Despite the alleged separation of church and state, BELIEF in Sustainability is widely held in American secular government. Judeo-Christian moral guidelines have been incrementally supplanted by what can best be described as neo-pagan ones. Consequently, notice where rulers never utter a harsh word against Malthusian, Utilitarian, Green and Islamistophilic nutcases. There the ruled are at grave risk.
While reading several bits of news, while in IMs with friends, and while reading commentaries at the blogs that I frequent, I remember this clip that I uploaded last year.
I think I may use it more from time to time after I comment on a contemporary story that was not possible in the America of the past.
The shocked American: "You mean there is nothing I can do in a legal way?"
The answer of the circumstance: "Mr. ____: this is not the United States... go back to America!"
For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people's ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that's a highly effective way to control medical costs. Perhaps that's the point. --emphasis added
Perhaps? This bespeaks the fatal naivety of all Americans constrained by PC from stating obvious truths.
What could pass as the Obamacare theme song is now 4 decades old. It has in its frankest of renditions the closing lines:
"Won't you give it a try?
[Boom]
Live and let die!"
For several decades I have witnessed and reported upon the fear in so many to speak of the dark side of the Sustainability movement. It is doubly upsetting to see it in those who claim to be God fearing. God fearing implies you accept the premise that all human life is sacred. Turning a blind eye to reports of a mounting threat to that premise (most unsettling to me when I've witnessed it in clergy) is more understandable when the threat seems hypothetical, but not from someone like Ms. Sundby while suffering the repercussions.
Ms Sundby still wants to believethat the machinations to which she is victim are only her imagination. So she writes "perhaps." I guess it makes her feel better. [Or perhaps the addition of perhaps it was required by the WSJ editor. In a world where damned consensus rules are expected to be understood, I doubt the editor needed to make a direct request.]
In a way, this makes Ms Sundby a martyr to Political Correctness. That she in her present circumstances is found still kowtowing to the consensus (to not speak of the Susnuts) ought to be eye opening for the rest of us. The souls of people who martyred themselves in defense of innocent human life would not be amused.
Please enlighten me how to open the eyes of more while there is still time.
Look at the anger in her expression and be very afraid should she have any say in whether or not you get to see a doctor.
As I posted a few weeks ago, the surname similarity (Jean Sibelius vs Kathleen Sebelius) causes me to associate this cold martinet with the Finnish composer who gifted us with the beautifully elegiac tune "Valse Triste" -- sad waltz. Her being in charge of implementing death panels is as far removed from the nostalgic feelings that an elegy seeks to evoke as anything you might consider.
So it is with some satisfaction to see this picture where the insult implied by the title of the book she has just been handed has finally dented the phony smiling facade of this supremely arrogant public servant who, when asked if she would resign due to stupendous incompetence, snipped "I don't work for my critics."
The sad thing is how much damage she and her bureaucracy will have done to America before we have a chance to legally see that she is punished for her maliciousness. This roll-out has been so bad it could not have been worse had it been planned that way. Heads should roll for such enormous incompetence. The really sad thing is that they won't.
My friend Paul emailed me this questionnaire that has not simply multiple choice answers, but opportunities to offer deeper thoughts on the questions raised.
I am sharing with readers all the responses submitted which were not one of the muliple choices provided. Five detailed responses in all.
I most certainly invite my readers to agree, disagree, or add and subtract to any of the answers I gave.
Additionally, you may find it useful to your own understanding of various issues to ponder these or other questions asked at the site; that is whether or not you submit your answers.
Think of it as a personal interview. Be careful not to be "push-polled" into giving an answer. An example of that is my answer to the question about Iran. At this point I do not know what should be done. Our national policy towards them was destroyed by Jimmy Carter. Every opening where we might have improved our relations were, in my opinion, bungled opportunities at best. All the worse ways of looking at how those opportunities were handled involve hidden agendas which invite open ended speculations which do little to solve the threats of Iran to the world today.
