At What Cost Comity?

Our dilemma is well known and appreciated by the bastards at the top of the heap. They know because they have been active in its building.

The despot cares less that you love him provided you don't love one another.

Oh he provides alright! Money buys influence and attains power. And once attained, it then can use your money to deploy distractions and discord as the need arises. A.C.O.R.N. anyone?

But that is relatively easy where factions are naturally occurring. But what of infighting within a faction? What then? As Mark Alger reminds us:

In-fighting is invidious. Let's have a little less of it.

Knowing of the tyrant's wishes to sow discord where none exists, and to nurture it into open warfare where it does, finding agreement when we can, comity, is certainly a preferred outcome. We have a bigger fish in need of frying.

However, what about balance?

On one hand, we all know the ludicrous tale of the boy who murdered his parents and then begged mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan. On the other hand, none of us would have faulted George Washington what he was apt to do had he captured Benedict Arnold. These are easy cases. The harder ones need more care. After all, we encumber Justice with her great and omnipresent scales for good reason.

I found cause to disagree with a couple of likable fellows, Roderick Reilly and Life of The Mind, at the Belmont Club early today. They had commented favorably on a well heeled, well spoken, often diplomatic but always partisan Democrat, the late senior senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Never, never, never, revere any politician too much, because they all have feet of clay.

Moynihan said many nice sounding things which made him seem well-anchored in principle, such as his famous “Defining Deviancy Down.”

The Tax Reform Act of 1986, pushed by Reagan, was very popular, and pretty much remains so today except by the Left. As head of the Senate finance committee, Moynihan shepherded the bill through very well. Sounds like he was uniquely bipartisan and had the well-being of the country in mind right?

Well, he inserted into the tax code, at the last minute of conference committee sessions where committee chairs are rarely challenged, words written by lawyers at one company that hugely benefited that company.

That section of tax code solely targeted every engineer and programmer in the country, while costing the taxpayers more as well. That company was run by his wife’s family. Anyone who thinks he didn’t benefit directly from that is beyond hope.

And then there are those who will know or accept what I just said is true, but will be members of the apologist brigade. Their line is “So what? They all do it.”

There is the problem in a nutshell. It’s similar to those who defend RINOs when they help the GOP attain a majority (no matter how Pyrrhic a “victory” it be).

When personal gain and betrayal of principles become acceptable in any republic, even long after the fact and after so many others have followed the same path to personal gain (via passing law that restrict liberties and eradicate constitutional restrictions), how do you ever hope to regain order? You should remember your acceptance of betrayals when you later bemoan threats to your personal liberties.

Betrayal, too often dismissed, will be costly. It should have been costly to the betrayers, but instead it costs the acceptors of the betrayals and their posterity.

The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones -- Shakespeare

How especially true it is (because others watch and see no downside to perfidy) when we remember too kindly such men.

I chose to record this exchange here at my blog because it touched on a very important aspect about seeking justice when we find someone has betrayed our nation -- as did Senator Moynihan when he chose to carry his own water albeit in "expected" fashion. He knew we knew he knew better. So much more the shame to whatever good may have been a part of his legacy.

Such shame is certainly not lessened when we find someone in our own faction has been aiding and abetting the other faction a bit too much. Another reason we so distrust MSM is that it frequently bestows a glow of approval to the word bipartisan. But it is horrid to the individual who discovers -- as if burgled by a thief in the night -- that the sum total of his liberty has been diminished due in great measure to his very own representative agreeing, in the dark of some committee, to allow power-seekers to override limits on our government that had been written into our constitution for the good of all time -- solely because someone demanded that each "crisis" not be allowed to be wasted.

Bottom line? At what cost do we gain comity? Do not for a moment deny to yourself who pays.

Betrayal, too often dismissed, will be costly. It should have been costly to the wicked as justice would discern. Someone will pay. When wrong-doing is too easily (or shortsightedly) forgiven, the costs are shifted to the acceptors of the betrayals and their posterity. Indeed, that is the greater crime.

So Much to Say That Focus Suffers

Even though you've picked up the pace of your blog entries in the last two months, there are times when there is quite a bit of news and yet you don't seem to publish. Why Pascal?

I really haven't been idle these past few weeks. The thing which has troubled me is: "to whom should you address your thoughts?" I find that I'm not that far ahead of many people, and indeed sometimes lag. Thus it may be less effective if I continue to address my essays to the ordinary person. I could write with scorn directed at those who think and -- what is worse -- behave as if they are better than ordinary people. I've done that a few times already, and it is not without effective precedent. If you look at the introduction at the top of this blog, you can see that I believe we may achieve some relief by writing in that manner.

The question arises: Will anyone in higher stations notice such an affront to their self assessment? In at least one instance, I know I have pierced those who afflict us, so I know it is possible.

Here are the working titles of incomplete essays (often because Mr. OCD is not satisfied) and the dates I started on them, along with a short synopsis.

1. The "Progressive" Sneer - Aug 16 - The stage that follows brazen.
2. Repression Viewed As Progress - Aug 28 - Going over a comment I made in 2007 about the film I Am Legend that foresaw our present political state.
3. "Reactionary" -- A Reorientation - Sep 6 - Now that they own the Establishment, it is a designation that better fits "Progressives" who wish to retain their power rather than the "conservative" individual who merely wants to be left in peace.
4. Know Your Role - Sep 8 - One cannot rely on professional politicians to preserve your rights.
5. America Once Viewed Egotism As Disqualifying - Sep 9 - I suggest we need to restore humility and gratitude as a key cultural value: the meaning of Thanksgiving. Perhaps if we demanded more humility of our leaders we might actually receive better government.
   
6. The Ruling and Subject Parties - Sep 9 - The professional politicians versus the rest of us. Betrayal is too often dismissed when it should be costly. This involves reviewing and reworking one of my very oldest analyses of political reality in order to understand what it is that is fighting us.
   
7. What Convinced You That the Death Cults Were Going Mainstream? - Sep 9 - Reviewing the earliest months of GWBush's presidency.
   

In many ways, each of these topics overlap many others, some not listed above; individual ragged-edged pieces of an immense jigsaw puzzle. If anyone gives a damn what my opinion is on one or more of these subjects, please leave a comment or contact me by email. Maybe you will help me focus on what is most important -- at least in your opinion.

"This is MY Townhall Meeting"

More evidence of shamelessness, although somewhat less brazen given this Congressman's closing lines.



To his constituents attending the meeting:

"This is my town hall meeting for you. You are not going to tell me how to run my congressional office. The reason I don't allow filming, because usually the films that are done end up on You Tube in a compromising position."

Compromising position congressman? Damn, facts sure are stubborn things; wouldn't want any hard evidence of them now, would we?

This is not the language of a public servant with very much humility. This sounds more like a member of a ruling class.

Apologize to your children: "America never had a ruling class before. I am very sorry that I allowed one to spring up during my generation. Please forgive me."

