Rule of Law?

Eh, it depends on who is talking about it, and who is 'violating' it.

Lots of questions - does anyone reading this have any answers? Some would say that the fulmination over statues, flags, religion and other unifying traditions is NOT an organic outrage, but a deliberate, politicized, and targeted series of actions aimed at destroying America's sense of itself as a nation. We are deliberately being driven to a Balkanized collection of suspicious, antagonistic, and tribal entities, in order to pave the way for takeover.

BTW, I strongly object to the use of a fake-reverent position, designed to deflect criticism of their actions, which are meant to convey a political viewpoint that many, if not most, of the viewing audience does not agree with. I think that, should the Browns players continue this action, Browns fans should work together to pick a Browns Boycott Day (BBD), preferably chosen to be a day that would normally be a VERY high attendance day.

How about choosing either one of these day for the Boycott?

Steelers game - Sept. 10

Ravens game - Sept. 17

Here's my idea:

• No tailgating
• No buying tickets (if you are a season ticket holder, have a sign/fabric flag indicating your disapproval of the players' actions - show up, and reverse-demonstrate)
• Make and distribute patches for BBD, encourage former fans to put them on Browns clothing
• At sports bars - go in, verify that the Browns game is on, hand them a BBD card/flyer, and leave without buying anything
• At home, watch another channel - this should be organized, so that the ratings for that channel SOAR
• Or, use either Prime or Netflix to select a movie - again, I think we should try to watch the same 3-4 choices - the bump in watching will be quantified, and can reasonably be matched up to the numbers in BBD

Share

There is a Simple Answer to the Violence

Refuse to let any 'antifa protestor' participate unless they take off the masks.

Masked people don't belong at potentially violent public meetings - on either side.

Funnily enough, it's the KKK that has taken off the mask. Few of them appear in public with their cloaking hoods.

And, they've taken the heat for that - losing jobs, alienating family, letting themselves in for years/decades of retaliation for their public expression of opinion.

Not so the 'Antifa'. They wear hoods masking their identity. The police let them into public venues, where they have an obligation to vet those participants.

I"m going to make a suggestion. Pink Spray paint - or Lime Green. Or any other color. Pick ONE color, and use it to mark the clothing of the masked 'Antifa' thugs.

When one of them harasses/hits/uses a weapon against an 'enemy', bring out the spray. Mark them, and make it harder for them to escape the rightful arrests, lawsuits, and other responses that should follow their cowardly actions.

How about agreeing on Pink?

Share

Bringing Down the 1st Amendment

It's not the first time it's been tried.

It won't be the last.

However, it's staggering just how many people want to limit First Amendment Rights to those speeches and writings that agree with theirs.

It's a Euro idea, that SOME opinions or writings are just unacceptable, and MUST be censored. It didn't start with the Nazi party, as is often suggested. Long before Hitler, European countries were censoring Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, Atheists, Feminists, those who opposed the official state church, those who were pro-Democracy, etc.

But, the Leftists and their allies, the Progressives, have gathered energy, used their positions to pressure companies to cancel their provided services to organizations - or individuals - that they deem too controversial. Or Non-Lefitst. Or "Homophobic" or "Anti-Woman/LGBTQ-whatever/Black/Minority".

Without proof. Except their VERY strong Say-So.

The same people who insisted that churches had to tolerate crude, vulgar, hateful expressions right outside - and, sometimes, inside - their places of worship have suddenly developed the vapors at the IDEA that they should have to tolerate such nonsense, themselves.

Funny how those same women who will INSIST that they be treated as though they are BIG, BRAVE WOMYN also insist that we moderate our speech, because - you know - they just can't BEAR the sound of all that AWFUL "HATE"!

And, it's not just them insisting that we, who disagree with them, refrain from speaking in their presence.

They're also mobilizing their considerable forces to pressure OTHERS from providing a platform. Or links. Or, not condemning us strongly enough. Or refusing to go along with their efforts to make those they dislike become a un-person.

For those who do not understand the un-person thing, I include this educational link.



