Tuesday, August 4, 2020

"He's a Good Boy - He Goes to Church Every Sunday"

Those words, in the title, have been uttered by almost every mother/grandmother whose child has been arrested for a felony. After a time, having heard that cry from family of students I KNEW to be violent thugs, I'd learned that the words had a different meaning to the grieving family than what they conveyed to the rest of us.

That phrase meant:
  • This must be a mistake/frame by an evil and corrupt justice system.
  • I've put my whole being into the belief that I was making the right decisions. Don't tell me I wasted my whole life.
  • I made decisions based on what experts told me. I supported his self-esteem, put him into sports, gave grown men access to him, so he could replace his father (but fathers are truly irreplaceable).
  • I took him to church. Thought I lived a different life the other 6 days, that should have been enough.
To their families, the only face-saving answer is that the system is out to GET innocent people. It cannot be that I wasted my life.

Likewise, for the BLM activists, and those that have put their lives on hold to support them, it cannot be that their actions are causing LOSS of support among the Non-Woke.

For the AntiFa, and their MANY Woke supporters, it cannot be that "The Cause" for which they have destroyed any hope of a Normal life - family, secure finances, education that is actually useful - is, indeed, a "Lost Cause".

I haven't checked it out, but I suspect that a significant portion of those Southerners who doggedly pursued remembrance of the "Lost Cause" of their time were the single women. Those who would normally have married and had families. Those who, due to the massive numbers that died in the war they initiated, never were able to form a Normal life.

They COULD have blamed themselves, for failing prey to the hucksters of the Confederacy, but - come on! Does anyone ever blame themselves? Or, do they deflect that blame to their 'enemies'?

The same will happen to the Loyalists of the Woke Cause - they will fade away. Oh, they will meet, regularly at first, then, eventually, yearly, to commemorate their Shining Moment in the Revolutionary Sun.

Think I'm deluded? Check out this anniversary celebration, and look at the size of the crowd online. (View it in YouTube - at the time I linked this, only a pitiful 636 views). Other videos commemorating the events 50th anniversary are similarly poorly viewed.


That's a tell - on such an important anniversary, with no travel expenses, and only a few minutes needed to participate - The Kent State deaths couldn't even manage to get ONE THOUSAND people to open their laptops to play along.

Baby, the 60s are OVER!

The Leftist Protests are a dying industry. The participants are:
  • Unemployed "Studies" majors (Gee, I wonder why they're unemployed?)
  • Bitter old women (Jane Fonda, Ashley Judd, Bette Midler, Gloria Steinem, your ex-wife, et al)
  • The soy-boys who want to pretend they are Real Men
  • Blacks who've bought into the idea that the reason their lives turned out badly was Other People (White/Jewish/KKK), and not their own actions
  • People belonging to "religious" institutions that are shrinking faster than Joe Biden's brain
  • The Leftist Industrial Complex
    • Schools/Universities
    • Leftist Churches
    • Government workers
    • Social Workers, Activists, Community Organizers, and other Leeches on the Poor
    • News Media, particularly the dying dead tree/network types
    • Those connected with the traditional publishing industry
    • Human Resources and other staff departments in large companies
    • Hollywood
NONE of them are in growth industries. NONE of them will survive over the next 25 years (some say in as little as 5 years, they could all be gone).

Like those Confederates that have no home to return to, they are fighting to the death. And, this is their Last Stand.

Miracles: A Report From The Field

     "I wonder where they took Ted's body," Rachel said quietly.
     Devin shrugged. "If they free me, I'll call his office and ask his secretary tomorrow. If they jail me, you will."
     "They're not going to jail you, bro." Andrew's face was stern.
     "Who's going to stop them, Drew? You? Going to knock all their heads together, and then start on the bailiffs?"
     Andrew winced and shut his eyes tightly. Devin was stricken with regret for his words, but he could not retract them.
     He can't protect me any more, and it's eating him up.
     "There are no miracles, Drew. The age of miracles is long past. We have to make do with men, now. In a little while, twelve good men and true are going to march in here and tell me what's what, and that'll be that. Relax and get used to it."
     "You're wrong, bro." Andrew's voice shook. "There are miracles. I was present at one. And maybe I'll be present at another. Do you know how to make yourself worthy of a miracle? You stand straight and you live clean. You go to face your enemy with your war paint on and your weapons in hand. You dare him to do his worst, and you give him the best you've got in you. You don't give up."

     [From The Sledgehammer Concerto]

     I, too, have been present at a miracle. In fact, I was a participant in one just yesterday. And I’m here to tell you all about it.