Hat tip to DrewM

Dinged By Webdings

A couple of days ago I published this entry. Somehow, possibly because I had added ♫ to the video screen subheading, the Blogger editor invoked webdings font into its style designation -- automatically. I did not know that this had happened because my version of firefox does not respond to such font designations. I suspect many other firefox users have a similar non-response.

But if you use IE, you saw half a page of gibberish instead of this ^♪♫ Cuz they're power hungry and malicious. ^♫♪ Where letters should have been, Webdings sprawled unintelligibly across the page under the video screen instead. The "Progressives," whose behavior I was declaiming, could not have been more pleased. (IE is a product of Bill Gates --- hmmmm.)

Anyway, thanks to the concerns of helpful readers who use IE (I don't normally), it has since been fixed. Thank you very much.

I hope you all have seen it. Tim Hawkins' The Government Can is humorous and dazzling.

More Brazen

Here is more evidence of what I say is true.

I keep telling you folks to reveal these things to other folks: the "Progressives" facade has moved on to the brazen stage. This sample I've presented today reveals more than simple hypocrisy.

In order to get them to do their classic "two steps forward, one step back" dance, you must be the one to apply pressure, cuz Minitru ain't gonna do it unless the particular hack is out of favor with the higher ups.

Where you don't get them to back off, they move on. You will not like their next stage.

• Do you think you'll have the nerve to fight back then?
  
• Are you absolutely sure you'll still be able?

The Government Can

^♪♫ Cuz they're power hungry* and malicious. ^♫♪

Hat tip to Ace.

*As I've labored for ages to convince the gullible (as only the government accredited skooled can be), this has always been what drives the "Progressives." Their drive is so insatiable that, left unchecked, it must lead to deaths in such massive number that most decent individuals are unwilling to believe such megalomania exists.

Our Hollowed Institutions

What used to be hallowed are now so hollowed out that cynics and fear mongers spend real money to make appeals to our sense of loss and betrayal.



The segment I found most startling was when he sticks his head through the "glass" facade and sees the vast emptiness behind. I felt a touch of Neo's nausea when he found out the truth about The Matrix.

Don't you wish that this ad was to alert you to a new, basic American values, political party?

Yeah. Me too!

I've Not Yet Begun To Fight

You may recall these scenes from the video I highlighted last October.





















Well, this morning I found this on the web to signify that my wished for Turnabout has not yet turned about.




I have friends and relatives represented amongst the Obamacized lemmings above (some may call them Eloi given the industry that has sprung up for spare human parts).

I have not yet begun to fight.

How about you? Maybe you can start small, as in this sticker, bumper or not, discovered and promoted by Og last night:

Desperation Exploited

Seen on the web:

RINOs will never come to their senses; they are the most disingenuous liberals there are. They’re not even honest enough to call themselves Democrats.

Sarah Palin has enormous appeal to the American mainstream, and the MSM fools that sought to marginalize her defeated themselves by giving her so much press. Now the people know who they can count on. She speaks the honest, unassuming language of truth.

The set up is text book Orwell.
Suckers will respond to what they want to hear and the statists knows what that is, and the Ministry of Truth will give it to them. I was the first -- in early September last year -- to predict that a Palin Derangement Syndrome would top Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Persecution of her has been deliberately ginned up to play conservatives, gallant by nature and values, for suckers. There are enough Christians among them to have read or heard the teaching, "You will know them by their fruits," But that thought will be only momentary. The unfairness and intensity of the hate campaign against Palin overrules our judgment over some of her liberal stances, such as social policies and environmental views.

Yes she SPEAKS truths we all want to hear from national politicians. I for one have longed for someone to address the misanthropes, and so should have welcomed her speaking of Death Panels. But there has to be more than just speaking of things I want to hear spoken of. Her inclinations to accept AGW hogwash is inconsistent with fighting negative population growth (death seeking) policies. That is one big inconsistency!

The same game was played to force conservatives to defend W. We spent so much time fighting completely crazy charges against him, that those things he did do, of which conservatives disapproved, appeared minor in comparison. And there were no end of RINO influenced conservatives who lumped in with crazy Democratic critics all of us who legitimately criticized W's socialist policies. We wound up fighting amongst ourselves, and W successfully put Dem favorable policies in place.

In short, the stupid charges essentially overwhelmed the meaningful ones. And Statism continues to advance and tighten its grip.

Stop being so desperate to hear a leader who says things that your opponents know you want to hear. They can arrange to elevate their own opposition. W was never the opponent we needed against Democratic domestic gains and corruption. I sorely suspect Palin would not be either.

This Statist ploy to exploit conservative decency and hopes tires me so.
I wish I could convince many more of my fellow Americans to tire of it too. We need to fight the meaningful battles and find champions not of our opponents' choosing. I will never forget that McCain chose Palin, and then Dems and RINOs and even McCain forced us to defend her.

Small Fuses Ignite Big Bombs

The following interchange in the comment stream to an Andrew Klavan commentary published at Pajama's Media may serve as good soundbites in the fight against the Obama Health Plan.

Them: but, regardless, the [end of life] counseling part of the bills that lead to the death panel stuff, are an inconsequential part of the bills as i read them....

You: The bigger the bomb, the more inconsequential seems the fuse.

Them: ...what if congress just dropped [the death panels]? How would you feel about the proposed reforms then?

You: After finding and diffusing one mine, better to avoid a proven minefield entirely.

Advice to You who are fighting the ObamaCare proposals that Congress will try to ram down your throats in the coming weeks: Repeat these bold answers in your own words every time you find the chance.

Remember

Remember the motto of the "Progressives" power-mad Statists:

The only thing truly progressive is the next trick that gains us another notch of power. -- Saul Alinsky

Remember: Be it from stated aims or historical results, Malthusians and Marxists are nothing short of misanthropic death cultists in "social" moralist disguise.

Remember: Advancing both movements is the progress of which "Progressives" wannabe tyrants speak.

Remember: Post-modern is "Progressive" repressive-speak for the future. Why would the future need a new word? It signals their pre-modern intentions for YOUR posterity.

"Progressives" in power will morph to Repressives. In fact they are revealing their repressive streak even as I write this by trying to ram their "health" plan down your throats. They will point to your graves and sneeringly laugh at your remainder in chains and say "Blame them! We gave them fair warning."

Remember. Posterity will.

You're Not Surprised 2

The last time you were not surprised, I casually compared Obama's self-important "We are God's partners in matters of Life and Death" to that of Nimrod of the Bible. Since then I've had the delight to be enlightened, supplemented and reinforced a number of times about my observation. The following is a digest of all of it.

The bulk of this came from Og (and his best line has the link).

Nimrod’s error may best be described this way: “He was a great hunter. As his stature grew to where he claimed the power of death over all of God’s creation, so too did his impression that he was godlike himself. (Not realizing it was the ability to endow LIFE, and not DEATH, that made one a God).”