Share

You Don't Have to be a Conspiracy Theorist

...to question just WHY was the leader of this Alt-Right protest a former member of Leftist organizations, and a supporter of Obama?

I'm sensing a well-executed ploy to advance the Progressive/Leftist agenda, by co-opting their opponent's most extreme would-be ally.

I don't like the Progressive Left (as distinguished from individuals identifying as Progress/Liberal). They are hiding their true agenda, under the guise of being 'anti-fascist'. That agenda, in their own words, includes:

• Deliberate targeting of journalists who want to fairly report on their activities
• Hiding their long-range goals in the hopes of getting some recruits from those targeting the Confederate monuments
• Using the Progressive Left to promote their Marxist-Leninist goals - yes, the WWP WAS at the protest
• If you think "Good!" and declare that as long as they support your cause, you're OK with that, I have but one caution, "Who rides a tiger dare not dismount" - the WWP is a tiger, who will take you along, or destroy you
• BTW, the lunacy of this crowd is show by this, from their website: " the media manipulation and financial maneuvering by a significant far-rightwing section of the billionaire class to get one of their own into the White House
• Media manipulation? Oh, come on! The media is OWNED, heart and soul, by Progressives. They both donate, and vote, almost EXCLUSIVELY to the Left.
• Billionaire class? The Kochs are Liberatarians. The Leftist-supporting Billionaires include Gates, Buffet, Zuckerman, Soros, and almost all of Silicon Valley.
• One of the loonier of the Leftist organizations - Crimethinc - go to the link, you won't believe them
• BTW, check out the picture that heads this link - those look like clubs, not 'sticks'. Kind of puts the lie to the story about the unarmed Left bravely confronting the violent Right. (Did you ever stop to think that there were NO gunshots? Even though SOME of the marchers carried guns? Were they restraining themselves, or were the guns not loaded?)
• A quote from one of the Leftist/Ararchist marchers - "No, I did not behave peacefully when I saw a thousand Nazis occupy a sizable American city. I fought them with the most persuasive instruments at hand, the way both my grandfathers did. I was maced, punched, kicked, and beaten with sticks, but I gave as good as I got, and usually better. Donald Trump says that “there was violence on both sides.” Of course there was."

 A lot of people are discussing Trump, and what they see as his failure in "moral leadership".

Let me make myself clear: I did NOT vote for Trump because I wanted him to be a moral leader. I don't think all that much of his basic character, to be honest. He dances around the truth, is cruder than I would like him to be, and he is out for himself and his interests in many situations.

However, there are worse things: a willingness to sell out America's interests for money (Bill and Hillary Clinton), an over-adherence to ideological thinking that puts other countries ahead of America (Sanders), inability to stand up to a hectoring Left-wing crowd (McCain, Powell, Roberts, Jeb Bush - in fact, ALL of the Bushes).

I don't ask him to raise my kids, provide the sermon at church, or write lyrically about Justice, Honor, or World Peace.

I elected him to lead this country's administration away from debt, poor management of foreign relations, ridiculous levels of bureaucracy and regulation, an end to lawless illegal immigration, too many people taking from government, and too few contributing, appointing FAIR judges, not ideologues, and a willingness to make decisions that will get heat from the usual suspects.

So far, he's delivered most of that. That's all I ask.

Share

Why Tearing Down Statues and Monuments Is a Bad Idea

It seems like a harmless idea - even NOBLE.

People, driven by their individual sense of outrage against historical offenses, gather together, and tear down monuments/statues to former Confederate leaders.

I mean, the Confederacy LOST! So, why protect the heritage of a rebellious group?

It's not about them. It's not about keeping the statues up. It's not even about whether or not the monuments should be removed.

It's about a minority using their personal feelings - and, acting on them in a criminal way - to bypass public discussion (NOT screaming), legislation, and referendums, to remove the monuments.

We are a divided people. We are NOT joined by blood ties, a shared culture, or common religious traditions. But, we share the same framework - the Constitution - and the laws that have built on that.

