Hiatus

I'll be away from the computer for a couple of more weeks. Y'all keep after 'em in the meantime.

Read More

Isn't this just wonderful?!

What we have here is not a failure to communicate (which is a problem we've discussed before), it is a failure to understand or comprehend, on the parts of certain individuals so-inclined, the clear and undeniable principle that consolidation of government power into a single governing entity (per what we have now with the central controlling agency -- the so-called federal government) results, invariably (that is, no matter what angle you're coming at it from), in the destruction of freedom or liberty, and the entire basis on which this Republic was founded.

I don't need to quote founders such as Jefferson to solidify my point, it is as it is. But it's sad, and deeply demoralizing. Although I do take heart in the fact that such State Reps as Oklahoma's own Charles Key (founder of the modern Tenth Amendment movement), et al, are working tirelessly to secure the rights guaranteed to us in the written Bill of Rights per Tenth Amendment Resolutions and their offspring, nullification laws on such things as "federal health care" and "gun legislation," among others. (I know this because I've had email conversations with these legislators.)

Anyway, to those of you who cling to the idea that the fourteenth amendment is useful to securing (individual) liberty, I simply say to you this -- name for me specific incidences of how it has served to do so over the past century and a half post introduction and ratification. I rest my case. Whatever the "good intentions" of its writers, as was predicted by many at the time, it has served to enslave the general American populace to supreme rule via the central government. The history is what it is, I can't change it, and wouldn't if I could.

Read More

Switching gears

I hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving this year, and that for those of you who traveled to have Thanksgiving with family, that you're arriving safely back home.

Anyway, I thought it might be a nice change of pace to switch gears a little bit, so I'm recommending that you visit Craig Winn's Yada Yahweh blogtalkradio program when you get the time. Specifically one or more of his shows in the very intriguing "The Great Galatians Debate" series which are accessible at the site.

Let me know what you think, if you should like, in a comment to this entry.

Read More

Federal government bombs Pearl Harbor...

--awakens sleeping giant with a terrible resolve?

How many times have I said over the last few months that Hussein Obama and the Socialist Democrats are moving the ball forward way too fast, way too aggressively on such items as the infamous 'stimulus' package, 'federalizing' health care and etc., resulting in the alarm they've engendered within a significant and growing proportion of the general American populace?

There's a good discussion ongoing at VFR in which commenter Mark P. touches on this exact point.

Mark P. writes:

Basically, the Left is attempting to do too much, too fast, with way too many changes occurring in too short a time, with results experienced too sson to allow memories to fade. They are too impatient, probably due to the short-term thinking of the new cohort of liberals.

Yep. And though Auster's entry concerns itself with health care specifically, and which Mark P. is mainly speaking to, I suspect that like me Mark understands that it goes beyond federalizing health care.

The Democrats are -- under Hussein, Pelosi, Reid -- fast and furiously, and with reckless abandon such as we've never witnessed in this country, trying to ram every God-forsaken leftist-communist item they can while they can down our throats. And they somehow expect Americans (particularly self-governing producers) to simply lay down and take that b.s.?

I personally think they overestimate the extent of the damage liberalism has already done to the American spirit and psyche. Perhaps not on a conscious level, but the world is to them as they perceive it to be anyhow. I'm not saying that liberal dominance hasn't caused a lot of practically irreparable harm to the country, such as creating a large dependent class, fostering an entitlement mentality amongst certain and sundry demographic groups, constitutional and civic illiteracy and a host of others. I'm simply saying that government indoctrination hasn't quite worked out the way they planned it for a bunch of us. Some of us, evidently, and in spite of all of their efforts to train us up in the ways of the all-encompassing ideology of liberalism, were just too stupid (or hard-headed), evidently, to get it.

I've said before that my education just didn't take because I wasn't that interested in it to start with. No one ever expected or otherwise demanded me to achieve academic excellence, so I didn't because I had no reason to. No; I just did what I had to do, nothing more, nothing less. Which is to say that I maintained something like a B- average throughout my educational career because that was all that was required of me. And as you probably already know, it takes very little effort to maintain a B- grade average, so little in fact that one rarely needs to take a book home or "study" in any meaningful sense of the word. Indeed, I missed so many days of school, so many assignments and tests one year in H.S. that about 2/3 of the way through the semester I finally decided to start attending classes on a regular basis and pull my average up from an F to a high C. That is all it took, going to class, completing my assignments, memorizing test answers and such.

Anyway, I don't rightly know how I got off on that tangent, except to say that I think I was trying to lead to a point, which is this -- perhaps liberalism is, unbeknownst to itself and its wild-eyed kooky advocates and promoters, its own worst enemy what with its low expectations and standards. You know, if you begin with low standards for academic achievement, and you create an entire educational apparatus (curriculum, methodology, philosophy and so forth) lining up with those low standards, then maybe it contains its own inherently self-destructive mechanism which is bound to self-initiate at some point along the way. Generations come and they go, and liberalism continues its march forward until it reaches its apex. After which point, what? -- that which goes up must come down, following the laws of physics? I don't know, but it's an interesting thesis that might be worth pursuing further.

Y'all be sure to read the VFR discussion linked above.

Read More

When a low-level grunt goes way too far

(Note: The entry has undergone some revision since first posting.)

Allow me to set the stage for you: On three separate occasions while driving across a bridge near my home, a bridge currently under fairly intensive constructive maintenance, a certain flagman has copped an attitude with me in particular. With me! I mean, if you're a flunkie flagman and you feel the irrepressible urge to cop an attitude with someone while in performance of your duties, I'm definitely not the one to do it with.

These incidents became progressively worse each time, culminating in the events that unfolded below.

The first was fairly innocuous; the flagman did cop a slight attitude with me, but since (I flatter myself) I'm a pretty fair-minded person with experience enough to know that sometimes people just have bad days, or bad moments as it were, I just let it go, acting as though it never happened. As an old friend and mentor used to say to me, "you can never be sure what's going on in an otherwise decent person's life that may be contributing to his acting abnormally or out of character on certain occasions, under certain circumstances or pressures." In other words, I gave the flagman the benefit of the doubt on this first occasion. The second incident was significantly worse, and I responded only by giving him one of those "don't let it happen again" looks as I passed by him. His glaring response on this occasion indicated that he wasn't smart enough to know when he was up.

The third incident was, by far, the worst. Having gotten behind a rock-hauling truck and trailer on my way to work several mornings ago, I was traveling at a very low rate of speed. When the truck stopped in front of the flagman's station, the flagman began waving it forward. At least this was my impression. Seconds later, and with the truck not responding, the flagman began to flail his arms in the air as if to say "go, dammit go!" I wasn't sure whether he was telling me or the trucker to go, so I erred on the side of caution given that the road in question is very narrow under normal circumstances, not to mention while under construction. Anyway, a mere two or three seconds later, the flagman began to flail his arms into the air even more aggressively, apparently cursing in the meantime to add insult to injury, and pointing directly at me. At this point there was no question about who his aggressive posturing was intended for. So, here's what I did in response...

I very calmly pulled up beside this belligerant little (actually he was about a hundred pounds over weight, by my estimation) punk, rolled my window down, and proceeded to give him a stern and forceful piece of my mind, to wit:

"Hey, son!, I strongly advise you to drop the attitude ... NOW!" He replied: "why?" "Because, whether you realize it or not, you're working in the capacity of a public servant, and I'm the damn public, first off," I said. "I was waving at you to go," said he. To which I replied, "I thought you were waving at the truck ahead of me. But that's irrelevant, your display was completely uncalled for and unacceptable." His response?: "What are you going to do about it?"

Now, no more than ten years ago (ask anyone that knows me) I'd have unloaded out of my vehicle and thrown him into the lake -- with extreme prejudice -- without even a second thought at such a display of inappropriate, provoking behavior. But, of course, he's ten years too late, in my particular case, for that manner of dealing with his over-the-top, belligerant attitude. So I replied, as he turned and began walking away, "I'll have a talk with your boss, do you understand me?" He replied over his shoulder, "he's right there," pointing at a vehicle parked on the side of the road behind and to the right of me. I said, "no; you don't understand -- I don't want to talk to a flunkie supervisor on the job site, I'll be talking to the man!" At which point I drove away.