The following is lifted entirely from commenter ahad ha'amoratsim at Klavan's blog:

In Jewish tradition, Nimrod was called a mighty hunter (the Hebrew actually translates more accurately as “trapper”) because he trapped men with his smooth talk and manipulated them with words into making him absolute ruler over them. Nimrod in Jewish tradition is also the one who threw the youth Abraham into a furnace for destroying Terach’s idols.

Hmm, hubris, glib, talks people into giving him unchecked power despite his being no more fit for it than they are — good pick[cf. for Obama]! [emphasis added]

You see? Nimrod in his hubris assessed that he and God should be able to speak eye-to-eye, as equals do. He convinced his people to help him build the great Tower. You may know how that turned out.

The sort of foolishness that reaches so high has forever been associated with Nimrod, and babbling nonsense has forever been associated with mankind whenever it follows men such as he.
The last observation come from a Dicentra left at the Protein Wisdom Pub.

In other words, Obama is a Nimrod.

I can get used to that.

LOL I swear, I hadn't thought of that old schoolyard taunt when I made the connection initially. But given that the dictionary says nimrod means fool, I guess now that we know the etymology of the word, we can tell the difference from a mindless slur and factual application.

Given the nature of the man and the nature of the people who adore him: WOW!

I swear, I am not that good a wordsmith, I stumbled upon this vision, and I doubt I could have done it alone.
I have many friends to thank, and if I missed anyone, please let me know -- or quick, go and hide!

*********Update***********

Sdferr's image of Obama doing his Nimrod imitation.

Boomer-Geezers: Still Laughing?

In case you never got the significance of the incidental dialogue at the end, maybe today you will.

Two well dressed travelers skip on past the ghastly crew.





Who was that?
I don't know.
Must be a king.
Why?
Hasn't got shit all over him.

Ain't that always the way when kings reign over us? In the UK it's called N.I.C.E.

Synopsis of Pascal Fervor

 Last updated:  March 19, 2011

What I mean by Pascal Fervor is suggested at the top of my sidebar. Blaise Pascal disliked those who destroyed things and especially people he thought good. These destroyers so aroused his ire that he dedicated his genius to defeating them. I, your humble commentator, call that sort of dedication "Pascal Fervor." I've tried to take clues from Pascal so as to move somewhat in the manner he did. However, lacking his genius and position of  influence, my efforts to overturn those forces that would destroy the American Dream may not be anywhere near so successful.  As a result, I sometimes call myself Pascal (the derivative.) That is, I have endeavored simply to move in the direction to which he was pointing.

The inclination of Blaise Pascal operating on a fixed moral plane.

This page was composed to inform you what this blog has concentrated upon most. If you'd like to help me in my battles, I provide a simple start at Irrationality Topples Kings.

What troubles me about our contemporary world is no secret. I've written about it repeatedly here and on my old website. Nearly every institutional policy and event that leaves us shaking our heads and thinking "I don't understand" may be explained by it to some extent. We tend to think of ourselves as so very advanced, but we humans are falling prey to the same sirens that have trapped us and killed us since antiquity.

The single most debilitating thought in our world is not often spoken, but I see it underlying everything today.

S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y.

Sustainability is the arch concern of "very important" people who are acting on behalf of the fear -- but disguised as prudence by invoking the high sounding "Precautionary Principle" -- that there are too many people on earth. It forms the foundation for what I call their new morality. Unceremoniously, incrementally, they have been superseding the Judeo-Christian morality that is core to the culture that created the United States.
It means that a minimum number of people aim to maximize human decline with a minimum of fuss. To reduce the fuss, old wounds and feuds and prejudices and covetousness have been rejuvenated. We will be permitted to reduce ourselves. This blog remarks on the numerous instances where the evidence for this shows itself.

That is the short explanation of what is going on. I bet it's not enough for most "advanced" people. So, should you think you may need it, I've more.

————————————

What I am trying to do is pass along to you in this blog are observations driven by intuitive inquiry and conclusions reached by means of analytical skills I use as an engineer. Reading them may help you protect your life. Any difficulties you have in understanding me may not only be because I can be too esoteric (obscure) or too concise (insufficient details), but also because writing is a skill that I'm still developing and not easily.  If you're unsure of anything, please don't be embarrassed for me or for yourself. Be inquisitive and ask me for more details. I will attempt to answer.

It is my hope that many of you can simplify what I am saying to reach many more people than I could ever hope to do. That is the only way I know to maximize my impact -- to rely on decent people to get my warnings out to those they care about and build blocs to block the machinations of those who would eliminate all unselected individuals.

————————————

Those who find themselves in positions of power and influence tend to be pessimists. Why that is I have done a bit more than speculate on my own and other sites. But why is not nearly as important to you, the individual, as first recognizing that the pessimism is there, in horrifying amounts, and then comprehending where all that angst is leading.

I find it logical and significant that Malthusianism which preceded Marxism came into being at roughly the same time that mankind achieved unprecedented liberty and then quickly gained the ability to thrive as never before. I also find it compelling to note that both deadly ideologies -- one from the start, the other proven to be -- have been and are heavily fostered and accepted by the highly positioned and/or the well-to-do who have self-styled themselves as Progressives."

The furtherance of these ideas has become such accepted thinking in the splendid halls of "intelligentsia," that any who dare utter an optimistic word -- such as those who believe in a God who has promised to always provide -- are shouted down, marginalized, and persecuted.

And generic hatred of mankind other than oneself -- misanthropy-- underlies it all. I've witnessed it as have nearly everyone who is reading this blog when you bumped elbows with them. It is that sense of dread and loathing oozed by some in the upper classes for the "repulsive" middle class that ever strives upward to join them.

Malthusianism lent to the hatred a sense of morality ("we only wish to reduce human numbers so a better man may live on and well").
Marxism lent to it the notion that what is bad for individuals (take from the earner and given it to the one who whines) was in the best interests of the collective and thereby "socially just."

The Marxist/Socialist/Collectivist is a world where brotherly morality has been turned upside down (promote envy of and legalize theft from an owner so the getter needs not steal) is good.

Conclusively, be it from stated aims or historical results, Malthusians and Marxists are nothing short of misanthropic death cultists in "social" moralist disguise.

You're Not Surprised

"We are God's partners in matters of life and death." -- B.Obama

Is that the royal or divine "we" Barack?*
Please show us G_d's signature on your partnership papers Barry.



Readers of this blog and of the archives of PascalFervor.com cannot be surprised by this declaration.

Hear the words of Nimrod in that line folks. Can We's Tower of Babel be far off?

Oh, by the way "partner": you cannot CREATE life. All you can do is intrude your hand in matters related to death. Your pride is showing.

********** UPDATED HERE *************

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The same people who oohed and ahhed at Obama's "oratory skills that exceed Lincoln's" will be the first ones who'll deny he implied any blasphemy here. Great orators are always aware of the ambiguities of speech, and will include them or omit them at their leisure. Obama's sycophants will be disingenuous when they apologize for him, and he'll be worse than disingenuous for letting them.