Do you support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)?
So many times tort reform has been discussed as the ultimate answer, but it falls flat each time. It may be due to Congress being so full of attorneys and influenced by the lawyer lobby. Also the media so in line with them that this discussion is never given a fair airing or a chance. Medical costs have risen directly proportional to out of control court awards (legal liability passed along to every patient as a natural part of the cost of doing business). Tort reform (in conjunction with a more punitive AMA for bad doctors) is the single biggest solution to the escalating health costs.
The nation would be better served with understanding the legal costs being a major portion of this problem if its media were not so filled with stupid or corrupt people.
Should the United States end its trade embargo and travel ban on Cuba?
If
we keep it, those caught violating ought to be prosecuted. Not
prosecuting undermines respect for the law. It's so bad, it is probably
too late for that. As it stands, open contempt for law and selective
(political) enforcement has become commonplace, which is unfitting for a
republic of laws and more fitting of fascist tyrannies.
How should the U.S. deal with Iran?
I don't know now. Easier solutions were available in past opportunities. Much of the current problem stems from our political system not wishing to admit they failed to take advantage of those earlier and easier solutions.
Should the U.S. maintain a presence at the United Nations?
Should the U.S. continue NSA surveillance of its allies?
Wherever did the notion that we don't keep an eye on everybody become a common understanding? When Ronald Reagan said "trust but verify" that seemed to be a general statement of one of the purposes of any nation's overall foreign policy. When did it become considered to be the symptoms of some form of national paranoia to engage in surveillance? This has been around since the beginning of time, only in less technological forms.
That links to an article published yesterday by a long-standing member of the Soviet-Style Media (SSM), the Washington Post: William Peter Blatty, writer of ‘The Exorcist,’ slips back into the light for its 40th anniversary By Dan Zak, Published: October 30
[snip]
Blatty has a gravity about him, and also, somehow, a lightness. An
impishness. This is a man who is quick to laugh to the point of tears
and also thinks that these may be “the last days.” This is a man who
says, after a sip of coffee with Equal sweetener, “It’s a fallen world,”
like he’s noting the weather.
Mere steps away from lunch is
evidence of the fallen, in his eyes: his beloved alma mater, which he
believes has drifted perilously into secularism. This month, Blatty
submitted to the Vatican a petition
with thousands of signatures and a 120-page institutional audit that
calls for the removal of Georgetown’s Catholic and Jesuit designations
if it does not comply with every little rule in “Ex Corde Ecclesiae,”
John Paul II’s constitution for affiliated colleges. The university, for
its part, says the “Catholic and Jesuit identity on campus has never
been stronger.”
Bill, what are you doing? people have asked him.
Bill, times change. Let it go.
Bill,
why are you punishing the school you love, the school whose scholarship
money rescued you from a childhood of restless poverty in New York, the
school that made possible your life, that cemented your faith?
“If
you truly love someone that you think needs to be in rehab, you’ll do
everything you possibly can to get them into rehab,” Blatty says. The
last straw, he says, was Georgetown’s invitation of Kathleen Sebelius,
secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, to be a commencement speaker
in May of last year. Sebelius has a record of supporting abortion
rights, and abortion is the issue that really sets Blatty’s nerves on
fire.
He describes, his voice trembling, a particular abortion procedure in graphic detail.
He pauses. His voice is nearly a whisper.
“That’s demonic.”
Those last 3 paragraphs should inform normal decent people why the SSM must be destroyed and the ground on which it stands salted so that nothing will ever grow there again.
Guaranteed, the reporter has in his possession all those graphic details about the particular abortion procedure that Sebelius endorses. Whatever was in them that reduced Bill Blatty's voice to whisper "that's demonic," the WaPo editor censured from us readers. Under no circumstances will they permit any doubt be cast upon the narrative. Especially the unspeakable, demonic narrative of the death cults.
Is Norquist joining the burgeoning Alinsky rule number 12* campaign waged by the Dems and the GOP traitors against Ted Cruz?