I didn't want to talk to his immediate supervisor because I'm versed enough to know that there's a lot of inter-company loyalty that exists between flunkies like that. So, I simply began calling the main office of his employer. No one answered that day as everyone was out of the office. But they called me back early next morning, and we got it all straightend out over the phone (apparently mine isn't the first incident they've had to deal with involving this particular individual). But I also explained to the caller that I either know or am acquainted with everyone who lives in my neighborhood; that at least three of these individuals, off the top of my head, would worry about the consequences of their literally wiping the pavement up with him, as a response to his same belligerance towards me, after they'd already committed the act. Much like I likely would have done ten or more years ago. That is, assuming I could have caught him (my experience is that overweight does not necessarily mean slow in the running sense). Some of these people can move fairly fast, depending on how threatened they feel. But anyway,...

What's the moral of the story? I don't know. I know that several days later the flagman in question is no longer working at that particular job site. It was never my intention to have him lose his job, nor to have him moved to another location, though I did suggest to his superior that if he couldn't handle the job's public service related requirements, then they might look to finding him another position, more suitable to his ... peculiar talents.

Anyway, another day, another dollar, and another product of liberalism brought low. Such is the burden that falls invariably on the shoulders of those of us who still understand that "tolerance" of certain anti-social behaviorisms can be as destructive, if not more destructive, than any form of intolerance. Both on an individual and a societal level.

Read More

Pastor Manning headed for the Clink?

Read More

Trivia time

Question: What is, stacked vertically, taller than the Empire State Building and the Washington Monument combined, growing exponentially, is pink in color, the demand for which has once already exhausted the nation's pink paper supply, and is the brainchild of World Net Daily editor Joseph Farah?

That's right:

Read More

Should I take back what I said the other day about Social Cons?

Below is posted the content of an email I sent to Lawrence Auster just a few moments ago:

Is someone reading VFR?

Look at the email below from Tim Wildmon of AFA, particularly the first bolded sentence. Keep in mind that AFA and Dr. Dobson's groups (Focus on the Family and its political arm CitizenLink) are closely aligned, and, I think (actually I know, but I can't go dig up evidence of this right now), are in regular communication with one another.

Are we seeing some progress here amongst the Social Cons? I can't agree with the idea conveyed further in the email stating that we must attack abortion funding in the bill as a separate issue from the entire bill itself. In case the bill passes. This is all but conceding defeat. No! We must attack the bill as a whole as a clear violation of the constitution, because that's the only basis on which it can be defeated, with or without abortion funding, with or without healthcare for illegal aliens, with or without so-called 'death panels', with or without healthcare rationing, with or without criminalization for non-compliance. Etc.

But are we seeing some progress?

The AFA Action Alert email is posted in its entirety below.

Stop the Washington takeover of our health care system
Urgent: Contact your senators today!
November 17, 2009

Dear Terry,

The Senate may vote as early as Thursday to move on its version of the government takeover of health care.

At the president's urging, Democrats are expected to use a parliamentary maneuver which will enable them to strip the pro-life Stupak-Pitts amendment from the House bill and push through a bill that will involve the use of your taxpayer dollars and mine to pay for abortions.

It must be clear that we oppose the Democratic health care legislation under consideration with or without protections for unborn human life. The Democrats' plan will increase the cost of health care, require rationing of care to seniors, create 111 new bureaucracies, and increase the already bloated federal deficit by a staggering amount.

But we also must make our voices heard any time and every time human life is at stake. Should a health care bill unfortunately reach the president's desk, we must do everything in our power to see that it does not use taxpayer funds to kill unborn children. Conservative estimates are that taxpayer funding of abortion under the government takeover will increase the number of abortions by one-third.

Take Action

E-mail your senators today and urge them firmly but politely to oppose the Washington takeover of our health care system with or without protections for unborn human life. Please also tell them to keep the Stupak-Pitts pro-life amendment in the health care bill that will keep the government from funding abortion, should the bill pass. (bolded text in original email)

I'm pleased to see that Mr. Wildmon and AFA have taken the position above of opposition to the 'healthcare' bill whether it contains abortion funding or not. Hopefully they can influence Dr. Dobson's groups to do the same. But the bottom line for me is this, if this monstrous government take-over of healthcare in America is successfully passed and signed into law, we are left with very few peaceful means (State level nullification laws, for instance) to prevent the wholesale desruction of life, liberty, and property which we have heretofore declared to be our unalienable individual rights as human beings and as Americans, subject to and protected by a written inviolable constitution.

I ask again in the words of Patrick Henry: Is life so dear; is peace so sweet???

Read More

Sarah and Barack, peas in everyone's pod

What is the single, common(est) denominator between Sarah Palin and Hussein Obama? In a comment to the VFR entry, The Freepers on Laura Wood on Sarah Palin, frequent commenter Clark Coleman explains his recent epiphany of sorts about Sarah Palin,

It suddenly occurred to me when reading this blog entry that Sarah Palin is the conservative version of Barack Obama. Many of us (even Obama himself) noted that Obama was a blank canvas on which his followers could project their political hopes. Why? Not because of his political experience or capabilities or clearly stated policy positions, but because of his personal life story. E.g., Obama is going to be a post-racial unifier. What was there in his past to indicate such a thing? Nothing. In fact, just the opposite. But his followers had hopes, you see. Ditto for numerous other policy areas where people had hopes not based on his statements or past actions.

Sarah Palin is a dyed in the wool conservative who will lead the GOP out of the mushy moderate wilderness. How do we know this? By reading her pronouncements on immigration, feminism, etc.? Obviously not. Rather, it is because of her personal life story. She is a small town girl, one of us flyover-country types, who identifies with us and not the Beltway elite. We can project all our conservative hopes on her. Because of her personal qualities, she is a conservative political blank canvas, ready for us to paint to our liking, just as Obama was for white liberals.

LA replies to Clark Coleman:

I think this is an important, basic insight into the Palin phenomenon..

Further, your analysis also explains the left's overwrought reaction to her. Earlier today I was saying to a friend, "Why do people love her so much, and why do people hate her so much? Neither makes sense." In fact, as your comment makes me realize, the left loathes and fears her for the same illusory reason that the right loves and adores her: both sides imagine her to be some super conservative. Both sides are taking her biography, her symbology, as representing something real about her politics.

The right and the left are having this huge, bloody battle over Sarah Palin in Plato's Cave, fighting over illusory images.

In a short follow-on entry directing readers to comments in the discussion, LA boils it down even further:

Clark Coleman has a good explanation of why so many conservatives believe—without any evidence or record to back up the belief—that Sarah Palin is a great conservative. She is the conservative version of Barack Obama, a blank screen on which people project their hopes. I add that liberals hate her for the same reason that conservatives love her. (emphasis mine)

It's a good point and it ought to be stated with as much simplicity as often as opportunity arises. Liberals hate Sarah Palin for the exact same reason that conservatives love her, and without what?, without any evidence or record to back up the belief about her that they both hold in common.

Not to toot my own horn (I wouldn't do that! ;-)), but I said as much very early on in one of several short exchanges between Auster and I in the Great Palin Debate of 2008:

TM to LA:

Here's the subject line of an email I received yesterday from Dr. Dobson's CitizenLink newsletter:

Dr. Dobson: McCain's choice of Palin: "Outstanding."

Outstanding?

I don't get the immediate display of enthusiasm among "conservatives" for this choice. Not only does she not have a political record to speak of, but nobody really knows anything of substance about her. Is it that they were just so dismayed and disgruntled by their nominee that McCain's choice of a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-homosexual rights (female) running mate far exceeded all their expectations?

It seems like President Bush's phrase "the soft bigotry of low expectations" could be easily customized to fit this situation.

LA replied:

It's not true that she does not have a political record to speak of, and that nobody really knows anything of substance about her. The issue is whether she has the background to be president, not whether she has a political record to speak of.

TM replied:

Okay, she has a political record that consists of her time as governor of Alaska, and as mayor of the city of Wasilla (population: ten thousand).

You're right about what the issue is. And in my opinion she definitely does not have the background to be president. But who does in this race?

By the way, I never did, that I recall anyway, follow up on my statement in the exchange where I said that Bush's phrase could be easily customized to fit this situation, so allow me to do so here. We may call it, if you like, "The false conservatism of high expectations."