Red-Herring Newsbites

What prompted my preceding blog entry The Great Karnak Sees: "Network News Readers" was an email I'd received that began:

Is this the health care bill (not a bill yet but only a proposal) that everyone is discussing? [emphasis added]

I know where my correspondent got that errant and inane phrase I highlighted. He heard it on the news somewhere. It is part of the DNC talking points that the news media parrots and, in turn, gets repeated by people who still trust professional news readers.

In an effort to take the heat off of them, the Democrats have been attempting to pass off the notion that "there is no final health care bill, so what's all the fuss?"

I had to remind my correspondent that HR3200, like all bills introduced in the House of Representatives, are proposed laws. They must pass a vote in the House, another in the Senate, get signed by the president, then go through conference committee where differences between the House and Senate versions are ironed out, and where committee chairmen exercise the privilege of introducing 11th hour additions, and then they go back to the houses for a final vote and then final signing by the president. If at any time the proposal fails to receive a signature or enough votes, it becomes a failed bill.

But it is still a bill, failed or not, until it becomes law.

I had to remind my correspondent that DNC chairman Howard Dean is running around on TV in attempt to stifle criticism by borrowing from Al Gore the arrogant line: "The debate is over!"

I also had to remind my correspondent that this "not a bill" is the very same "proposal" that Nancy Pelosi tried to strong-arm House Democrats into passing before the August recess (where constituents could attempt to see and influence their congressional representatives as representatives are supposed to do).

In my experienced opinion, that soundbite was a cynical effort on the part of the bill's sponsors to get citizens to argue about what the bill is rather than what is in it. The more time spent on what it is -- a simple notion really, and so sure to occupy OCD minds such as my own -- the less time available to look at and discuss the details in the bill. And as we all know, the devil is in the details.

Well, thankfully, I got back the following response:

You are right it is a bill…as I remember is not a law…yet.

But what irks me so much is that my correspondent still trusts the news media (who misled him on that) to tell him all he needs to know.

I have watched the news; saw videos of town hall meetings. What I saw was a lot of people not letting anyone answer questions, it is disgusting.

He wants me to read HR3200 and show him in black and white "the issues you are talking about." I have long intended to do that, but I also know that he is predisposed to listen to the "professionals" he sees on TV. I know, no matter how well he knows me and trusts me, he'll be biased towards all the nonsense -- like this red-herring notion that a bill is not a bill but only a proposal.

Help me dear readers.
God help me.

Jeopardy Answer: "Network News Readers"

Who personify some of the worst blond-jokes not yet uttered?

I've not yet come up with the category I'd put this in. It's not far off.

-----------------
Or maybe I should republish this under the title The Great Karnak Answers: "Network News Readers"
[tears open envelope and reads:] Who personify some of the worst blond-jokes not yet uttered?

Heroes or Suckers?

Would you rather be a hero to your family, friends and country or a sucker?
Well, it is certainty that our social engineers still treat us as suckers.

What got me fired up this morning was when I read this story suggesting that the WH will drop the option. That's the "government option" many fear is the Trojan Horse designed to lead to a single payer (taxpayers) by killing off private health plans. That's the health plans that polls say 85% of Americans are satisfied with.

The bottom line of the story: the White House is about to offer us all a compromise.

Red Alert. Red Alert!

Many years ago I wrote of how social engineering works: Here is an summary of a key point made there that is germane to this discussion:

Why use extremes of differences rather than less extreme ones? Because, as we know from other forms of engineering, the greater the polarity the easier to overcome resistance.

They who wish to drive social change to their advantage see well the potential in entertaining extreme differences so that they may achieve smaller ones (theirs) along the way.

1. How this game works is that the players have placed what they want in the path of the extremists.
2. Extremists are counted on to make demands on the rest of society that certainly will be met with resistance.
3. The game player's front men then step forward to offer "a compromise" to the wishes of the extremists that the resisters will accept.

This is why the idea of backing extremists is such a delightfully subtle tool of social engineers. If an extremist does not already exist where needed, they will manufacture a crisis to make sure one will materialize.

And now we have a health care crisis smack-dab in the middle of an economic meltdown primarily held together by the spit of the termites who hollowed out our institutions. Our economic system is in danger of collapsing at any moment, and the chief agents who aided that looting (government led or government regulated institutions) are the same whom we are being threatened with to take over that which we seek when our very lives are threatened by health issues.

"Nuh-uh!" we cry. And right on cue we are offered a "compromise."


Do you now understand how social engineers manipulate factions and fears? This health care "crisis" bears all the earmarks for political paybacks of social engineers.

We are suckers to accept ANY compromise at this time. The fight must continue even as the RINOs whom we would be foolish to believe are our watchdogs on this are preparing to accept any offer made by the WH.

Again, do not waste what ground you have gained by letting up now: Don't buy any of the "snake oil" being peddled from D.C.

Post-Altruism

Post-Altruistic would be the most accurate title of our new age should the "Progressives" succeed. Of course, the Ministry of Truth would never permit to be broadly spoken such a mockery of what it is they tell us they are doing for us. So I'm posting this title now before it and your author can be officially denounced.

The "Progressive" agenda has been pretty much laid bare for all to see.
Our Leftist/Marxist crazies are rapidly deploying in response to the orchestrated acquiescence of our Rightist/statist schemers who helped install Obama.
Any who are still deluded are about to learn that altruism has always been eyewash for the masses. The Progressives have only claimed that altruism was their aim.

The least useful of the well-to-do have always loathed the working class simply because a worker bee so demonstrates how shallow are the drones. Our human drones simply cannot abide the implied insult.

Pretty simple really. No matter how high on the food chain a human rises, if he knows he has no really good traits to call his own he will despise all who do.

So forget all that phony baloney that the Progressives mean well. Post-altruism deigns how we'll be treated as we blithely permit the Post-modern Luddites to condemn our descendants to the life of premoderns.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A regular reader of my material suggested this title. He said he was inspired to it by the Progressive's progression I laid out here.

Watch Dog By Default

Sherlock Holmes solved the mystery because, when the crime was committed, the dogs who were there didn't bark. Watchdogs never bark at their masters.

I like noisy dogs who bark at anything passing by my house. Their pitch and duration will vary as their state of distress varies. But should my dogs become unusually quiet when some creep steals up and takes my life, the first persons I want you all to suspect are any people who have worked with my dogs.

-------------------------------------
[Note, this was initially written July 21, 2009, but published Aug 14.]

I received an email last week from Republican Congressman John Boehner, asking me for money to help him fight the health care bill up before Congress. I think stopping this government health care bill is very important. However, in the text of the email were listed four reasons that Boehner gave for stopping it.