If we substitute direct action by factions, we tear down that framework - and its protections. This is a dangerous road to travel. It's one that can - and I fear WILL - end in suspicion, fear, tribalism, and no more United States.

The argument that personal belief in the Rightness of a Cause should be used to guide public decisions was the basis of the call for Secession. They, too, believed in Their Cause.

In America, the tradition has always been that if you feel strongly about an issue, you have to persuade others to agree to support it, as well, in order to get legislation passed.

Not vandalism. Not criminal action.

Snopes thinks this is OK, because it wasn't the Official DC Vietnam Memorial. I don't.

Share

Mr. Bond - They Have a Saying in Chicago

The 2nd time, in the same part of the world. The official story is that someone, or several someones, screwed up. This story seems to question that supposition.

The 1st time, a container ship hit the Fitzgerald. It was a Phillipine ship, who path (shown in the link), is highly suggestive of it NOT having been an accident. Now, that might have meant just carelessness, not deliberate.

However.

Remember what Goldfinger said.

“Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: 'Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action'.”

Share

Antifa vs. Alt-Right

Here's some information about the Antifa (Anti-Fascist) members you might find interesting. I'm NOT saying that the Alt-Right is OK, or without blame. Neither side covered themselves with glory in Charlottesville. The trouble is, BOTH sides think they were the put-upon one.

From what I could see (both in the TV news, and online videos), almost everyone in that situation made some bad choices.

• The Alt-Right - for deliberately provoking with their use, or accommodation of Nazi symbols, Supremacist chants, and confrontational attitudes. Perhaps, as they claim, all of the marchers weren't in those groups. But, by allying themselves with those who were, they undermined their position, and supported those fringe-element aims.
• The Antifa - for their use of violence in previous actions - throwing things, vandalizing, assaulting people. Their history made a tense situation even worse, as their opposition had some justification for feeling threatened. I especially disliked the use of facial coverings - if they believe that they are right, why are they afraid of letting their identity being known?
• UPDATE: Lord, as though there wasn't enough blood spilled already, some of the participants are organizing to do more damage.
• The city - they used poor judgement in refusing the permit, then, after allowing it at the location chosen, taking it back, and forcing the marchers to re-locate. They are also said to have ordered the police to do nothing in the face of violence.
• The police - they allowed the situation to escalate, then forced the marchers to pass close to the Antifa group. They should have kept them far apart. I don't care what the orders are - the role of the cops in the field is to make their own assessment, and act to prevent violence.

I do think, however, that - on both sides - they are PEOPLE. Not Evil Monsters. Not inhuman beasts to be attacked, disrespected, or killed. The proper Christian response to hate is to love (the person inside, not the sinful actions outside). Given the disrespect and levels of hostility between the groups, it isn't surprising that an unbalanced man took action that killed one person and injured others.

That's what happens when you demonize your opposition.

I've been thinking about the topic of how we - by that, I mean the people who are NOT screaming at each other in the streets - might do our part to reduce the level of suspicion, anger, and divisive behavior.

Confrontation is not working. Screaming at each other in the streets is not helping - in many ways, BOTH sides become more sure of their own position, and less inclined to listen to concerns from the other side.

Why is that important? We are all God's precious children - yes, even those that reject Him. Like any father, he is pained by his children's arguing and fighting. He does love both sides, even when they think harshly and act badly.

So, no, screaming, throwing things, and deliberately trying to provoke a violent reaction are not what we should be doing.

Somehow, we have got to love God enough to make the effort to love each other. To try to understand each other's fears and hurts. To WANT to find common ground, and begin to re-build a country torn by hate, fear, and very deep suspicion of each other.

The ones that think SOME people are beyond help, and need to be screamed at, scolded, hounded out of their jobs (the irony of this is HUGE - one of the BIG complaints of the Alt-Right is that, if they don't TOTALLY fall in line with Leftist thinking, they experience difficulty keeping their jobs), and - if they don't perform a PUBLIC mea culpa, complete with confession that they are worthless scum, banished from American life.