As has been said so many times before, modern Americans are so utterly steeped in liberalism that very often they don't know that they're liberals; that their words and actions are almost altogether liberal. Which is probably a good partial explanation for why study after study has shown that most Americans identify themselves as more conservative than liberal. And yet. But then again, I don't put too much stock in the results of most "studies" anyhow. So the point, at least as far as I'm concerned, is probably a moot one. Which begs the question, why'd I raise it in the first place? :-)

End of initial entry.

**********

I should like to add that we now know quite a bit more about Sarah Palin, her politics, her family life and so on, than we did during the initial stages of the Great Sarah Palin Debate conducted between August and September of 2008. Indeed, the debate itself revealed, or helped to reveal, or put in proper perspective, a lot about Sarah Palin that was not formerly known or understood by the average American, conservative and liberal alike. It's one of the things I most appreciate about VFR, and why I read and participate in the discussions there on a daily basis.

Read More

The bow, what does it mean?

Here we have Obama again debasing the presidency, and the United States by extension, with what is apparently going to be standard procedure for this rogue whenever he meets with a foreign Monarch, dictator, whatever. But what does it all mean?

See Auster's article, Obama marks the path for future West/non-West relations here, where several readers, including yours truly, offer their perspectives, and/or theories. Sorry y'all, I'm generally not a big conspiracy theorist, but I just don't trust this dude and those that advise him at all. I think they're all criminals, and accordingly think and act like criminals. Of course they're way better at it than your average, low-level petty criminal scum. But of course this makes them worse and more dangerous than your average criminal scum.

Also, and as a side note, I take serious exception to Daniel H.'s comment stating "I didn't think that he [Obama] could go lower than Bush but he has." I've seen some form of that statement made around the blogosphere numerous times over the last several months, and every time it just gets under my crawl. What did they think Obama was? Why in the name of heaven did they believe that Obama, with the boatload of baggage he carried to the presidency, was going to be somehow better than Bush, who, whatever your differences with his policies, is at least an American born-and-raised? It just kills me when people say stuff like that. I personally had a lot of issues with Bush while he was president, namely his constant reiteration that Islam is a religion of peace, his right-liberalism/neoconservatism, his fiscal policies, NCLB, the Patriot Act, etc., just off the top of my head. I mean, the list is long and distinguished. But to say or imply that you somehow thought that Obama couldn't possibly be any worse is just, well ... ridiculous.

Read More

Social Cons aiding and abetting Congress and the President in destroying America?

Sad to say, but yes, it's true. Evidently unbeknownst to themselves. Indeed, they somehow think they're thwarting the genocidal designs of the federal government by taking issue with the abortion funding in the 'healthcare' bill.

Chiu Chunling's initial comment to the previous entry reminded me of the email notification I received on Nov. 9 from CitizenLink directing subscribers to a 'victory' piece written by CitizenLink editor Kim Trobee. As I indicated in my reply to Chiu's comments, I had intended to do a short write-up about it but it had slipped my mind. Anyway, better late than never I suppose. Here are the last few sentences from the Trobee article:

Now, attention turns to the Senate, where lawmakers soon will consider their version of health-care reform. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said his bill will "look markedly different" from the House offering.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, said pro-lifers must continue to contact their lawmakers.

"We will remain vigilant and shift our efforts to the Senate," she said, "to ensure that these same pro-life protections are added to the Senate bill."

Better still, try these sentences on for size:

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said there were numerous troubling aspects of the bill in addition to the life concerns.

"Many of those fall outside our area of expertise," she said. "That's why Focus on the Family Action remained neutral on passage of the overall bill and focused our efforts on the important abortion funding issue."

Huh?! Educate thyself! Or otherwise get the hell out of the business of attempting to do that which you're ill-equipped and ill-prepared to do in the first place.

This kind of thing is precisely the reason the pro-life lobby is generally looked down on and distrusted by the larger, more well rounded conservative community. And rightfully so in my opinion. They're so obsessed with abortion that they're otherwise rendered ill-equipped and ineffective in protecting the God-given rights of all Americans, including the rights of the unborn. What in heaven's name do they think they're accomplishing with all of this misdirected and ultimately wasted effort? I guess they gotta do something to occupy their time. But is it really necessary for them to engage in counterproductive, counterinuitive behavior as a matter of occupying that time? I suppose so. But I can't see any good reason to just let it go unchallenged.

And "Neutrality"! Someone ought to remove that concept from the American vocabulary. It's about as illegitimate a concept as that associated with the term "amorality." "Neutral," "amoral" -- am I seeing a similarity here? But I digress...

Evidently they can't see that they cannot ultimately win this fight on these grounds. The problem with 'government healthcare' is, well, government healthcare. Not abortion funding, not services provided for illegal aliens, not 'death panels,' etc. Those are all problems, sure, but they're not THE problem. Nor do they combine to form THE problem.

The federal constitution provides no avenue by which the federal Congress may simply effect a hostile take-over of the healthcare industry, such as it is, in America. The only way it can legitimately be done is via the provisions of Article V and a legal transfer of that authority from the states and the People to the central government. Or, to paraphrase General Washington, "by a solemn and authentic act of the whole American People," anything short of which leaves the existing constitution as it always has been, "sacredly obligatory on all." End of story. (BTW, when was it exactly that Washington's Farewell Speech was removed from our political scriptures in America? I must have missed the memo on that.)

But here we have a lobbying group, supposedly "conservative," supposedly "pro-life" which has resigned itself to the idea that the central government is somehow authorized to run roughshod over the constitution at its will and pleasure (not their area of expertise, don't ya know), an idea which defies both its supposed conservatism and its pro-life claims. So instead of attacking the root of the problem as they should if they're going to attack it at all, they go after single provisions in the bill, incidental to THE problem. In this case abortion funding.

The problem here, as we see, is that they're willing to tacitly go along with the blatantly unconstitutional healthcare 'reform' package and the unconstitutional means Congress is using to effect it, so long as the feds make the empty promise, in return for their support (which they claim is a "neutral" position), that no abortion funding will be attached to the bill. That's being "neutral," eh? Could have fooled me. And when (not "if") the feds eventually add abortion funding back into the bill, before or after it becomes "law" -- it matters not -- what will the pro-life lobby do then? Ah, there'll be a bunch of handwringing; a lot of wailing and knashing of teeth issuing forth from these people. That is, until the new wears off or they otherwise tire of it and move on to begging their federal masters not to add additional provisions for the funding of late-term and partial-birth abortions. All the while remaining "neutral" on government-run healthcare, appealing, of course, to their lack of expertise on the subject of the whole enchilada.

Such are the actions of abject slaves, and/or, of would-be totalitarians, not of freemen. And I should like to know how any slave, or group of slaves (granting the pro-life lobby the benefit of the doubt here, only because I don't believe their intentions to be evil), can ever accomplish the goal of protecting the lives and liberties of the relatively strong and healthy among us, to say nothing of the most vulnerable in our society? Ans: They can't. Period.

Is life so dear or peace so sweet? Forbid it Almighty God!

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

The CitizenLink article is posted in its entirety beneath the fold.

11-9-09

* Print This Article
* Forward to a Friend


Pro-Life Amendment to Health-Care Reform Passes in House


by Kim Trobee, editor

Representatives vote to prohibit federal funding of abortion.

An amendment prohibiting government funding of abortion in the House version of health-care reform passed on Saturday by a vote of 240-194.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment was the culmination of an effort by Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats to insert language similar to the Hyde Amendment.

The Hyde Amendment restricts abortion coverage under Medicaid.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., said the coalition of pro-life lawmakers remained determined.

"We felt strongly about it," he said. "We were not going to vote or even let (health care) come to the floor for a vote with language that would fund abortions."

Many Democrats had maintained their plan would not include funding for abortions, but closer inspection revealed it would do just that.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, said Democrat leaders spent months "misrepresenting" the plan.

"The bipartisan House vote is a sharp blow to the White House's pro-abortion smuggling operation," he said. "But, we know that the White House and pro-abortion congressional Democratic leaders will keep trying to enact government funding of abortion and will keep trying to conceal their true intentions, so there is a long battle ahead."

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said there were numerous troubling aspects of the bill in addition to the life concerns.

"Many of those fall outside our area of expertise," she said. "That's why Focus on the Family Action remained neutral on passage of the overall bill and focused our efforts on the important abortion funding issue."