     It’s been said, and truly, that there was never a man so rich that he didn’t need money – and usually, the more he had, the more he needed. As of a few weeks ago – partly owing to my having married an accountant – I found that that bit of wisdom applied to me.

     He who needs money will normally go to his bank, which I did. He applies for a loan, which I did. He awaits the approval of his application, which I did. When I was notified that my application had been approved, I contacted the bank about scheduling the closing. ‘Twas then I received a surprise.

     I was told that owing to the Kung Flu pandemic, the closing would be “virtual.” It would involve computers, digital cameras and microphones, and “Zoom.” I make no pretensions to pulchritude and never have, but my home office...let’s just say that just now, owing to the extensive ongoing renovations taking place here at the Fortress, to call it “disheveled” would do it a great compliment. The “virtual closing” would perforce involve both the sight of my unattractive (at best) mug and a peek into my home office. Atop that, I have a formless but considerable fear of banks and closings, owing to certain experiences of which I will decline to speak.

     To make a long story somewhat shorter, the “virtual closing” took place yesterday, without a hitch. That, despite my never having participated in any such thing before, a mountain of forms to be read and signed, the requirement for the use of “Zoom,” a program of which I knew little, and my aforementioned fear of banks and closings. It started on time. All the technology involved worked perfectly, including some that had only just been purchased and installed. It was over in an hour, involved no suffering of any kind, and resulted in my being granted the use of a large sum of the bank’s money for no consideration other than my agreement to repay it over time, at a modest rate of interest. My relief at the conclusion was beyond my ability to capture it even in the most extravagant metaphor.

     But that’s not the miracle of which I speak.

     The bank officer at the closing was a young woman whom I’ll call Nicole, because that’s her name. She was utterly the master of all the procedures involved, but then, you would expect that of someone authorized to lend out large sums of the bank’s money. She knew every jot and tittle of all the documents involved, what needed to be signed or initialed, what needed to be scanned and emailed at once, what needed to be returned to the bank physically, and so forth. Once again, you’d expect that of a loan officer, and I suppose I did.

     But I did not expect Nicole.

     Nicole was so incredibly patient with this awkward, uncertain old man, considerate of his fears and willing to listen to him talk, that once again, words fail me. Yet she said, offhandedly, that she averages five such closings per day. Incredible! One such closing – the procedure alone, to say nothing of the novelty of the procedure – had me shaking. Yet she led me though it without the slightest ripple of discomfort at any stage. She even guided me through the repackaging of the return documents in the FedEx envelope. The closing was over in an hour. The return package was in a FedEx drop box less than half an hour after that.

     If that wasn’t a miracle, I can’t imagine what would qualify.


     So! You want to know why there aren’t any miracles these days, eh, hero? You demand to see proof of the divine? You maintain that your atheism is “rational” while our theism is mere superstition? All this, though your contention is as unprovable as ours? So we must prove our stance, else you’ll continue to slather your spittle-filled contempt over us uneducated lowbrow theists?

     Have you ever considered the possibility that your unwillingness to allow that there are miracles has rendered you unworthy of one – perhaps insulated from them? Or have you considered the possibility that you’ve ignored the miracles in your life? That they’ve passed unnoticed because you were either inattentive to them or unwilling to acknowledge their miraculousness? That they might just have been embodied as people?

     Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow, including Nicole.

Monday, August 3, 2020

Immiscibles

     It’s a charming word, isn’t it? Try to pronounce it; it’s more of a challenge than you might think. But no matter how it’s mangled orally, its meaning remains the same: incapable of being mixed.

     The immiscibility of oil and water is well known. Indeed, it’s the reason for the invention of soap. The grime we accumulate on our skin won’t wash off in water alone. That’s because it’s suspended in the oil our skin naturally exudes as a protection against friction and ultraviolet light. Soap emulsifies (another charming word) that grime-in-oil suspension into something water can flush away. Without soap’s emulsifying action, we’d be reduced to scraping the dirt off ourselves with sticks. That explains the dermatological problems of uncivilized societies pretty well, doesn’t it? But I’m not here to talk about physical chemistry or its practical application to personal hygiene.

     Are there demographics, whether they’re already a significant part of the American population or are still largely outside our borders, that are inherently immiscible with the American majority? If so, what makes them immiscible with us?