Whenever you hear Democrats talk about their plan, keep these four facts in mind:

• [Health care will be readily available to those whom government favors. ]
• Health care costs will skyrocket. Make no mistake, a complex government-run system will send costs soaring even higher and Washington will have to keep raising taxes and rationing care to keep up.
• Millions of jobs will be lost. Democrats want to impose a massive small business tax and crippling penalties that will force small businesses to shed jobs or close their doors.
• It will be expensive. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) pegs the cost at more than $1 trillion. Remember, we're already running a trillion-dollar deficit this year alone.
• Millions of Americans will be kicked out of their current coverage. The CBO also estimates that roughly 23 million Americans would lose their private coverage. Not only that, USA Today says that after burying our country even deeper in debt, "15 million to 20 million would remain uninsured" under the Democratic plan. That's more proof that a government takeover of health care is not the answer.

Democrats are acting hastily on this monstrosity so the American people won't have time to examine it

"Hey Pascal," you note, "those are five items, not four."

You are correct dear reader.

But let me ask you something. Which of the things in that list of five items do you think might be the one that is most threatening to you? Of most interest to you?

I hope you recognize that the first item presents the gravest danger. Yet somehow the Republicans in Congress -- the organized opponents to the health care plan -- have actually left that critical item off that list.

That's right, I added it; at the top where it belongs. Yes, that item that I added to Boehner's list is part of the health care bill. So whose watchdogs are Boehner and the Republicans?

Nevermind that for now. Because if you're a Republican voter, it's easy to see that you might have some problems due to the first item on the list.

From the get-go, you don't like much of bureaucratic government. So it's a pretty bad bet to figure the health care bureaucrat who decides who is eligible for treatments will like you.

So why aren't your dogs barking at that one? Maybe these Republican dogs are not yours?

If you're a Democratic voter, that's almost as easy too. Why aren't your dogs barking about this fact missing from the list? Is it possible they fear it may dawn upon you that maybe, next year or the year after, that they could feel they no longer need you? That they no longer like you?

If you're an Independent, that's even easier. Isn't this lack of barking about important issues -- such as your life -- one of the reasons you can't stand being linked to either party?


Bottom line, Doctor Watson: Should ever your dogs not bark when you discover someone has been sneaking up and threatening to take your life, I hope it's not too late to get new dogs.

==========================================

The following conversation triggered this long overdue post:

Q: "What solutions do you have for our health care problems?"

PF: "I do not have a solution to the various problems that are highlighted in the current political drive, but I do see dangers. Raising the alarm to dangers seemed to have fallen to voices such as myself."

Q: "If all you have to offer are complaints rather than solutions, are you not part of the problem?"

PF: "Whoa. Those who want to exploit the situation (a situation they and their backers helped create) don't want criticism. That charge, repetitively aimed at watchdogs such as myself, is designed to get you not to think about the substance of the alarms we raise by declaring that pointing out crookedness adds to the problem."

Q: "Why don't you write your Congressman?"

PF: "My Congressman is a handsome Hispanic who long ago got the backing of the radical Left in Los Angeles. His seat is secure so long as he remains reliably theirs."

Q: "What can you do?"

PF: "Continue doing what I am doing. Just as there was no real opposition to the creation of the crisis -- either in alleviating the real aspects that you see, nor exposing the hyperbole that makes passage seem mandatory -- there is no real opposition to those seeking power over all our lives under ØbamaCare.

I see that Congressmen who mounted the opposition to ØbamaCare don't point out the worst items in it, it worries me as it should you. Because you may still have a Congressman who does listen to you and your neighbors, I figure that you will have a better chance at making a difference. But that can happen only if I tell you what I've spotted so that you may evaluate the evidence."

I am watchdog by default because, as that email from the Republican leadership demonstrates, what many believe are their watchdogs are way too silent. I don't think it is wise to wait for my suspicions to be confirmed. "Our watchdogs" may very well be lapdogs of some very bad men.

Post-Benign Despots

What is with you guys at the top of the food chain? Are there none of you left who still have a shred of noblesse oblige remaining in your sense of self?

As it becomes increasingly unlikely that my kids or grand kids were or will be told this in the schools you have decimated, I am going to write it down for the record.

In my earliest school years, maybe fourth grade, I recall being told of why the founders of this country created the form of government they did. They understood implicitly not only that power corrupts, but that the corruptible are apt to seek power.

It goes something like this.

They looked at all of history and saw bloody tyrants far worse than the one they had been fighting, and cringed. Even the few benign despots were dismaying examples because of how shortly such rule lasted, for the most benign were frequently succeeded or replaced by tyrants. In all instances, there was corruption awaiting its opportunity to begin or increase.

The founders attempted to minimize the effects of the corruptible attaining power, so they sought to institute a non-violent method for the transfer of power. And not simply generation to generation, but from limited periods of time to the next.

Hence they created a republic. But not a republic of men; a republic with a constitution describing a limited number of positive duties and containing a list of powers that were proscribed: a constitutional republic.

From the very beginning there were men who carried on intrigues to garner power for themselves and their backers. Despite our founders best efforts, despite the checks and balances they built into this greatest republic that ever existed because it allowed the mind of man to flourish, you (and a few other misanthropic sociopaths who gamed the system now and before your time) have successfully schemed, finally, to negate it.

How do you illegitimates live with yourself?

More importantly, you realize that judgment day is coming, and your Judge will not be impressed. What profit you to gain the whole world yet lose your immortal soul? Even in a universe where you may be convinced that God does not exist, no matter how high you rise in your own estimation, you will have marked yourself forever as the scum of the earth.

The Elimination of Man

When C. S. Lewis wrote The Abolition of Man, it was the 1940s. The Allies were fighting the Axis, and nobody in England, Lewis' home, knew how much time they had left. And still he had to write this book ever so carefully, because he was teaching at a university infested with Fabians.

For while Hitler exterminated decent folks who weren't of his master race, the Fabians endorsed a less violent and less nationalistic stance, but similar result. That is because many in the privileged classes subtly endorsed the same bleak agenda for the lesser members of their societies whom they feared or loathed. Indeed, many of them admired Stalin who had applied just such an agenda to the Kulaks about ten years before Hitler started on Jews and others deemed unworthy of breath.

And all these illustrious thinkers found solace in the "morality" of Malthusian "science."

Anyway, the destruction of Britain's best cultural values that led to that nation's current malaise, was what Lewis attempted to warn his countrymen, apparently falling on deaf ears. It should be increasingly clear that American culture was attacked by the same kind of thinkers and for the same reasons.

Many acquaintances who've thought I was overly pessimistic (among the more polite criticisms) with my earlier warnings of radical human depopulation programs are paying a bit more attention. Long ago I decided I was willing to chance displeasure and marginalization because I saw what was happening in Europe and knew our American intelligentsia favored all such things European. Whereas C. S. Lewis' warning failed to move men to resist proved that subtle rhetoric simply will not save mankind from those who will play God if they are not openly resisted.

There are many pieces to the puzzle that are coming together at this time.

• The destruction of American business and finances suggests that the "termites" are leaving before the institutions they looted collapse entirely.
  