Now, attention turns to the Senate, where lawmakers soon will consider their version of health-care reform. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said his bill will "look markedly different" from the House offering.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, said pro-lifers must continue to contact their lawmakers.

"We will remain vigilant and shift our efforts to the Senate," she said, "to ensure that these same pro-life protections are added to the Senate bill."

One final note: I don't doubt the sincerity or the 'good intentions' of the pro-life lobby in trying to protect the lives of the unborn by lobbying Congress to remove provisions from the 'healthcare bill' aimed at destroying life and the advancement of the 'culture of death.' The same may be said of those who concern themselves exclusively with the provisions granting services to illegal aliens, and so forth and so on. The point is simply that the efforts and resources of these various groups are horribly misused and misguided. Their interests and that of their followers (not to mention that of the unborn) would be a lot better served if they would direct them to the recommendation and advocacy of the passage of State level nullification laws and otherwise ignore the central government and its unconstitutional actions on health care and a variety of other issues. But we seem to be particularly adept at pursuing such misguided, miscalculated adventures in America. It isn't like the pro-lifers are the only ones doing it.

P.S. Is it just me, or does this whole hopelessly ineffective movement seem to be headed up by emotionally driven ... women? Que the attack dogs.

Read More

The Rise and Fall of the CAIR Empire?

Two or three days ago I read a Gates of Vienna article referencing another online article claiming that CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) is currently on a long-running, steep, irreversible decline, both in terms of membership and of donations received. Thus in terms of influence.

My initial, instinctive reaction to both articles was pure skepticism. Skepticism on the level of that I experienced a couple of weeks ago when the MSM was reporting that 'healthcare reform' lacked the support needed to pass it in the HoR. Though nothing could possibly be more satisfying to my mind than to witness the decline and fall of the CAIR empire. And the quicker the better.

Let us review what the basic foundational mission of the CAIR organization is, in CAIR's own words as attached to each and every article posted at its website. And as we read, let us recall the words generally attributed to William James (though I have it on good authority that he wasn't the first to say it) which state, "there is nothing so absurd than if you repeat something often enough people begin to believe it."

Here is the statement, quite literally plucked at random from an article currently posted at the site:

CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding. (bolded text added)

Before we move on, I want to re-emphasize the importance of the bolded statements above. Everything else in that statement, with the possible exception of the first sentence (and that's if we strike out the 'civil liberties' part), is just a flat-out bald-faced lie. Which, by the way, Islamists are particularly good and proficient at.

Muslims don't give two hoots about "enhancing understanding of Islam." Indeed, they know that to truly enhance understanding of Islam in Western society is counterproductive, thus destructive to their ultimate goal. Which is precisely why they exploit the freedoms afforded by our system to enhance misunderstanding of Islam(President Bush may well be their greatest success story to date.). But it ain't their fault that we're generally too stupid to understand this. Likewise, they could care less about "encouraging [real] dialogue." The only kind of 'dialogue' they care about 'encouraging' is the kind that conceals the true nature of their religion, passing it off to be "peaceful" and whatnot. Again, they can't be faulted for our collective lack of discernment on this point. Neither do they care anything for the 'protection of civil liberties,' except insofar as their ultimate mission to rule the world in the name of Allah is thereby advanced. After all, what Muslim country is there in existence today, or that has ever existed in the history of the world, which has at any time placed any kind of significance or import on the 'protection of civil liberties?' Take your time.

Anyway, getting back to the bolded text in CAIR's statements, what might be gained by the all-important, self-proclaimed, constantly repeated CAIR mission of empowering 'American Muslims?' Well, of course, and as I've pointed out numerous times before at this place and others, empowering 'American Muslims' means nothing less than disempowering American non-Muslims. It being a simple mathematical fact that the whole is exactly equal to the sum of its parts. If, therefore, 'American Muslims' are currently short on 'empowerment' by CAIR's estimation, then the only way to make up the deficit is to wrench power away from those who currently have it. Which is to say, again, to disempower non-Muslim Americans. The question then must be asked, at what point in the process of empowering 'American Muslims'/disempowering of American non-Muslims will CAIR and others be satisfied that 'American Muslims' are sufficiently empowered/American non-Muslims are sufficiently disempowered? Let us put the question to CAIR communications director Mr. Ibrahim Hooper. Mr. Hooper:

I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," Hooper told the Minneapolis Star Tribune in 1993. "But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education. [TM: You go girl! Every subversive, hostile organization in America needs a "communications director" just like you!]

Quite so. Well, we can't all be foot soldiers/would-be suicide-killers/assassins, now can we Mr. Hooper? Your job, by Allah, is to "educate" (i.e., promote misunderstanding of Islam) your way into a position to overthrow the U.S. government and our governing institutions and to replace it with Islamic Sharia Law, while the low-level, crazy-eyed, nutjob grunts like Hasan plan and carry out terrorist attacks on non-Muslim Americans as an integral part of the selfsame mission. Suicidal(istic) attacks that you, sir, and every last one of your co-conspirators secretly support, right? Right.

But I digress. The point of this entry is/was originally, and as indicated by the post title, to discuss whether or not CAIR is truly failing in its mission to empower 'American Muslims' via the process of enhancing misunderstanding of Islam, of encouraging self-serving, misleading, taqiyya consistent dialogue, of 'protecting' Muslim 'civil liberties' at the expense of all others, and of building liberty-destroying coalitions with the non-discerning among us, by way of all of these? World Net Daily has an article up this morning in which it discusses CAIR's post-Ft. Hood Massacre-boasting of its Muslim-favorable influence on the American media, otherwise known as the MSM. Yes, including Fox News.

My question is simply this: Is this a desparate attempt by CAIR to re-take some lost ground; to regain control over their ultimate destiny? Could it be that my initial, gut reaction to the story of CAIR's demise as reported at GoV was all wrong? Is it possible that we're seeing a resurgence of the spirit that ultimately prevented Flight 93 from hitting its intended target on that fateful day? One can only hope.

Read More

A spate of new Non-Islam Theories of Islamic Extremism about to be unleashed

Technically this new wave of a well established means of explaining away the Islamic cause of Islamic extremism has already been unleashed. But it will take us some time to quantify and delineate between the various (new) theories in written form. In the meantime, let's review the characteristics common to the existing and documented Non-Islam Theories of Islamic Extremism per Lawrence Auster:

LA writes:

Islam in its concrete particulars is too alien and threatening to liberal Westerners for them to acknowledge its existence as it really is. So they keep putting Islam into this or that Western-centric conceptual box in order to make Islam seem familiar and assimilable. But because these non-Islam theories of Islamic extremism are all false or inadequate, new theories, or new variations on old theories, must keep being invented. The never-ending compulsion of Western intellectuals to explain uniquely Islamic beliefs and institutions in non-Islamic terms expresses the very essence of liberalism, which is to deny the existence of human differences that really matter.

The prerequisites:

(1) Denial by liberal Westerners that Islam is what it is in its concrete particulars. Resulting in,

(2) a propensity amongst leading Western writers and thinkers to place Islam, or a particular instance of Islamic violence or terrorism (such as Hasan's recent jihad on Ft. Hood), inside a sort of walled-in Western-centric conceptual framework in an attempt to explain it in terms other than the unacceptable, disallowed framework of Islam being the cause of Islamic extremism.

(3) But since every single Western-centric theory of Islamic extremism, or any combination thereof has proved, thus far, to be inadequate or utterly false, and since admitting the actual truth about Islam as the source of Islamic extremism would at once destroy the leading and dominant principles of modern liberal society, which itself is unacceptable, therefore,

(4) such individuals engage themselves in a continual and frantic search for, and discovery of, new Western-centric conceptualizations of Islam by which to explain, in acceptable (i.e., liberal) terms, the propensity of its adherents towards acts of violence.

Hence we see with this latest Islamic attack on Ft. Hood -- an attack committed by an individual who doesn't fit the current Western-centric profile formerly established in the preceding Non-Islam explanations for Islamic extremism, i.e., he wasn't poor or marginalized, he wasn't uneducated, etc. -- the introduction of a spate of new Non-Islam Theories of Islamic Extremism unleashed in verbal form. Of which the preceding blog entry contains but one.