Or could it be the beginning of a counter-alinskyite campaign led by
Breitbart against Norquist? Given that Breitbart's current leadership displays to us nobody with
the balls of its founder, we will see how long that lasts.
To
add insult to injury, Norquist is funneling the money of conservatives
to the one institution, SSM, that spurs on the mobs 24/7 to threaten all
conservatives. However, he's got a lot of company there, including the
TEA Party Patriots who continue to ignore grass roots
complaints not to help keep SSM alive by paying it for anything.
*RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go
after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
(This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and
ridicule works.)
It is a demon that mocks me in my efforts to increase wider understandings, understandings that were made possible by God having gifted me with a mind that notices things, has a long memory, and quickly ties various and disparate events and things together.
The demon's damage is made worse by it knowing how how it bothers me and stymies in my efforts out of my fear that my efforts might increase misunderstandings inadvertently or clumsily. You cannot un-ring a bell, and it's terribly hard to rewind an untensioned spool that's slipped its retainer.
For those who do me the honor of coming here to read my blather, I am going to show you why I so often shut down and not write anything more than short comments at other sites for long periods of time. I have a fear of making large mistakes and missing them, then have those mistakes go on to proliferate to have a life of their own, spreading more misinformation.
Beginning with a simple comment I left at Gates of Vienna in hopes of alerting historian Seneca III to an unfavorable use of his famous name, I made my first mistake of going into details in a follow-up comment that I specifically chose to do in order to spell out the threat to the author's name (guilt by association that could be stemmed with what I was demonstrating) more concisely.
The second mistake, had it been made only once, could be written off to maybe a typographical one that the spell-checker fixed, but which I did not notice. Yet even then, because the word used so destroys the understanding of the sentence, I still should have caught it. Worse. I did it more than once!
Here is the mea culpa I left at GoV (edited due to more errors! in the one posted there).
OMG. Several days late I have noticed that I made an awful error, and not just once.
In each instance where I typed “explicit,” the term I had intended was “extrinsic.”
I am not terribly prone to Malaprop, but this one being part of a
quite esoteric subject with which I hoped to improve understanding of
how the anti-theists without merit seek to exploit the name of Seneca, I
find it terribly embarrassing.
However, my personal embarrassment by exposing it is less important
than the stopping the propagation of misinformation just in case anybody
is paying attention.
Extrinsic* (and not explicit) is the unwelcome parasitic property that seeks to attach itself to the intrinsic*.
The following line is the correct one:
I point to how Pascal was clearly irked by how extrinsic probabilism used by the Casuists seated at the Sorbonne crowded out all of the originals’ intrinsic substance.
This is why I say I’m best in providing insights rather than details
where, echoing S III’s words, the damnable creeps in. And it also
demonstrates why I dislike writing so. This shows why writing is, for me, a
form of penance. Penance for the propaganda delivery system that I helped make possible, yes. But also penance for mostly making a living in my pre-retirement years
and not battling the Statists in a more proportionate level to that
which they attacked what I hold dear.
Thank you for your understanding.
Thank you too, dear readers, for putting up with my frailties.
which implies that silence -- permitting only speech deemed pleasant and agreeable -- would be (God forbid) the Harridan in Chief's rule for the rest of us.
While I'm at it, and because the SSM (nor Drudge in this case) will not remind Americans, remember this for them.
In 2003, Hillary Clinton screeched "I am sick and tired of people who
say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow
you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and
we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."
**Update**
I am please to discover that apparently JWF beat me by a few hours in connecting the dots.
I made a point of it because Drudge failed to do it. It is important to make sure that inconsistencies, like this of Frau Hillary's two opposing opinions, are recorded in one place. It is the kind of thing that will bind our anti-fascist forces together.
For those who still do not yet call the Main Stream Media (MSM) the
Soviet-Style Media (SSM), here's a few paragraphs from Slate to
demonstrate why it is so. And this particular example embodies the
gruesome, Utilitarian nostrums of what is deemed right and proper by our
ever more power-mad elite.