     I think you can guess my opinion, so I won’t bother to rattle on about it. The abstract question is itself of considerable interest. If there are characteristics that render a people incapable of becoming Americans, it would be well for us to know what they are, and for our immigration laws to be cognizant of them. However, at this time little attention has gone to such studies, for a fairly obvious reason: it would be shouted down by the usual suspects as “racist,” “jingoist,” and “xenophobic.”

     Rudyard Kipling didn’t think so:

The Stranger within my gate,
     He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk--
     I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
     But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock,
     They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wanted to,
     They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
     When we go to buy or sell.

The Stranger within my gates,
     He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control--
     What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
     Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,
     Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
     And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
     They think of the likes of me.

This was my father's belief
     And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf--
     And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
     By bitter bread and wine.

     And of course, we all know what today’s bien-pensants think of Kipling.

     Since I have a great deal before me today, I’m setting this question “on the table” for general discussion. I’d like it to focus on characteristics visibly abroad in the world today: traits, beliefs, and practices we can see are firmly associated with particular demographics:

  • Race and racial or tribal characteristics;
  • Strongly held religious or ideological convictions;
  • Attachment to particular customs, practices, and patterns of life.

     Be candid but thoughtful. I will participate as time allows. The best bits of the discussion will be used to update this post.

AOC is NOT Looking Good - Throwing Shade on St. Damien

You really have to be a special kind of Entitled to think that your disrespect of an immigrant, held in high esteem by many Indigenous People, is a good move.

Pearls of expression.

In response to a Newsweek tweet that "Bill Clinton went to Jeffrey Epstein's island with 2 'young girls,' Virginia Guiffre says": "
This is Newsweek not Infowars (although Infowars had story first) An ex president visiting the private island of a known pedophile who was running a human trafficking operation with the daughter of a spy. Just think about that the next time you ridicule conspiracy theorists.[1]
Notes
[1] Tom Dillon quoted in "When Corporate Power Is Your Real Government, Corporate Media Is State Media." By Caitlin Johnstone, ZeroHedge, 7/31/20.

Government running on fumes.

Unfortunately, both Democrats and Republicans appear willing to bankrupt the nation to perpetuate their own power.

Federal legitimacy hinges on the Constitution, but there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that either Trump or Biden will “make America constitutional again.” As Thomas Jefferson declared in 1786, “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for.” What’s the point of voting if “government under the law” is not a choice on Election Day? American political legitimacy will continue plummeting as long as politicians scorn any legal and constitutional limits on their power.[1]

Debt -- limitless.

Spending -- a broken fire hydrant.

Open borders -- to the waters of Tierra del Fuego and the headwaters of the Limpopo.

AntiFa criminality -- unopposed.

Sexual lunacy -- object at your own risk.

Worship of parasites and bastards -- forgive us for we have sinned.

Reckless, pointless wars -- Democrat and Republican rejoicing.

Fatuous claims of American world "leadership" -- worshipful hosannas.

Supreme Court betrayal -- law of the land.

Rotten, ridiculous elections -- our democracy.

Plutocracy and monopoly -- bedrock America.

Dishonest, vicious suppression of free speech -- sue Google.

Notes
[1] "Make America Constitutional Again?" By James Bovard, ZeroHedge, 7/31/20 (emphasis removed).

Sunday, August 2, 2020

So Crazy This Might Just Work!

In the fervor to extend unemployment bonus payments, those that are screaming, "I want my money, and I want it NOW!" have been accommodated without complaint - so far.

But, as each added bonus is sucked up by the recipients without a pause, perhaps it's time to ask:

Is there a better way to do this?
Here's an idea:

For each 6 months of bonus payments received from this point on, the recipient's Social Security account gets docked for 6 months of earned service, over and above the failure to add to those qualifying years while unemployed.

Those that cannot wait for their money, will lose at the other end. They will, in essence, be raiding their own retirement accounts to pay for their current standard of living.

Isn't that what people with IRAs have to do, should they have need? By treating the SS system in a similar way, we are reducing the amount that the recipients will be able to take out, when they retire. In that way, we are reducing the eventual debt that will fall on taxpayers. 

For some people, it is a good, or at least acceptable, short-term solution for their cash flow problems. By introducing the benefit qualification reduction, they will have to weigh the pros and cons of getting their money now, or making decisions to cut their expenses, and conserving the FICA account for the future. Some will decide to forego the payment, and keep their earned SS years intact.

By doing this, we will start shifting the thinking of the public towards the idea that TANSTAAFL.

When You Wonder Whether Some Babies are Just Better Off Not Being Born...

...This pops up in your feed. And, you remember why that idea is wrong.