Read More

Dr. Phil and Medicine Woman tell us how a guy like Hasan can snap at a moment's notice

(H/T: GoV)

First of all, let me apologize to my readers for hosting such mindless nonsense. But this kind of attitude, this kind of suicidal idiocy, my friends, is what we're up against in modern, liberal, suicidal America.

So, is Medicine Woman, aka Shoshana Johnson, telling us in her own way that she could snap at anytime too since she apparently feels ... deeply? Nice that she declares herself to suffer from PTSD. Not only is she another government welfare case, but she's got herself a crutch to lean all the days of her life.

Read More

Craig Winn discusses Hasan's Jihad on Ft. Hood and the evil that did nothing to prevent it

Read More

Thoughts on the Ft. Hood Massacre

You probably don't want to know what I really think on the subject because I paint all Muslims living in America with the same broad anti-Western, anti-American brush. Every last one of them is a liar and a subversive infiltrator, not in any way to be trusted in my opinion, particularly in the officer ranks in the U.S. military.

CAIR condemned the attack in a press release yesterday, you say? LIARS!!!

Read More

Oath Keepers shooting themselves in the foot. Or, SPLC and leftism 1 -- Oath Keepers 0

(Note: The entry has undergone some minor revisions since first posted.)

(Note: Robert Gomez has posted a thoughtful response to my critical comments under the Oklahoma Oath Keepers discussion thread mentioned below. And I reply.)

While browsing the Oklahoma Oath Keepers message forum last night, I ran across this discussion started by Oklahoma State Director Robert Gomez.

Mr. Gomez writes:

Since I joined the group I have not seen nor gotten the impression from any writings on our group’s forum to suggest that any of the Oklahoma group members have any feelings other than a deep love of our Republic and its foundation the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

With that said.

The media and former President Carter’s comments along with Speaker Pelosi’s innuendos are stirring up the notion that anyone opposed to the current administration and its policies are racist.

The Oath Keepers as an organization cannot nor will not be linked to anything other than the truth.

We are a group of concerned citizens that took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and we vow to continue to uphold or reaffirm that oath.

We must stay focused on the real issues that threaten the Republic and not be distracted or fall into the traps they are setting for opposition groups. Racism or any type of discrimination will not be tolerated by the Oath Keepers.

Later in the thread Mr. Gomez mentions the SPLC and its depiction of the Oath Keepers as a "racist" organization. Other commenters quickly join in to the "Racism or any type of discrimination will not be tolerated by Oath Keepers" solo began by Robert Gomez in his initial entry. And the thread accordingly deteriorates into a leftier-than-thou chorus of commentators singing the worshipful praises of the ruling principles of modern American society -- absolute equality and non-discriminationism. One commenter in particular declares that she not only supports and celebrates racial and cultural diversity (and the more the better!), but that she cannot possibly function well without it, nor can this society presumably by her reasoning, or by inference. She follows up on the point, saying that she cannot understand why anyone would want to surround themselves with people ethnically, culturally, religiously like themselves, adding "yuck!" Of course, she's probably not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on this point, but whatever. After all, she isn't under oath here. Or is she?

After reading the comments in the thread last night and sleeping on it, I returned to the thread this morning and posted the following "racist" comment:

TM writes:

Well, first of all, the hate-obsessed leftist SPLC wouldn't garner to itself the slightest attention, positive or negative, in a healthy, self-confident (as opposed to self-loathing) society not dominated by the destructive influence of liberalism. Second, the race-baiters and hate-baiters at organizations like the SPLC et al, are always going to deem such organizations as this one as inherently racist, homophobic, xenophobic, ad infinitum. That is their job.

Since there aren't enough real racist haters out there for the SPLC and others to concentrate their efforts on, they accordingly go after groups like this. But the onus is on them to prove their charges, not on the Oath Keepers to prove its innocence. Speaking of which, some of you seem to be convinced that the latter is the case, not the former. Hence, you expend all kinds of effort trying to prove your non-racism and the non-racism of the Oath Keeper organization by extension, showing why you can't possibly be a racist and etcetera ("I love diversity," "I don't have a racist bone in my body," "I have a lot of friends who are black," and the like.). This approach of yours, which gets repeated over and over and over again in a variety of ways tends to place severe restrictions on the ability of such organizations to tackle the tough issues.

Personally, I ain't real sure what the term "racism" means anymore, or whether it has a fixed meaning that we can all rely on at any given moment under any given set of circumstances. It can't possibly mean the hatred of a fellow human being based entirely on the color of his skin because the term is constantly applied to people who are anything but. But speaking for myself, and only for myself, being realistic about and speaking candidly about racial and cultural differences, about the destructiveness of mass immigration and multiculturalism and etc., cannot be said to be "racist." If it can, then at least 80% of Oklahoma's population is "racist" by definition, since it supports the provisions of H.B. 1804 by that very margin.

But anyway...

I'm beginning to understand now why the Oath Keepers chose, from the great abundance of far stronger examples of their supposed point, to include the footage from the aftermath of Katrina in N.O. in their promotional video that I posted the other day. They're trying to show how non-racist they are, which seems to be a main, if not THE main focus of the group as it stands now. (Actually, I realized this several days ago, so it's technically not accurate to say that "I'm beginning to realize...," but that's beside the point)

But my overarching point is really very simple -- if "racism" and if "discrimination of any kind" (I ain't real sure whose definition of these terms we're applying, but I have my suspicions) will not be tolerated by the Oath Keepers, which is to say that open and candid discussion of racial and cultural differences, of mass third-world immigration to the U.S., of the comparative dependency of one group of people vs. the comparative independency of another group of people, of one group's relative dedication to the principles of the constitution and our form of government vs. another group's relative hatred for those principles, and etc., will not be tolerated by the Oath Keepers, then what purpose can they possibly serve more than being enablers for the SPLC and its destructive, America-hating agenda?

I could say a lot more on the subject, but I'll save it for the comment section.

Read More

More on the negligent parent front

We've had this discussion before. And here we go again. It's getting worse, y'all, not better. And it's going to continue to get worse, not better. Call me what you will (I've likely been called worse by better), but there's simply no way in hell that I'd ever, in a million years, place any of my children in a situation like that, including the boys but especially the girls. Indeed, as I've said several times before, I don't consider it one of my parental responsibilities to go about destroying their natural defense mechanisms endowed in them by their Creator. Quite the opposite.

Speaking of which, I learned only yesterday that we have a group of workers, of Mexican descent, working across the way in our neighborhood. Apparently one of them had the idea the other day to stop his vehicle and talk to two of my daughters while they were walking to a friend's house about a block away. To which the girls beat a path back to the house. But the larger point is that apparently the individual in question is looking to get his *ss in a sling.

Read More

Why Oath Keepers?

Following up on the previous entry, where in the comments section I disapprovingly mentioned Streiff's comments under his own RedState art...hit piece, here's a sampling of what I was talking about:

Streiff writes:

[...]

The Civil War established states can’t secede from the Union contra “oath keeper” point 5.

The Civil Rights movement could not have succeeded without the direct use of federal troops without the consent of the state government, contra “oath keeper” point 4.

If you are comfortable taking the left’s point of view on Jose Padilla while taking the side of Orval Faubus on segregation and Jeff Davis on slavery feel free because that is what this group is doing.

Scare quotes AND non capitalization of proper names! Whoa!, this guy's unstoppable!

I'm sure glad that he helped to clear the fog from my head with the two points above. Otherwise I'd still be trying to see my way clear to understanding why it is that states and local governments can never have authority to protect themselves and their citizens against federal tyranny in the form of disarming American citizens contra "bill of rights" point 2; of conducting illegal searches against them contra "bill of rights" point 4, and so on.

Let's take "bill of rights" point 2, which states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Read it carefully again. Obviously the wild-eyed lunatics who wrote that were high on hemp or something. Hence federal prohibition on the farming of hemp and manufacture of hemp products. All non-lunatic, genuine Oath Keepers like Streiff know, for example, that any firearm capable of firing, and/or of being manipulated to fire, purposely or not, more than one round per trigger pull can never be safely entrusted to the care and ownership of private American citizens. Only wild-eyed, dangerous lunatics like the "oath keepers" and the hemped-up provocateurs who wrote point 2 of the "bill of rights" believe otherwise. Hence the dire need for federal gun laws contra "oath keepers" point 1; and of enforcement of federal gun laws contra "oath keepers" point 7. And etc...