I get the feeling that only suicide, followed by tearing apart the corpse and scattering the pieces to the winds, will satisfy the Left. Maybe not even then.

Don't think people can change? Don't think transformation of spirit can be done? You might want to read a moving, and transformational story of hate turned to love.

And that isn't the only time we have come together in love.

Sarah Hoyt has the outsider's view of the whole thing (Yes, she is an American now, but she spent her youth in Europe, and has a different perspective on it).

The young people who want to see the statues taken from their public place should re-focus their goals, not on tearing them down (vandalism), or bullying others into going along with their removal, but on changing hearts, so their opponents will WANT to see them removed. You can FIGHT your opposition, or you can work to TRANSFORM them into your supporters.

BTW, if the Leftists don't watch it, they will BECOME their opposition - hatefilled, violent, and unwilling to leave the past behind.

Share

Hoo-Boy! The Ladies Are Having a Hissy-Fit!

The fallout from his memo is huge. The usual suspects are fulminating wildly.

But, many are defending his actions, and pointing to the logic underlying his argument.


Including this woman:

Deborah W. Soh, a Toronto based science writer who has a PhD in sexual neuroscience from the University of York —

"As a woman who’s worked in academia and within STEM, I didn’t find the memo offensive or sexist in the least. I found it to be a well thought out document, asking for greater tolerance for differences in opinion, and treating people as individuals instead of based on group membership. Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at."

More from Soh, PhD candidate in science.


Share

The Center Cannot Hold

Title is a quote from Yeats "Second Coming". Surprisingly, I've been reading poetry lately - NOT like me, at all.

Many, on both the Extreme Left and on the Non-Conservative Right (what we Conservatives like to call RINOS), are expressing dismay at the polarization of the American public. It's not as though this is an unusual thing - we've been sharply divided before:

• American Independence - few Americans realize just how popular our connection with England was - fully 1/3 of the population supported it. Another 1/3 were Revolutionaries. The rest sat on the fence, waiting to see which side would prevail.
• Federalists vs. the Original Confederacy - it was a long and contentious fight to Constitutionalize.
• Civil War, including the Reconstruction Period.
• Populism - the original Uprising of the Deplorables.
• Anarchy - deliberate use of assassination and bombings to promote Leftist aims. The anarchists of that time were allied with the Wobblies and other radical groups.
• WWI - it took a lot of effort to get America involved in this; it required Federal suppression of dissent to make it happen (legislation included the Alien Espionage Act and the Sedition Act).
• Progressivism - first major attempt to take over the country through massive Federal growth.
• Prohibition - BTW, it DID have some effect. Drinking was greatly reduced. What it DID do is to uncover the extent to which the Elites of that time were incapable of quitting their addiction to alcohol. The presence of many alcoholics in government - including those residing in the White House - led to repeal of Prohibition.
• WWII - many people don't remember it, but there was a strong anti-war faction before 1941.
• Red Activities after WWII - contrary to what is commonly called McCarthyism or the "Red Scare", the Communists were, in fact, bankrolling and directing the activities of their allies in the West. Most of this was without the knowledge or compliance of Liberals.
• The 1960s - included bombings, street action, criminal activity to support The Cause, and deliberate promotion of drug culture to the young.

Some are suggesting that a Civil War is imminent.

Christopher Cantrell calls is a Cold Civil War.

He also looks at what a HOT Civil War would look like.

Share

Immigration, Again

This will be short - go to this site for a discussion of immigration that brings up some points not often addressed.

Share

Solving the Immigration Problem

There are those who believe that the only problem with immigration is that SOME people just hate Brown people.

There are others that believe that the issue is keeping relatively unskilled, poorly-educated, and generally non-English speaking from flooding into the states, making it difficult for American citizens to get a starter job.

For the neighborhood in which it occurs, tolerating the invasion is both disruptive and dangerous.

There are those who argue that more immigration is needed to fill jobs.

There are those who argue that there really should not be any distinction drawn between legal immigrants, and those that ignore borders and visas.