The title published by this
laughably insignificant member of the SSM tells you all you need to
know about the SSM's penchant for the Death Cult agenda:
And the words of the article's second paragraph, and the last words of its third demonstrates how much like Pravda they are.
In other words: Canada has death panels.
I use that term advisedly. Former Republican vice presidential
candidate Sarah Palin made it famous in the summer of 2009, when
Congress was fighting over whether to pass Obamacare. As Republicans and
Democrats continue to spar over health care, we should pause to wonder
why millions of Canadians have come to accept the functional equivalent
of an idea that almost sank health care reform even though, in this
country, it was imaginary.
Go read the rest to see why they concluded that "Canada has death panels."
Oh. And take notice of one more thing, much more important than anything pissant Slate may publish.
Once
again, as the warning in my masthead reminds us daily, none of our
"rulers" utters a harsh word against notions such as 'Death Panels are
a good thing.' The propaganda aim is to get Americans accustomed to
death panels; even to welcome them (as it says "many" Canadians now do).
All the while pish-poshing that death panels are real. Craven, lying
bastards are words too good to describe these cretins who are greasing
the skids for a wholly new-to-America death-on-demand institution
disguised as "healthcare."
As the death cult alliance sets up to extend politics in a Clausewitz sense, you may find it beneficial to be knowledgeable of what is possible against overwhelming odds. One such can be read at Seneca III's account, in 3 parts, of the battle of Rhodes. Start here: The Cross and the Crescent: Rhodes, 1522 (Part 1).
...the Order would have ceased to exist, for the Knights, as they had done
so many times before, would have fought to the death. Fortunately, as it
eventuated, the Order survived to find a new home and rebuild its
manpower, and the Monks of War and the armies of Suleiman would meet
again in Malta some forty-odd years later with a very different outcome.
Our system of government was intended to thwart the rise of tyranny.
One aspect of the checks and balances was given to the press. The fourth estate.
They were given a great deal of power to be watchdogs. It was presumed that no party would be safe from them.
But what provision did our founders provide us to reign in a technologically advanced media that viewed itself as an integral part of the ruling class?
One that knows it is so aware and smart and clever that rules of decency need only be applied to common men with less smarts?
That they are the ones smart enough to know when the truth needs to be buried and when lying is a good thing?
Q: Founding fathers: did you anticipate that you had not given the common man a statutory way to remedy the growth of power in an entity outside of your government system?
A: Oops. Sorry.
Update: Oh -- oops -- thanks to Og for providing the jabs in "chat" that probed my mind to come up with the insight at this better-late-than-never date. As he notes, there are many connotations associated with the consequences of a what has been king-maker media and its allies. What I now call a Soviet-style media, or SSM (instead of MSM) whenever the opportunity arises and where it will not be misunderstood. The aim of writing SSM is to drive home the point and the dangers associated with Pravda and Izvestia.
SYNONYMSsurrender, submission, capitulation.
These nouns denote the act of giving up one's person, one's
possessions, or people under one's command to the authority, power, or control of another. Surrender is the most general: "No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted" (Ulysses S. Grant). Submission stresses the subordination of the side that has yielded: "Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission" (George Washington). Capitulation implies surrender under specific prearranged conditions: Lack of food and ammunition forced the capitulation of the rebels.
Let me extend that last sentence a bit.
Capitulation implies surrender under specific prearranged conditions: Lack of spine and "conservative" media community support forced the capitulation of the patriots in the House of Representatives.
Obama über alles.
Update. I said Obama über alles without explanation initially because I had to run.
Here is a simple explanation. This "deal' that was concocted in the Senate that the HOR is about to agree to, has a poison pill for the power of the HOR* to control the taxation on those who elect their representatives who sit in the HOR. Because the population of the cities so controls who gets elected to the Senate, the localities that congressmen represent just lost a tremendous advantage.