After all, federal prosecution, disarming and subsequent imprisonment of David Olofson, contra "oath keepers" points 1 and 7 respectively, could never have succeeded without federal intervention. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. How about you.

Read More

Oath Keepers: Not on our watch!

Watch this moving video:



Here's the Oath Keepers website, which I'm adding to my blogroll.

You should know that there's already a fairly sizeable controversy brewing over this fledgling little organization. And not necessarily from a quarter that you'd initially suspect. That is, unless you have a pretty good understanding of the difference between small-c conservatism and large-C Conservatism. I admit that the lines of distinction between the two are sometimes difficult to discern. But by the same token they're sometimes pretty darn clear, as in the case that I'm about to present.

Now, I'm not a follower of "Red State." I've been to the site no more than two or three times, and that was at least a year ago, probably longer. I don't even recall, to be quite honest, why the site didn't appeal to me to begin with. But judging by what I read at the site earlier, I think it's safe to assume that it turned me off primarily because it is, at best, small-c conservative, which I regard as part of the problem, not the solution.

In any event, certain particulars of the forthcoming Red State article by Streiff have already been addressed by the Oath Keepers. Nonetheless, the article is copied and pasted below in its entirety. Without further comment from me. We can discuss it in the comment section if you like.

The Malignant Nature of the Oath Keeper Movement

Oath Breakers Not Oath Keepers

Posted by Streiff (Profile)

Wednesday, October 21st at 2:22PM EDT

321 Comments

Truly malignant ideas crop up in a democracy with the frequency of toadstools after a summer rain storm. Most of these ideas are dismissed by the great majority of citizens after public debate in one fashion or another. Some of the ideas hang on despite evidence to the contrary (sorry Texas was readmitted to the Union and the Income Tax was ratified by the requisite number of states) but attract no real following.

Truly pernicious ideas, however, seem benign at first glance but in truth strike at the heart of our system of government. The “Oath Keeper” movement is one of those ideas.


At first blush, who can object to the 10 orders they say they will not obey. Until you start examining each of them in detail (we’ll put aside for now the mindboggling assertion in Lexington/Concord was precipitated by an attempt to “disarm” Americans).

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects — such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.

10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

In the case of a smallpox, or similar, outbreak it would not be unreasonable for any government to direct that a municipality or geographic area be put under quarantine. I would think most everyone would agree that would be a good thing. If there was an armed insurrection in some area of the country, I’d find it hard to object to warrantless searches of homes and the disarming of persons in the area of operations. We need look no farther than the actions of Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to see the utter imbecility of the federal government waiting for a state governor to declare an emergency before intervening. The nonsense purveyed by this group would have prevented Lincoln from opposing Secession and, more recently, it would have prevented Eisenhower from integrating public schools in Little Rock.

These principles, if they deserve to be called that, are nonsense and against the American tradition of government as it has been understood since the Whiskey Rebellion was suppressed by George Washington.

Were flogging bad history the only issue at hand, I wouldn’t be writing this. I’d be encouraging them to get a degree in education and teach civics in junior high. But it isn’t. On one hand the oath these people take is meaningless as they seem to be people who aren’t currently bound by an oath anyway. But as a career infantry officer I am gravely offended that they could be encouraging some number of military members to break rather than keep their oath of office. As a conservative I am offended that anyone on my side of the political spectrum would support such un-American nonsense.

When you take the oath of office as a member of the Armed Forces you do not take on the character of a freelance constitutional scholar.

As a commissioned officer you are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate (yes, this is true for even second lieutenants), and you serve at the pleasure of the President.

Your oath reads:

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

Read the oath carefully. There is not an Obama Exception to the oath. There isn’t a proviso that this oath is subsidiary to some grander more important oath you’ve taken. You agree to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.” To men of honor and integrity — which, in an ideal world, should be the minimum requirement to hold a commission — your word is your bond, if you’ve taken this oath with mental reservations about the intentions of the President, you’ve already violated your oath. So you aren’t an “oath keeper” but an “oath breaker.”

For enlisted men the rules are even more clear.

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

Read it again, slowly and carefully:

I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me

You’ll note there aren’t ten exceptions here. The Uniform Code of Military Justice places a significant burden off proof on anyone who disobeys an order on the grounds that the order wasn’t lawful. And once you’ve made the effort, the system doesn’t treat full-time soldiers and part-time constitutional scholars like Michael New with great deal of respect.

As a conservative I’m truly offended by this nonsense. This type organization, seemingly equal parts Walter Mitty and the black helicopter crowd, enables the left to lump all opponents of Obama together into a lunatic fringe that will then be studiously ignored. The Tea Parties were taken seriously by lots of members of Congress precisely because they were not lunatics. Polls show we are winning people over to our ideas. Why would anyone opposed to the Obama regime think this organization is a good idea?

In 1783, we were at a critical point in our struggle for nationhood. We had won independence but the form of government which would succeed the British monarchy was clearly up for grabs. There were calls for General George Washington to lead the nation either as a monarch or military dictator. In response, Washington went before the Continental Congress on December 23, 1783 and resigned his commission. That action, captured in a painting by John Turnbull on display in the Capitol Rotunda, paved the way for our republican system of government and our tradition of the civil supremacy in civil-military relations.

My advice to the “oath keepers” is just that. Keep your oath. If you want to make political decisions about how the military and police are used in this country, resign your position and agitate to your heart’s content. If you remain in uniform your oath binds you to the government and absent clear reason to the contrary, and none of the ten reasons set forward by the Oath Keeper organization meet that standard, you have a legal and moral obligation to faithfully carry out the duties given to you.

We are in a tough fight with this administration for very high stakes. The stakes, however, do not justify us checking our brain and our sanity at the door and signing onto truly bizarre and un-American ideas like those set out by the Oath Keepers.

Read More

A wee bit more parenting could go a long, long way. But then, where would that leave the totalitarians?

The Baron has posted an excellent article by GoV's Swedish correspondent LN, called "Why do Swedes behave like Swedes?". The topic of the article, which I've given away in the title of this entry, is one that is certainly near and dear to my heart, as well, I know, as some of my readers. Below I've excerpted a couple of paragraphs from the article which had me going "Amen!" as I read. Without further ado,

LN writes:

Dr. Gordon Neufeld is a clinical psychologist from Canada with a reputation for penetrating to the heart of complex parenting issues, and the author of the internationally recognized book Hold On to Your Kids — why parents need to matter more than peers. Dr. Neufeld’s message was that the younger generation’s lack of adult contacts in the Western world is one of the most disturbing and misunderstood trends of our time — peers replacing parents in the lives of our children. Dr. Neufeld has dubbed this phenomenon peer orientation [jämnårigorientering], which refers to the tendency of children and youth to look to their peers for direction: for a sense of right and wrong, for values, identity and codes of behaviour.

But peer orientation undermines family cohesion, poisons the school atmosphere, and fosters an aggressively hostile and sexualized youth culture. It provides a powerful explanation for conformism, aggression, schoolyard bullying, and youth violence; its effects are painfully evident in the context of teenage gangs and criminal activity. It is an escalating trend that has never been adequately described or contested until Hold On to Your Kids. Once understood, it becomes self-evident — as perhaps do the solutions.

Pardon me while I say, once more, Amen!.

I'm reminded that it was Horace Mann who first introduced a series of changes into the Massachusetts schools way back in the 1840's which would eventually lead to full-fledged John Dewey style, mind numbing progressive education in America's public schools. Hence Mann is affectionately known by his modern acolytes as "The Father of Public Education" in America, not so affectionately by those of us who clearly see the error and eventuality of his ways having come to full fruition in our public schools and the half brain-dead members of our society that the public schools are largely responsible for producing today.

I have in my possession a facimile edition of Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. Published in the front of the edition, in a series of "green pages" as they're called (which aren't included in the online editions that I've seen), is a reference to Mann's destructive influence on America's education system. Elsewhere we find that the implementation of Mann's plan for public education in America, under which the state, via the creation of a powerful state "Board of Education" which Mann himself was selected to head (imagine that), at first received strong resistance and righteous indignation from a select but precious few respected educators of the era who could see and actually predicted where Mann's state-run progressive education would eventually take us in America. Too bad that Mr. Mann's plan eventually won out over a more commonsensical, American approach to education. The importation of foreign ideologies and ideologues has ever been a bane on our society. But I guess that's a subject for a whole 'nother post.

