’s far too civilized for what their “progressives” have in mind. Call it the Cannibal State.

On a side note. A little outside the box thinking might actually gain you some time. If you were a plant and wanted to make yourself look less attractive to harvesters, and had the will of a human, what might you consider -- cough -- doing?

As I Said, Sandy Fluke Was A Tool

I am very pleased to see that there are accounts in print that relate how Sandy Fluke was staging her act in front of Congress, and her subsequent outrage in the media.

 I give you Limbaugh and Our Phony Contraception Debate: A student demands that a Catholic school give up its religion to pay for her birth-control pills.

But C'mon people. It was pretty obvious from a common sense point of view that it was agitprop from the start. (Meaning it didn't require a federally funded study to figure it out). And the media's subsequent lionizing of her behavior was simply typical fare coming from the Agency of Lies (AoL). All to aid the fellow Statists in the Obama administration and Congress whittle away by one more increment your protections from government infringing on your inalienable rights -- in this case, freedom of conscience.

It's your job to continue to tell our friends and relatives in the best way you know how, how the AoL will frame every debate to direct our attention away from anything that sheds light on the various ways they wish to enslave the rest of us.