The fact is, you can just never tell what a kid is going to be like as an adult - or how his life will impact others.

Say what you will about the voraciousness of Amazon, it has done more than any other company to make this transition to mostly online, shop remotely life we have been living in the past few months, a manageable situation, rather than panic in the streets.

Pretty good for the child of an unwed mother, and the stepson of a refugee.

The thing is, you just can't predict outcome from the socioeconomic factors. 

I found that to be true in my teaching career. I taught mostly in poor urban school systems, and my students were products of single motherhood, rough neighborhoods, and few examples of working adults.

And, yet, in every class, SOME of them pulled through. Some of them managed to work a steady job, raise a family, and live a good life; that's not a small accomplishment. Others sought out further education. Some joined the military (did you know that a person in the military is LESS likely to die at a young age than a kid who stays in the hood? Even if he is stationed in a combat zone.).

The Leftist idea that the way for people to get ahead in life is to kill off their children is flawed, not merely morally, but also practically.

Multiplications: A Sunday Rumination 2020-08-02

     [This essay first appeared at Liberty’s Torch on August 3, 2014. As a huge number of Americans are in an unprecedented degree of need, and there’s a lot of confusion over the proper occasions for – and methods of doing – charity, it seems appropriate that it be reposted at this time. – FWP]


     No doubt any Christians in the audience will be familiar with this Gospel tale:

     Now when Jesus heard this he went away from there privately in a boat to an isolated place. But when the crowd heard about it, they followed him on foot from the towns. As he got out he saw the large crowd, and he had compassion on them and healed their sick. When it became evening his disciples came to him saying, “This is an isolated place and the hour is already late. Send the crowds away so that they can go into the villages and buy food for themselves.” But he said to them, “They don’t need to go. You give them something to eat.” They said to him, “We have here only five loaves and two fish.” “Bring them here to me,” he said. Then he instructed the crowds to sit down on the grass. He took the five loaves and two fish, and looking up to heaven he gave thanks and broke the loaves. He gave them to the disciples, who in turn gave them to the crowds. They all ate and were satisfied, and they picked up the broken pieces left over, twelve baskets full. Not counting women and children, there were about five thousand men who ate. [Matthew 14:13-21]

     Ah, yes: The Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes. Consider how this well known tale is usually retold and swiftly dismissed. Looky here: a miracle! That Redeemer was one awesome dude, eh? That’s that, everybody got the bread crumbs? Let’s pass on to something else now, children.

     This morning at Mass, Deacon Michael Byrne of Infant Jesus parish in Port Jefferson told it properly. I can’t remember his exact words, but I can reproduce the gist of his explication. I doubt I’ll ever forget it.

     First, Jesus elects to leave the populated area for “an isolated place.” But a huge crowd drops everything and follows him thence...out of a pure desire to be with Him, and remain with Him until night has fallen.

     Second, His disciples implore Him to send the other followers away, so they can procure food. But He is moved by the crowd’s hunger for Him and instructs His disciples to feed them out of their own store.

     Third, they protest – out of selfishness, or out of realism? – that “We have here only five loaves and two fish.” Clearly, the disciples would prefer that the crowd depart, leaving them alone with Jesus.

     Fourth, Jesus would have none of that. He takes the disciples’ food into His hands, gives thanks, and returns it to the disciples for distribution to the multitude.

     Fifth and finally, all are fed to satiety, yet the leftovers the disciples collect prove copious enough to give a Tupperware® salesman an orgasm.

     So what happened? Yes, there was a miracle. Yes, it was Christ at the center thereof. But note: It was His disciples’ charity from their own meager store, however reluctantly they provided it, that was the seed for that miracle, and His disciples that distributed the food to the hungry crowd. Moreover, the throng that had followed Him to that deserted place had asked nothing of Him...except to be in His nearness.

     There’s a moral in there, isn’t there?


     Sane persons who live in healthy societies don’t perform charity carelessly or thoughtlessly. They seek to know what they’re doing, and for whom, and what consequences it will have. But once such a man has identified a person in need, has decided that that person deserves assistance rather than being a freeloader of some sort, and has satisfied himself that his alms are more likely to conduce to good rather than harm – i.e., that his gifts will bring about a net improvement in the state of the beneficiary – he proceeds to give from his own store, and with his own hands. He doesn’t allow intermediaries between himself and the recipient, for one can never be certain that such persons will serve his agenda and not something wholly distinct from it.

     That sort of charity is vanishingly rare in our time. Almost all contemporary “charitable giving” involves monetary gifts rendered to salaried intermediaries who work for corporate entities, on the representation that the funds will go to benefit “the needy.” Those “needy” never acquire faces or names.