Read More

Islamites spew venom at the West from their Dead Island perch

Note: The caption at the top of the video is a complete misrepresentation. These Islamites aren't "insulting" Geert Wilders, as if to say they're simply calling him bad names or something. Insofar as they speak of Wilders by name, they make no bones about what punishment they have in store for him should he ever drop his guard. What idiot among us doubts that these freak followers of their freak prophet Mohammed wouldn't saw his head off with a dull knife right there in the streets of London if they could get their hands on him? But, of course, it isn't just Mr. Wilders's life they threaten, but the lives of all non-Muslim Westerners, including your children and mine.

History, methinks, is bound to repeat itself once again. Terry didn't raise his *kids to be no fools, nor to succumb to jihadist threats and acts of aggression. So we got us a little problem here, don't we.

*I actually hate using that word "kids" in reference to my offspring because sheep have kids, people have children (Katherine Dang). And words most definitely mean something. Occasionally I'll make an exception, which I did in this particular case for purely stylistic reasons. And yes, I apply the exact same rule in verbal communications as I do in writing. On the other hand, given the way some children tend to behave, I can see why their parents choose to refer to them (or is it themselves?) in animalistic terms.

Read More

Call me "Mr. Nobody"

Here we have an idiotic Democrat(ic) member of Congress putting his idiocy on open display before God and everybody.

Democrat idiot on the supposed authority of Congress to force Americans to purchase health insurance:

"Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that."

Again, call me Mr. Nobody. Heavy on the Mister!

By the way, when exactly was it that Congress' (unlimited) authority on this issue became unquestionable? I must have been sick that day.

Read More

A minor mishap turned bigger than first thought

I'll likely be away from the computer for the next couple of days. I don't completely understand why, but I'm assured that this is indeed a pretty bad injury that requires some special attention from surgeons more capable than we have locally. Mr. Auster has posted at VFR the text of an email I sent to a few internet friends which explains the situation in a bit more detail.

Thanks in advance for your prayers and well wishes. I'll be back to give you an update as soon as possible.

Update, Oct. 23rd:

The docs pinned Sarah's arm back together in surgery early Tuesday morning. She was released from the hospital at noon Wednesday, and was home by 3:00 pm same day. Other than a slight swelling issue that we monitored closely all night Wednesday-Thursday, she appears to be doing exceptionally well. We have an appointment scheduled with the docs this coming Monday, when, if everything is a go, they'll put her arm in a more permanent cast. I'll let you know how that went in another update next week.

Update, Oct. 27:

Everything looked good on X-ray yesterday, and accordingly Sarah got her hard cast put on. Doc says they'll check it out again in three weeks, when, if all looks ok, they'll pull the pins out of her elbow. Ouch.

Read More

Where do these people get this stuff?

I mentioned in a comment to this Webster's entry Jack Hampton's blatantly naked, false portrayal of the Mayflower Compact as America's first and failed attempt at socialism. I had determined, at that point and after some reflection, that it wasn't worth pursuing with Mr. Hampton a series of posts to correct him on his mistake, but changed my mind at length.

TM:

Jack Hampton wrote:

By the way the first experiment in socialism in this country came with the Pilgrims it was called the Mayflower Compact. It failed miserably.

Well, the Pilgrims did try socialism, and it did fail miserably as you say. But we don’t call that the Mayflower Compact. Or at least I don’t call it that.

Now, I don't think I was being disrespectful in the way that I challenged Hampton's false assertions about the Mayflower Compact. In point of fact, I was consciously doing my very best not to be disrespectful towards Mr. Hampton, albeit I did find his depiction of the Mayflower Compact to be ignorant at best, stupid at worst. But then again, given his uncanny ability to smell out a real racist 5,280 words off as demonstrated in his succinct, to-the-point reply to Lawrence Auster's post in the thread, what would make me think this uncannily sensitive nose of his wouldn't also pick up on the scent of the real motives beneath my 'respectful' challenge of his assertions on this particular point as well, notwithstanding my attempt to cover it up? Anyway, here is Mr. Hampton's wise-*ss reply to my critique of his comment:

Terry
That was what it was called. I guess you can call it a baseball game if you wish.

Well, I guess I had that one a-comin'. Nonetheless I replied in actual hopes of getting an answer:

No it isn’t what it was called. Who told you that?

And that's the question that I'd like to have answered -- where do these people get this stuff?

Well, after making my usual rounds this morning I got to thinking about it again and decided to pursue the question a bit further by Googling the search words "Mayflower Compact, America's first attempt at socialism." Below is a pertinent sampling of what came up:

zbdent (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-24-06 03:27 PM
Original message
Were you aware that the Pilgrims who died did so due to Socialism?
And not disease, nor the fact that a lack of good medical treatment, nor the fact that they landed in the Northeast at the early stages of winter and not being able to grow crops? (I've also heard about how they could have lived high on the hog if they didn't think that shellfish was evil - lobster, you know . . .)

This had the misfortune to print simultaneously in three Akron papers on Thanksgiving day, 2004 (Akron Beacon Journal, West Side Leader, and the Montrose Sun). Pretty much a "trifecta" . . . and all three papers printed it word-for-word, and had the exact same author.

Here's the drivel (which really dumbs things down to make a rightie point):

"The story of Thanksgiving

This year, let's try to get the Thanksgiving story right. The Pilgrim fathers came to the New World so that they could be free to practice their religion the way they wanted to and to force everyone else to practice it that way, too. Before establishing their colony, they met together and signed the infamous Mayflower Compact, in which they pledged to work together, build common housing, till common fields, share alike in the resulting crops.

Not surprisingly, they found that this primitive form of socialism didn't work in practice. All were willing -- eager, even -- to share the output; but few were willing to work much for the benefit of others. Consequently, not much was produced, and all they shared were shortages and suffering. In fact, almost half of them died the first year from malnutrition and related illnesses.

Those who survived finally wised up, abandoned socialism and decided to let each family own and till its own fields and keep its own produce. This switch to a basically free-enterprise system paid off, and the resulting abundant harvests produced the country's first agricultural surplus. Then -- and only then -- they gathered together and celebrated the first Thanksgiving.

So let us not forget what this day really represents: a time to give thanks not only for the bountiful plenty that we enjoy; but also for the free-enterprise/free-market socioeconomic system that makes it possible."

We see in the first paragraph of the alleged article, allegedly printed in three separate Akron newspapers, Jack Hampton's understanding of what the Mayflower Compact was and what it entailed. Namely that it is responsible for the establishment of a tried-and-failed, and ultimately abandoned socialist system in Plymouth Colony. Indeed, the author of the alleged article goes further than Jack Hampton, attributing to the "infamous" Mayflower Compact these specific agreements between the signers -- that they pledged [therein] to work together, to build common housing, to till common fields, and to share alike in their resulting productions.

Methinks that Jack Hampton and the author of the article above would both do well to actually read the Mayflower Compact, rather than to rely on what they've gathered on the subject from various blogs and websites on the internet, then to arrogantly and dogmatically reverberate it as if it were indisputable documented fact. In which case, by the way, such people really do deserve, in my opinion, to be taken to the proverbial woodshed where they ought to, in a sane and just world, receive a good and thorough lashing for their apparent disdain of independent scholarship. After all, if there are no negative consequences for ill behavior, the behavior itself tends to get worse, not better.

Nonetheless, as I was reading the comments submitted under the post I was pleasantly surprised (pleasantly surprised because Democratic Underground is a far left message board, if you didn't already know it) to read a more accurate accounting in comment no. 17. To wit:

The Mayflower Compact did not create a socialist arrangement, it was a very short document for quasi-democratic rule, and was made on the voyage [TM: actually it wasn't made "on the voyage", which can only be taken to mean somewhere between Great Britian and the Eastern shores of America out in the middle of the Atlantic where the relatively healthy among them were preoccupied with taking care of the sick, and of generally trying to keep the Mayflower afloat] because of already existing factionlism. The agreement that made them "share" was the corporate contract with their financers, a joint stock company of Merchant Adventurers(in the original agreement most were not colonists), who were to supply the cost of their trip and manufactored needs, with payment from the colonists of all their work and specific trade goods, for seven year, at which time the corporate property would be divided. Many of the persons had no money to put up as part of this corporatist arrangment, so they were in fact signed indentured servants agreements for the seven years. Essentially this was originally a kind of Plantation organization, which the indentured servants didn't like much. This is where much of the strife and contention came from, and essentially they ended up with many financial woes and eventual reorganization of the joint stock company, where some of the colonist's bought up the shares. So far from socialism this was corporatist capitalism at it's worst.