• That a candidate for the supreme court who can't see a right to self defense (though that would once have been too much all alone) is confirmed despite a cloud of other issues that would have prevented earlier presidents from even thinking of their nomination.
  
• That laws which are supposed to apply to all equally are increasingly applied only to those without the right connections or favor.
  
• That the watchdogs many Americans once counted on not only have gone silent, but are apt to turn on and snap at their masters. (Remember when Bush and McCain labeled "racist" all those who wanted the borders closed?)
  
• And now we have a health care plan whose chief proponent Zeke Emanuel said he favored rationing based on "usefulness," and chief science adviser John Holdren favors eugenics, while the AARP denies that there is anything to worry about; implying that these men have nothing to answer for? Or that an American President would allow people with such views even to deliver donuts to the White House, let alone be major staff members?

Above all, it's the silence by what we have considered mainstream politicians and institutions. They have been guilty of letting slide these policy-maker's views. Not merely odd views, but views that constitute major breaks with what has been traditional American concerns for the sanctity of human life. That should raise alarms with every American who respects innocent human life.

Hence I went one step further than Lewis in titling this essay. Those who seem determined to force this new "health care" plan on all Americans will succeed if Americans let our rulers politicians continue to hide what they really aim to do to your life.

W/E 08Aug09- Curmudgeonly summary

The typical Gentle Reader of Eternity Road also reads widely of other sources. Therefore, he cannot help being aware of the numerous outbreaks of leftist thuggery at "town hall meetings" nationwide. He also can't help being aware that the Obamunists are characterizing these incidents as "violence by right-wing extremists:" a classic case of turnspeak.

Your Curmudgeon suspects that Obama's proposed "Civilian Community Service Corps" is aimed in this direction. After all, he's already made it plain that he wants no more backtalk. Of course, his Web minions are already striving to shout down anti-social-fascist sentiments. Plainly, The Won and his henchmen fear that their mainchance strategy for achieving permanent totalitarian control of the United States is foundering before the opposition of the suddenly energized electorate. And of course, just collecting the names, addresses, and sentiments of the most vocal opponents won't, in the end, be enough: they'll need to be "dealt with."

It's time to prepare for the worst.

The preceding is something I felt was important in and of itself. It is an extract of the lead in for what could be, for you, a very important series: Heirs Of Patrick Henry, Part 1: Preparations.

Bill’s Bing L Ling E Lee

Given this story, and Neanderpundit's brilliant common man's view of things, I thought my readers would appreciate what I felt was the best headline that our Ministry of Truth would never print.

Provisions, Madmen, and History

The most important word here is Provided.

Focus: provide; providing; provisions.
Assignment number 1:
Gather news stories that demonstrate how those seeking power have provided there be aggravation of the many divisions and distinctions amongst American individuals, their intended targets subjects.
Recent example, from a White House web page:

" If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

Gee, Do you think reporting comments you received from your relatives, friends, and neighbors could cause friction amongst us little guys? Where have we seen this before?

The most important phrases here are grown suddenly great and borrow from the madman.

Focus: grown suddenly great.
Assignment number 2:
This virtually writes itself. But delineate the man's rise from obscurity to the most powerful seat on the face of the earth in under five years.

Focus: borrow, borrowing, borrowed from madmen.
Assignment number 3:
Gather historical evidence of the various schemes, announcements, pronouncements, denouncements and fellow travelers of past seekers of deification and parallel them to the current incarnation.


Dear Readers, these assignments are yours if you choose to do them. I urge you to accept them. Better: sub-assign parts to friends so that each of you will remember something in great detail. Combined you all add to the significance of each other's recall. It will provide you a bloc with credibility somewhat akin to the various "living books" in Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, only it will not be fiction. Your bloc will feel more secure and empowered to speak out.

Accept these research assignments while you still are able. Because tomorrow even your mother may turn you in for maybe thinking them should you fail to act on behalf of your future today.

Focus: REMEMBER OR CONDEMNED

God grant us the courage to face and strength to repel the horrors to come.

Screeching for Mercy Whilst Your Murderers Giggle

Hat tip to Og for linking to the Velociman find.





The otherwise well-running Volvo starts to screech at just under 1 minute. Don't you just "love" the way these ObamaCare demolition workers jeer her in her death throes? "It's trying" at 1:04. At about 1:15 she makes a human like whine and another guy giggles.

Go on and listen to the rest, you heartless ghouls. I'm sure the sound of that poor Volvo enthralls you as you hear in her the echoes of the screams of millions of babies snuffed in the womb.

How can I make the rest of you not-yet-heartless idiots understand?

The Bosses -- those who hire others who love destruction for the sake of destruction -- are flirting with the limits. No, not that they are blurring the differences between Right and Left. They long ago achieved that. Liberals who denounce speech; Conservatives who outspend drunken sailors. They are now deliberately blurring the distinction between right and wrong.

Taking perfectly working machines and destroying them so that nobody can ever make use of them again is simply EVIL. No, it's not the same as taking human life, but what makes you think that they who command such destruction see any difference? You are FOOLS to believe for a moment that they see a distinction.

You morons better screech now while you still have time and liberty.

For, mark these words:
The time is not long off when our elected leaders rulers morph those demolition workers into ØCare workers.

To your cries, those attending to your demise will giggle too.

"Mercy? Hehehehehe…."

God grant us the courage to face and strength to repel the horrors to come.

Perspective

The Photo

The Story

Credits to Roscoe Karns publishing at FreeRepublic.com

Sotomayor: Witless for Your Life

"I'm trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can't think of one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one." -- Sonia Sotomayor in Senate confirmation hearings.

Well, she was wrong; no doubt remains.

Since her testimony, fourteen separate cases wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the right to self defense is a natural right (not a right granted by any government) were revealed by author Alan Korwin. So that you may be fully informed, here is the article.

Well, no matter. It seems that the U.S. Senate is on track tomorrow to elevate to the Supreme Court this jurist who thought -- poorly as you now know -- that your right to self defense does not exist unless the Supreme Court rules accordingly.

That she was witless as to your right to defend your own life is now proven. In light of this evidence, it should send more than chills down your spine that a majority of your representatives in the Senate of this once great innocent life-defending nation tomorrow will prove to be deliberately witless for your life.

On the other hand, can anyone be deliberately witless? Or is that the sneeringly thin disguise of fifty plus evil human beings?

Rip Van GOP

I don't know if there are any good Democrats, but I do know there are some bad Republicans.

Crass

First, there is the good.

Stewart Cink birdied the 18th hole and a few minutes later Tom Watson bogied it for a two stroke swing. Result: a tie at end of regulation play.

This forced a four hole playoff that Cink won. And he was classy in his win and his salute to Watson. However bittersweet was the win for Cink and us, it was a great day in that God destined there be a champion with class.