     As we know, in the usual case a hefty fraction of our monetary gifts won’t get anywhere near “the needy,” going instead to “operating expenses:” the salaries of those who collected the funds. That fraction has, in a number of cases, risen all the way to 100%. What remains to become benefits distributed to “the needy” will do so in an unpredictable fashion: the giver can know neither the form nor time of delivery. Perhaps worst of all, “the needy” are not guaranteed to be persons whose troubles are not of their own making, nor that the benefits will bring about a true and enduring improvement in their existences. Few “charitable institutions” bother to do the checking that might ascertain such things. Worse, they and those who work for them have an innate incentive to perpetuate dependency rather than to dispel it, for dependency is the source of their income and their importance.

     Thus, quite a lot of our giving results mainly in paying well-to-do hirelings and perpetuating the dependency of persons who, in the most common case, feel no gratitude whatsoever for their blessings.

     So why do we do it?


     Of all the glorious things Jesus said while He wore the flesh, none are more important than these:

     Now when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they assembled together. And one of them, an expert in religious law, asked him a question to test him: 22:36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” Jesus said to him, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. 22:39 The second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments.” [Matthew 22:34-40]

     Clearly, to “love your neighbor” implies that you should help him when appropriate – i.e., when he wants it, needs it, and deserves it. You must not do him harm: “Love does no evil to a neighbor.” But who is this “neighbor” of whom the Redeemer speaks? Is it anyone and everyone who might happen to profess a need?

     Not at all. Your neighbor is he who is near you: near enough that you can determine what he needs, the reasons for it, and what might improve his condition for yourself.

     Only if you’re confident that you know those things should you proceed to render charity – from your own hands, and never against your neighbor’s wishes or resistance.

     Jesus had His disciples distribute the food He had blessed and invested with His power. He intended that they be the ones the throng see as their beneficiaries, perhaps because He knew that the disciples’ time on Earth would greatly exceed His, but perhaps more because He wanted them to know true charity as few, even in those years, knew it. They had performed the preliminaries: taking stock of the hour and the crowd’s lack of food, and providing their own food, however meager, for an offering. The third step – the actual giving of alms from person to person – was what remained. With it, the recipe was completed, and Love could act to multiply their gifts as He intended.

     The lesson has largely been lost on us of the Twenty-First Century. It need not be so.

     May God bless and keep you all.

Quickies: Words Matter, Especially When They’re Missing – And Missed

     You all know what a stickler I am for the proper uses of words. I’ve come near to blows over the deliberate misuse of words by persons attempting to bully or deceive with them. Being a rather determined sort, I don’t back down when I catch such a miscreant in the act...and I make sure they regret bearding this particular lion in his lexicographical den.

     But there are subtleties to the use of words that are obscure to too many people. This incident provides a particularly good illustration:

     I have the utmost admiration for young Mr. Isaac, especially given the pressure he must have been under to conform to the racialist narrative to which his teammates have succumbed. That having been said, I wish he were a bit more acute about the question he was asked. Follow along with me as I rewrite the exchange.

Reporter: Do you believe Black Lives Matter?
Isaac: Ask the question properly.
Reporter: Excuse me? I said do you believe—
Isaac: I heard what you said. I also heard what you didn’t say.
Reporter: What are you talking about?
Isaac: There’s a word missing from your question, and its absence makes the question ambiguous. I refuse to answer a question phrased so ambiguously that you can interpret it to mean whatever you choose.
Reporter: What word is missing?
Isaac: Work it out for yourself, dude. Then come back and ask me again.

     My highly intelligent and articulate Gentle Readers “should” have enough information to answer the question for themselves, but just in case you’re not up for the riddle at this hour, I’ll answer it here:

  • The missing word is that.
  • It belongs after believe and before black.

     “Reporters,” of course, aren’t primarily interested in the facts these days. They’re certainly less interested in what an athlete actually believes than in whether they can get him into conformance with the editorial committee’s preferred “narrative.” So I consider it a good bet that the omission of the word that was deliberate, to create the very ambiguity I’ve cited. Your mileage may vary.

Saturday, August 1, 2020

Acceptance And Accommodation

     There’s a mountain of stuff to write about today. As I’m loath to space assorted pieces too closely, I’ve been looking for a unifying theme. I think I’ve found one. Perhaps you’ll agree with me about it. At any rate, I hope so.