Anyway, if you're a leftist, a 'moderate liberal' or some sort of right-liberal who has some kind of deeply ingrained adversarial opinion of the Mayflower Compact, what it allegedly states and the signers' reasons and intentions in organizing themselves into a civil body politic therein that some wild impulse tells you you have to share with everyone, allow me give you a free piece of advice that I think will serve you well: It might not hurt to read the actual document in conjunction with Bradford's History of Plymouth Plantation before you go about exposing yourself, in front of God and everybody, as the ill-informed know-nothing that you are. In other words, take what you read on the internet and in the newspapers with a grain of salt. Trust but verify, as the saying goes, if in fact you feel you have any reason whatsoever to trust what you're being told in the first place.

But in any event, though I've yet to satisfactorily answer the question I asked in the title of the post, I may, however, have inadvertently established, within a fifty mile or so radius, the actual geographical position of Jack Hampton's residency, not to mention one or more of three newspapers that he reads with intense interest and credits with impeccably adhering to the highest possible journalistic standards of accuracy and truth in reporting. Pretty amazing stroke of luck, eh?

Read More

Where the rubber meets the road on "equality"

In a new entry today at VFR, Lawrence Auster gets down to it in two paragraphs:

Lawrence Auster writes:

Everyone wants to be superior

Contemporary America says it believes in the equality of all groups and cultures, but in reality none of those groups or cultures believes in equality. Each group wants to be superior and dominant. Blacks don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. Homosexuals don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. Hispanics don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. Muslims don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. Feminist women don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. The only group today that doesn’t want to be superior and dominant, the only group that sincerely believes in the equality of all groups, is the historic Anglo-European majority population and culture of the United States.

The non-liberal truth is that in any given society, one group or culture must be dominant and set the tone and standards for the rest. There is thus no substitute for making the decision as to which group or culture will be dominant, or, by continuing to bleat about the wonders of equality, passively letting that decision be made for us by others. Liberalism has no answer to this problem, because its only answer to all problems is to call for more equality. I therefore propose that the traditional, Anglo-European majority culture of this country, shorn of its suicidal liberal belief in the equality of all groups and cultures, be the dominant culture.

Mr. Auster's entry reminds me of several related entries, both recent and not-so-recent, archived at this blog. As to the latter, there was the entry dealing with the Congressional Republicans' ecstasy at now being in the minority. As to the former, there was the entry where we concluded that school segregation was the answer to the dilemma of having whites-favorable rules applying to non-white school students.

Read More

On Limited Government and racism

In a comment to the preceding entry Chiu Chunling wrote:

This is why the argument over who is racist is so pointless. Jack Hampton goes on to (inadvertently) make a pretty good case that racism is a necessary characteristic of any society which wants to be around in the long term.

I don't believe that to be the case, but I certainly do believe that a society which tries to eradicate racism will only succeed in institutionalizing oppression directed towards those groups with the most actual value to that society.

People tend to fall into the idea that whatever government permits is therefore endorsed. That can only be true in totalitarian society. A limited government permits much that it is simply prohibited from forbidding.

It is a mark of how far America has strayed, that almost no one can spontaneously imagine what limited government would suggest.

Which I thought was so good that it deserved a separate entry all to itself. Take some time to think on what Chiu is saying here. Deconstruct his statements, if you will.

Read More

How to distinguish a real racist from a ...

...I mean a ... umm, what I mean is a ... a non-real racist?

Lawrence Auster subitted a comment at FrontPage Magazine criticizing David Horowitz's vision of America:

Horowitz:

White European-American culture is a culture that the citizens of this nation can take enormous pride in, precisely because its principles, revolutionary in their conception and unique in their provenance, provide for the inclusion of cultures that are non-white and non-Christian (and which are not so tolerant in their lands of origin).

Auster:

David Horowitz writes:

“White European-American culture is a culture that the citizens of this nation can take enormous pride in, precisely because its principles, revolutionary in their conception and unique in their provenance, provide for the inclusion of cultures that are non-white and non-Christian (and which are not so tolerant in their lands of origin).”

So, according to Horowitz, white European-American culture is good, and the main reason it is good is that it includes non-white and non-Christian cultures. The greatest thing about white European-American culture is that it allows itself to be progressively changed into a melange of nonwhite, non-European, non-Christian cultures and peoples.

Now think about the fact that Horowitz’s vision—assertively pro-America, with the defining thing about America being the fact that it includes ever greater numbers of non-white and non-Western peoples and their cultures—presents itself as the “conservative” vision today, as distinct from the leftist, anti-American vision which Horowitz opposes.

Think of the choice between left and “right” that Horowitz offers us.

On one side, the anti-American left, which openly declares its intention to end white Christian America, by changing America into a nonwhite, non-Christian country.

On the other side, the pro-American “right,” which openly declares its intention to end white Christian America, by changing America into a nonwhite, non-Christian country.

Someone named Jack Hampton instantly smelled a rat, umm, I mean a rar (Real [American] Racist) upon reading Auster's comments:

Jack Hampton:

Why do I smell a real racist.

ROTFL!!!

Read More

Webster's

I've added several new links to articles I've been reading in the "recommended blog posts" section in the upper right sidebar.

Read More

Great article today at Loyal to Liberty

Here again I jump through a couple of unnecessary hoops in order to create a direct link to Dr. Keyes's excellent article. In this case I think it's worth the extra effort.

(BTW, the reason I don't generally like doing this is because it creates a scenario in which a failure to establish the link is more likely. Which, of course, means that in the event of a failure, then it has to be done all over again. I.e., a simple waste of time and effort. And I can be very impatient about things like that. But I really should be taking this up with Dr. Keyes, shouldn't I?)

Read More

I love the "super nanny"

Why do I love her? Because she is the exact epitome of what not to do as parents! Let me repeat that, Supernanny is the exact epitome of what not to do if you are a parent -- I don't care how you look at it.

Let's get down to where the rubber meets the road, ummm, Supernanny. No matter what you do or recommend, you can never, under any circumstances, equal the amount of exterior encouragement that I, a father of six, receive on almost a daily basis, from those outside our circle of influence. "You have the best behaved children I've ever seen" isn't an exception, but the rule we see over and over agaiin when in public, irregardless of where we might make an appearance. People approach us to tell us this, for goodness sakes. What possibly about your approach to parenthood could at all convince me that you have a superior approach? Answer: Nothing. Not only are you British, which itself is a mark against you, but you're a woman too, which doesn't exactly make me particularly comfortable with your particular approach to child-discipline. But then again, I regard child-discipline in terms of expressly not putting so-called "child-safety-locks" on the cabinets and whatnot.

Yes, it's a "lack of committment" on my part, this tendency to parent children in a way which excludes proper parenting. But I personally challenge you to give me a better solution. Yeah; Supernanny is hereby invited to my home. She'll not only be amazed at what happens here, but her whole show will have been completely refuted. End of story.

Read More

Is anything possible with God?

Well, no. Anything that is possible is possible with God, unlike human ... beings. It isn't like God is being that involves no restriction on His being, well, being. God can't possibly create a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift, as an example. But He can create a rock that is too heavy for created beings to possibly lift, human technology and enginuity notwithstanding. That is the essence of God. He can do certain things, and he cannot do certain other things. We (human beings, created intelligent beings) can relate to this only as a limited being can relate to unlimited being. By calling God "unlimited," while asserting his "limitlessness" am I not contradicting myself? Well, in a sense, yes. In another sense (the God-sense), no. God is unlimited in his ability to do that which is possible to do. Human beings cannot ever achieve that level of possibility no matter what. We'll never be able to create a rock that is impossible for us to lift, in other words, if it were at all possible for us to "create" a rock in any event.

But, in the end, I'm simply inviting others to share their view or understanding of theology. Given that we have some very intelligent, very informed commenters here, I have nothing but intense interest in their particular views on this subject.

The floor is yours...

Read More