Tom said he regretted that he didn't offer Stewart more of a challenge in the playoff. He had lost whatever had allowed him to stay in the lead for four days of regulation play. Badly. Tom lost a four hole playoff by six strokes. Clearly, that was not characteristic of his play during all the rest of the tourney. It is my guess that his miss on 18 was simply more deflating than many will ever experience themselves. So he lost the playoff.

Clearly, Watson lost the tourney before the playoff. When he blew that last 8 foot putt for par that would have earned him the clean win, the old man may have been physically and mentally tired to putt well one more time.

There have been and will be no few commentators who will say he choked. And maybe he did. But, so what?

This is what.

What prompted me most to publish this update to Class of yesterday was a quip today by one of the ABC sportscasters.

He said "Tom Watson's deal with the devil lasted up to the last 30 minutes."

He may claim he was joking with a lame allusion to the old musical, Damn Yankees; but I have my doubts that more than 2% of the audience would get it. I'm not buying that it was anything but an attempt to kick Watson for his blowing it all on one last shot. Because it is exactly the sort of thing I expected.

As I predicted yesterday, "TV rarely gives us a chance to witness [class] without it self-consciously trying to tarnish the champion." Sad how predictably rotten TV has become, is it not?

How much more tarnishing could they have been had Watson won?

The best observation by the sportscasters followed right on the heels of Mr. jackass above:

"Had Tom Watson won this it would not have changed his life. But for Stewart Cink, it is a big event."

The people who currently are TVs lifeblood, its sponsors, may still allow the employment of broadcasters who understand common human decency and its desire to applaud efforts well done. What your humble commentator finds troubling is that foolish men, such as the first commentator, are more apt to find a welcome spot on national television in future.

Why? Our elitists believe that jackasses serve as perfect examples for how they view the rest of us.

The jackass who thought it cute to suggest that the devil had double-crossed Tom Watson today was certainly crass. The fact that the jackass was put in that job and will probably remain there is pretty much an indication of a much deeper problem.

Those at the top of our entertainment and news chain -- the moneyed backers -- are the crassest of all.

Class

Tom Watson, at the end of the third day of the British Open, holds the tourney lead by one stroke.

It is said that golf is the classiest game. Despite that being merely an opinion of a highly subjective quality, it's an assertion that hardly ever gets contradicted. Certainly those who govern its rules and professional tours work hard to build class in its players. But like so many activities in which man engages, men tend to meet the challenge with differing degrees of success.

I do not play golf anymore. I haven't for over twenty years. Maybe my lack of talent for playing golf says that I am lacking something more than merely playing skills.

Still, I know class when I see it. And I like seeing it. So I appreciate watching golf even though I don't play because it provides me an opportunity to witness more of that quality.

In my opinion, as I stated yesterday, Tom Watson is one of the classiest players of the classiest game. Win or place tomorrow, I do not expect Mr. Watson to let me down.

So listen up people. (At least yee few who regularly stop by here.) Whether or not you give a damn about any game or no games at all, I think you may fully enjoy catching a rare peak. This is a quality that TV rarely gives us a chance to witness without it self-consciously trying to tarnish the champion. (And they may yet do that; whomever dares, I wish for them extra whacks in Hell for trying.)

So let me strongly recommend watching ABC tomorrow morning. Catch maybe the last televised and untarnished glimpse of class in action.

-------------------------------*** U P D A T E ***-----------------------------------------
Please see my post for today, 7/19/09.

Go, Tom, Go!

One of Golf's most classy players, Tom Watson, is tied for the lead of the British Open.

He shot a 65 the first day, and was in a 4or5 way tie for first.

At the end of the second day, he was the only one of those to remain in the lead as he shot par 70 while the others didn't fare so well in the weather. There are still two more days to go. You can do it Tom! You can do it in your sleep. You won the Brit Open five times before. The last time you were still a pup and under 40.

Oh, Tom doesn't usually play with the regular pros. He's been on the Senior tour for a decade now. That last major win was 26 years ago. That's right. This man is 59. Fifty-nine.

The following is a public service reminder.

As you hear nasty things about the ØCare plan DC is trying to force down the throats of us all -- such as: mandatory suicide counseling for all medicare recipients -- remember that sometimes even seniors can still teach the youngsters a thing or two.

Now, let us return to our joyous moment, however long they allow us we have left.

Go Tom: Go!

Sonia Sotomayor Thinks [your name here] Is Stupid

Sonia Sotomayor's cavalier assessment of American intelligence appears to be: "You all are a bunch of dopes."

Is that okay with you?

Analysis Summary:

• Sonia Sotomayor(SS) has frequently scoffed at public expectations of judicial restraint. She has injudiciously mocked the faith of the public that judges will refrain from making policy. (Hear her laughing and scoffing in the video embedded below.)
• SS now denies her past statements are how she thinks today.
• SS has been evading questions that could reveal if her attitude has or has not changed.
• By evasively answering questions, SS is exploiting senate traditions because she expects Republican Senators will demand their caucus stick to the conservative rules of senatorial restraint unlike the behavior of Democratic Senators were she a Republican nominee.
• After repeated viewing of the videos, how can those who think SS is one of them, and so aid and abet SS in the evasions, be trustful of her?
  
• Democrats, Republicans or independents: How in the world can such a scoffer of faith, and exploiter of courtesies extended to her, be trusted to respect your wishes tomorrow?
• My fellow Americans: I know most of you have had your fill of politicians who hide their intentions only to go on prove their corruption. How much worse to watch our elected gatekeepers allow advancement of a power seeker who brazenly dares them to stop her despite her open contempt for the trustworthy?
• Senators: Have you become so corrupt that you can stand there and take Sonia Sotomayor's exploitation of Senate's traditions and abuse of its niceties and also expect us Americans to believe you still have spines?
• Sonia Sotomayor's cavalier assessment of American intelligence appears to be: "You all are a bunch of dopes."
• Is that okay with you?
  

Preface:
Our Constitution and traditions provide us safety nets. They are meant to keep incompetents and despots from attaining high office. Observations that the safety nets are badly frayed are too important for anyone to raise an alarm without providing details supporting the alarms. So details supporting my analysis follows.

Today's Alert:
A commenter yesterday reminds us that

Judges enforce a demand for straight answers from those testifying on the stand by threatening them with contempt of court. Well, then is not it inequitable to permit a judge to evade questions?

Traditionally, yes, we have granted that exclusion, particularly about their inclinations and beliefs that inform their judgments. Because such questions tended to be political in nature, and we wanted our judges to be freer from the political process than our lawmakers and executives. It was part of a unwritten code of conduct carried over from noble and chivalrous times:

"We won't subject you to a political third degree because we have faith that you won't permit your political inclinations to color your judgments."

When faith in judges' political neutrality was consistent with the result, judges were spared intense questioning. When a judge has demonstrated with his or her record to have kept faith with that expectation, then they have earned our trust.