So, to be able to address ALL the concerns of the various factions, Comprehensive Immigration bills are always the solution of choice.

That's a bad decision. It would be far better to specifically address issues and problems, one at a time.

Kevin Williamson is on board with the Comprehensive Immigration crowd (CIC, for short). He's made it his mission to persuade others to join his side - and, as he is a good and persuasive writer, he has made some in-roads.

I think his approach misses the mark. A better solution would be to:

• Enforce existing rules - for example, E-Verify for employers. This puts pressure on businesses to make an effort to verify citizenship/right to work. For smaller businesses, bonding companies could set up outsourced services that would clear employees, using fingerprints and other identification measures.
• Visible tats should be used as a screening tool - if you've got gang-related tats, your ID should be scrutinized more strictly. Whether citizen or alien, having gang affiliations should be a warning signal. Is this profiling? Absolutely. Don't like it? Don't ink.

  

  Be fair - would you want to hire this man?

  
  

  

  Just because you don't encounter these gang members, don't assume they don't pose a thread.

  
  

  

  No, I don't like gang tats on White People, either.

• Stop the flow of money from the federal government to states/cities that refuse to cooperate with the ICE. Reduce the Block Grants money to the states in proportion to that amount that goes to those cities. Do a spot-check on recipients of aid/cash/services - if government social services are going to aliens/their families, reduce funding by an amount that reflects that percentage of the cost of those services.
• This law firm is providing information about Sanctuary Cities, and how to get around the law on immigration. The government COULD see that his clients received MORE scrutiny as a result - his actions provide cause.
• Force the 'social services' to operate more honestly -if there is theft, either they collect it from the recipients, or reduce the dollars they receive from government by an equal amount. Force them to properly vet applicants for aid, including fingerprinting of all adults in the household.
• Use the concept of bounty hunters/private businesses to reduce fraud/theft. Provide cash/tax credits for turning in those - American or not - who are ripping off government, whether that is by individuals or businesses. People know who is stealing - encourage them to turn in the crooks.
• Stop releasing those people who are aliens. Put them into a FEDERAL holding facility (you could convert a few military bases for this use). Process them quickly. For repeat offenders, jail time, followed by deportation. If on the loose, bring in the bounty hunters.

Share

Clinton-Lynch Docs - and a Question

I was reading through the docs, and noticed that Lynch's husband was present. So - does attorney-client privilege apply in that case? Because my (non-lawyer) understanding is that if a 3rd party is present, confidentiality goes out the window.

 I did see President Clinton at the Phoenix. airport as I was leaving, and he spoke to myself and my lmsband on the plane_

Share

Financial Shenanigans

Obama's administration was involved in more that the Obamacare financial fiddles.

That's a major drawback of blindly supporting a President - his errors, deals, under-the-table actions, and cronyism will eventually leak out. Obama had a LONG run of good press. The non-MSM outlets were derided as "fake", "racist", H8rs, and conspiracy theorists.

Which, to be fair, some of them were.

But, not all. And people's reliance on the worst sources can be explained by the disconnect people felt from the MSM - whom they KNEW to be bigoted liars, and disdainful elitists, as well.

I remember when Obama was first elected, in 2008. I was at my post, watching the kids stream in for their first class.

Their faces were shining - they were ECSTATIC that Obama had won. Their optimism was obvious, and they re-doubled their efforts in school.

Well, for a small few, that would have be 2 times zero. But, even for the worst students, they saw a vision of what life COULD be, if they made the effort.

Circumstances over the following years led to defensive support in the face of criticism, refusal to see evidence that contradicted their bias, and, eventually, disillusionment and bitterness.

And, chaos - don't forget - deliberately provoked by the extreme Leftist end of the spectrum, callously using idealistic young people to suffer the consequences. Very much like their predecessors, the New Left (follow the link to learn more about them - sometimes, I forget that younger people didn't have the advantage that people my age had, to directly see them in action, and learn about their underlying motives).