In the near future you may come to understand that is what happens once this HOR passes a law that puts the debt ceiling limit into the hands of the Prez. It will then take a super majority for all future HORs to take it away again. Even if a rescinding bill passes the next Senate, just about any sitting Prez will veto rescinding legislation passed by simple majorities of both houses. A republic if you can keep it, indeed Dr. Franklin.
I received a survey request (filled in below) from the Media Research Center (MRC). Initially I was expecting just another multiple choice form that misses many of the key issues of the day. Much to my delight, this one actually had, in addition to MRC's preferred topics, "other" as choices. And what was even more special, MRC provided a space in which to spell out the other choice(s).
Burned out naif that I am, I have my doubts they will actually read what I put in the boxes. I know, many of you think I must be crazy again for even trying. But yes, while I still breathe, I will always try.
FYI: I have another post in the works providing evidence that MRC may not be all that it tries to convince us it is. They know how to ask money from us to do more of what they want; but when it came to answering the knocks at their door so they might listen to us, it seemed that, time and again, nobody was home.
Should they show some gonads here and actually respond as one expects of normal, decent human beings, I will have no need to publish it.
But right now, let me urge you to try to do what I did as shown below. Maybe, just maybe, we will actually affect Brent Bozelle's thinking, and he'll begin to listen to us more instead of simply telling us what he thinks is important. If you would like to participate, drop me a line and I'll forward you the email. Or if you don't want to hear more about while they want you to do this for them, just click this link.
We Must Hear from You . . . Please Take This Survey!
With so many ongoing scandals and the outrageous media censorship
we're seeing in response, the Media Research Center needs your feedback
and advice more than ever. Thank you for taking the time to respond to
this quick survey. It will be an integral part of our strategy moving
forward.
Our lack of a unified, anti-Statist party
Media's role in misleading Americans
Showing all MSM does not provide or misinforms about
Fix your tips & emails so it works! Enough with the mailer-daemons. You are leaving the impression you don't give a damn. Be more responsive!
6. If you could send a message to the American media, what would it be?
Americans have overall had a better life than subjects or citizens of other nations because they have been more free.
Stop your disinformation campaigns that aids the destruction of our liberties (as Pravda & Izvestia abetted the oppression of Soviet subjects). We know why many of you do so. We've heard it. It is your elitist view that it is only right that common Americans should have a better understanding of how bad other peoples have it.
That sort of "equality" helps no human being other than the monsters who have risen to rule their peoples.
This is really something you can do without too much trouble. So please consider doing something similar. The MRC may simply ignore what you fill in, but please recognize that
It may very well be true that in many other matters I'm nuts. I do not behave in ways others deem as rational; at least not for them.
Most often I hear that charge about my political views. "Isn't there anyone you trust? It must drive you crazy." I hear that often after one or another of my attacks on the GOP for keeping traitors in its midst. "You are so quick to go there. [I'm not actually.] Why can't you be satisfied with chalking it up to stupidity and malfeasance?"
And this time I was insulted for a "far-fetched" warning about politics.
The good news part of the bad news is that it didn't take long for the latest charge to be proven baseless (as more often happens than not). It only took a couple of days.
In my last post about Chris Muir's cartoon stating that it was time to chuck the GOP and go third party, I declared it was too late.
Specifically I wrote: "The GOP needed to be replaced long before now. They helped install laws that will be used to essentially outlaw other parties...."
For that, one die-hard Republican told me I was nuts. It's not a conservative position. It's a violation of the right to free association and will never happen. He didn't say, but I'm guessing he believed that it is not what Republicans would tolerate.
It is tough enough already due to people like my GOPe acquaintance. So spread the news. Make the existing parties even more uncomfortable. Let them know about how you view their attempts to block your efforts to build new blocs. Those are blocs that you will need to succeed in defying and overturning their efforts at enslaving your children ever more.
View My Stats
Thank you too, dear readers, for putting up with my frailties.
*