In our current state of the courts there are a great many activist judges who have made their presence known. That informs us that procedures designed to prevent them gaining access have failed. Thus, we expect our elected representatives to revise the procedure. We expect them to take a harder look before acceding to a nominees promotion. We expect them to test on a case by case basis: "has this judicial nominee earned our trust?"

And so we have the case for the current nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. Has she earned our trust she'll be neutral? Has she demonstrated impartiality by not permitting her personal inclinations to color her judgments?

Since she became a nominee to advance to our highest court, her political backers and our media expect us to believe that the lady sitting in the dock of the senate is the epitome of the modest jurist. We are to believe that despite her past rulings that belied the faith placed in her before, she has since undergone a miraculous conversion? Doesn't that seems an odd belief and level of faith to place in a human? (And from those who run secular institutions no less. Well, it is miraculous, or something.)

But when Judge Sotomayor was questioned even indirectly into how deeply regretful she has been of her past remarks and rulings and current beliefs, she has been deliberately evasive. Does that not rate a prolonged procedural "Hmmmm?"

In matter of fact, in addition to the activist stances she has exhibited in rulings, she has been brazenly injudicious with political statements she has made in public appearances, on tape. One of those outright mocks the presumption that judges are not permitted to make policy. She laughs at the very idea that judges don't make policy.

That video show us a woman mocking you for expecting restraint from a judge, a person to whom you have granted your trust. It should not matter if you believe she is for your cause today. How in the world can you trust such a scoffer to respect your wishes tomorrow?

This video also sends another message. The candidate is counting on the Senate procedure to lack substance even as its participants carry out its formalities using polite and sonorous voices. She expects the Senate to go through the motions and never push too hard. She is saying the current confirmation process is a joke.

Listen again to that video people!

Listen over and over again to that video Senators until its meaning penetrates your protective layers long hardened by the grind! Have you become so corrupt that you can stand there and take Sonia Sotomayor's abuse of the Senate's traditions and also believe you still have spines?

What she is essentially saying in that video is: "Those people who extend to me the faith in judicial neutrality that they grant other judges are dopes."

"No Controlling Legal Authority" to Self Defense -- Sotomayor

I just heard a soundbite of the following question "Do you believe that an individual has the right to self defense?" and Sonia Sotomayor's response to it:
"I don't believe the court has addressed that issue.... but I could be wronnnnnnng."

Evading the question of whether or not an individual has the right to self defense calls to question her intelligence and her decency BIG TIME.

Charges are dropped based on the presumption of self defense all the time. People have been exonerated forever based on a determination of self defense. But Sotomayor, rather than simply say "Yes," the answer that God fearing human beings have been saying forever, demurred.

Let me observe that I have a right to demand that she promise not to introduce to the United States the kind of horrors visited upon our British cousins. They have been denied this basic right now for over a decade. Thus, I do not believe she was being stupid as some will claim. She is being devious.

This nomination is OVER.

Unless, of course, a majority of senators hate the innocent human beings whose inalienable right to life they have vowed to protect!

******************----------- U P D A T E -------------*************************

As reported by the Washington Post

COBURN: Thank you.

Let me follow up with one other question. As a citizen of this country, do you believe innately in my ability to have self-defense of myself -- personal self-defense? Do I have a right to personal self- defense?

SOTOMAYOR: I'm trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can't think of one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one.

I am happy to report, based on the above report, that my memory stood up well to the test.

The Emmanuel Goldsteining of Sarah P

The Emmanuel Goldsteining of Sarah P is what I conclude has been an ongoing two step process we have been observing and often participating in.

1. The statists and their media want us to focus on Sarah Palin to get the focus off them.
2. They seem to want us to think of her as the embodiment of their opposition.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For those who do not recall details of George Orwell's novel "1984" I will mark* them as I mention them below: Emmanuel Goldstein* was the alleged leader of the opposition to the ruling party of the novel's totalitarian country. I say alleged because it was not clear if he exists or ever existed. He simply serves as the whipping boy for all bad things. And good party members were expected to participate in daily cathartic exercises called "The Two Minutes Hate"* in which images of Goldstein and his brotherhood* and allies were flashed across media (Ministry of Truth*) controlled viewing screens* everywhere (really everywhere) in the country.

I decided to write of this today because someone made the following proposal which seems to be the generic wish of most people who would rather focus on solving problems than the politicians who exploit them.

"There are a lot more important, even dire, issues we face right now. ... Certainly, our politicians have more important things to discuss right now than Palin’s future." -- Rob

I attempted to point out to Rob, "Well, good luck with that" It is not as if it is we who determine what the Ministry of Truth and party hacks will consider important and promote into a brouhaha. Another pointed out the threatened trials of GWB and his officials would also become prominent; they would be persecuted in show-trials such as those endured by alleged members of "The Brotherhood."*

Look. I know there are people who think George Orwell’s dystopic vision is passé for any of a number of reasons, some reasonable, some silly. Nevertheless, Sarah P, whether she or we like it or not, appears to be serving as our ruling class’ Emmanuel Goldstein.

If only she was subjected to simply two minutes hate every day.

It’s more like an industry has sprung up to deliver to us some variation of it 24/7. And it’s been going on every single day for coming up on a full year. Will there be a first anniversary doubleplus* hate session? Count on it!

(How about, instead, a first anniversary memorial session to remind us that once, long ago, it was still okay to be normal?)

She has so been the target of BOTH party’s core leadership that it is bordering on proof positive that the “two” parties share the same central command office.

It has become cliché to say that aiming at Sarah is deliberate so as to divert our focus from the widespread thefts and multifaceted constitutional violations. Well, duh!

Bottom line: The attention directed at Sarah is so obviously diversionary, it is logical to expect that if any birth certificate is eventually made public, it will be hers.

Progress-of

Altruistic ==► Casuistic ==► Craven ==► Shameless ==► Brazen ==►[TBD]

The decline of the seemingly intelligent Progressives, "blessed" with an abundance of influence, money and power, is one of life's very sad ironies.

Progressives have so bought into the idea of population growth being a zero sum game, they've been blind to their inevitable fate due their contribution to the progress of Zero's home game.

BTW, Zero may aptly fit the current puppet of the power-mad, but it is to another, older Zero to which I allude.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice

Original Sin was revealed for its essence when the snake saw that Eve had an ego through which he could gain access to her soul.

By telling her that God had lied to her and Adam; that the reason He didn't want her to eat of the Tree Of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, was that it would allow her to know what God knows.

That is the original sin.

The desire to be as God has been used to mislead and harm mankind from the beginning. We are merely His agent. We fall short in our pursuit of our purpose when we seek to be as Him, insisting that only achieving the Zenith of Perfection can we really be satisfied.

It is a foolish insistence. Time after time there are those amongst us who overreach. That displays more than dissatisfaction, more than ingratitude; a hubris without equal.

And yet, there it is like a willful childishness that too easily leads to death. And that appears to be the aim, all along, of our stalker.

The folly in trying to be what we are not meant to be is hinted at in the story of "The Sorcerer's Apprentice."