Share

Religion Vs. Ideology

There is a fine line between the Spiritual dimension and the all-inclusive Leftist/Political/Social dimension.

Spiritual USED to refer to a relatively coherent and rational schema of philosophical thought. That was out when the Transcendentalists - a philosophy much-loved by the Hippies of the 1960s - began their insinuation into organized religions. From Wikipedia:

A core belief of transcendentalism is in the inherent goodness of people and nature. Adherents believe that society and its institutions have corrupted the purity of the individual, and they have faith that people are at their best when truly "self-reliant" and independent.

Transcendentalism emphasizes subjective intuition over objective empiricism. Adherents believe that individuals are capable of generating completely original insights with as little attention and deference to past masters as possible. 

Originally brought into America by the Unitarians, this philosophy has infiltrated many seminaries and theological college. Major figures in American Transcendentalism include the Thoreau, the Alcott family (Louisa wrote the Little Women series), and Emerson. The origins in America borrowed from European thinking (Kant and Hume, among others).

So, what is going on with those people who call themselves 'Spiritual'?

For some, their experiences with organized religion have soured them on the institutional part of it, however, they still want a connection to God. This leads them to quasi-religious practices, such as meditation (non-Hindu), use of music and/or drugs to transcend reality, or other means to create/maintain a spiritual connection without having to conform to a doctrine or the practices associated with it.

It is a reliance on the internal feelings/thoughts as evidence of a 'God Connection', but not joining with others in a communal activity. It is religion as individualism, rather than as it has traditionally been practiced - as a group.

Perhaps ironically, some of those Spiritual Individuals pursue community connections through involvement in:

• Black Lives Matters
• Anti-Fa activities
• Environmental activism
• Feminism

among other things. They enact a rigid philosophy that punishes deviance from accepted wisdom, 'shun' non-conformists, and otherwise act similarly to the most authoritarian religions.

The Spiritual-But-Not-Religious folks often end up hectoring members of an organized religion about their failings, not to improve them, but to reinforce their own sense of self-righteousness.

Share

Russia, Russia, Russia

Fans of the old show The Brady Bunch will get that reference.

I found a good list of questions to ask about the "Russian Influence on the 2016 Election" story - emphasis on the word STORY.

To me, # 5 is the most critical:

5. Precisely what meddling occurred? Somebody meeting with a Russian does not constitute proof of anything. rather, this is the classic witch-hunt accusation of the McCarthyite "Red Scare" of the 1950s--guilt by association: you were seen conversing with a Communist, thus you must also be a Communist--or at a minimum, you are tainted by association and thus under a cloud of suspicion that can never be cleared because no accusation of guilt in a court of law is ever made.

Guilt by association is insidious because it can't be cleared in court. Those accused of guilt by association are not innocent until proven guilty--they are guilty until proven innocent, a proof that can never satisfy the accusers.

A precisely defined chain of verifiable actions is required to prove meddling beyond reasonable doubt. So date, all the accusations have failed to meet this most fundamental standard of evidence of wrong-doing.

If Republicans/Conservatives are still being accused of 'McCarthyism' for any pointing out that someone is verifiably Socialist/Communist, then why are the Democrats/Progressives/Liberals/Leftists using that smear tactic to associate the Trump administration with the Russians?

If McCarthyism is the Ultimate Bad Thing, why are THEY doing it?

Share

Family - Its Strengths, and Its Limits

This academic paper on cousin marriage is fascinating. One major feature of Islamic culture, even in non-Arabic countries, is the high degree of cousin marriages.

The natural outgrowth of that familial interdependency is autocratic government, laws without teeth, and government by favor, rather than right.

That's not compatible with the American value of government by rules and laws. That framework does, it is true, sometimes leave individuals with little recourse against harmful government actions - or lack of action. However, the alternative, in which pressure groups are the only way to direct an outcome also disadvantages some.

There is no perfect government. There are no perfect people. All are flawed.

However, government by rule and law has a MAJOR advantage - it is codified and predictable, thus giving a roadmap for action.



Share