     If you live long enough (“How long is that?” I hear you mutter), you’ll surely be told, in the face of some unpleasant imposition, that you’ll get used to it. I’ve heard that dread phrase many times in my sixty-eight years. The tally is higher than I care to count. You might have a similar story to tell.

     The truly terrible thing about you’ll get used to it is that in the overwhelming majority of applications, it’s absolutely correct. There are few things one cannot “get used to.” The human body and mind are immensely adaptable items. Our adaptability is why humans can survive both Antarctica and Death Valley. It’s why neither torrential storms nor protracted droughts can kill us off. But paradoxically, it’s also a weapon that can be wielded against us.

     Once people accept that some disliked condition cannot be dispelled, they begin the process of accommodating themselves to it. They make necessary adjustments. They budget for palliative treatments. Most important for the theme of this tirade, they condition their minds to the thing: If it’s not going away, I might as well get used to it. The product of such mental accommodations resembles a kind of numbness.

     We are sometimes – often? – subjected to demands to broaden that numbness. As with friction, it’s the initial transition from rejection to acceptance that costs the most pain and effort. Subsequent broadenings that merely “expand on the theme” cost less, at least viewed independently of one another.

     I could tell you stories, but I’m sure you have enough of your own. Instead, I’ll recap a few noteworthy developments of decades past, in my own, admittedly tendentious manner. What follows is a narrative that’s been acted out in far too many places.


     Sure, they’re not much like us most ways, but that doesn’t mean they can’t become more like us. We can educate them, prepare them to assimilate to mainstream society. So why don’t we? Build them schools, put good teachers in them, and we’ll see what happens. What? Why separate schools? You don’t want our kids have to sit next to theirs, do you?

     All right, maybe it was unfair to make them go to separate schools. After all, they need models to emulate, don’t they? So enough with the separation, let them into our schools. What’s that? Of course we’ll make them toe the line! One set of rules for all is the American way!

     Yeah, they’re kind of boisterous and unruly. We didn’t expect this much of it...or that our kids would start to emulate them rather than the other way around. But we can keep order. A few more hall guards and recess monitors won’t break the budget. If we can’t have absolute decorum, we can still insist that there be no violence or theft.

     What do you mean you can’t get Tyrone’s dad in here for a conference? Have you insisted? Doesn’t he have a dad? What? He doesn’t know who his dad is? Who supports him and his siblings? Oh, the hell with it. Call the precinct and have him charged with assault and battery.

     The principal heard from the chief this morning. They won’t be charging any more of our bullies or vandals. Something about flak from the state capital. We’ll just have to deal with them ourselves...though how and with what, I can’t imagine.

     Sorry, Miss Jones, but Rufus isn’t going to graduate. He’s failed four subjects, he’s been absent more than half the school year, and he can barely read. If I were to allow him a diploma, it would cheapen every other diploma I award...what’s that, Lawyer Smith? I must issue him a diploma? Even though he’s assaulted thirty other students and is on trial for armed robbery? Who’s paying your fees...oh, them. We’ll see about this!

     Yeah, they’re a problem. Our kids try their best to stay clear of them, but it’s not always possible. Unfortunately, because of what all the new social workers and counselors have cost us, we can’t afford to hire more security...and the board won’t let us give the guards as much as a nightstick. Something about pressure from higher up, though what’s gotten into their panties no one will say.

     No, we can’t make them attend. They simply won’t, their mothers are uncooperative, and the truant officers can’t bring them in. Their buddies protect them too effectively. Maybe it’s for the best. After all, they weren’t learning anything, and having them out of the school means our kids are a little safer, even if it means the streets are a little less safe.

     What? You want me to teach there? Do you have any idea what goes on in that school? I won’t even drive through that neighborhood! They can drug and kill each other until there are none left!

     Then the federal government sites a “public housing” project in a previously peaceful district.


     The little tale above begins somewhere in the early part of the Twentieth Century, shortly after Plessy v. Ferguson. Today it’s rolling forward at high speed, in tandem with all kinds of other developments that are as bad or worse.

     First we accept. Then we accommodate. The consequences aren’t always as purely negative as the above mini-narrative, but when it comes to compulsory integration of the races, there have been more developments that conformed to the pattern than departed from it.

     Don’t think the pattern as I’ve depicted it pertains strictly to schooling. Anytime we say to one another that “we can’t fix it, so we’ll just have to get used to it,” the pattern is reproduced, with details of its own. The burgeoning welfare state and the rise of the permanent underclass. The explosion of single motherhood, in which the State replaces the father as the primary provider. The creation of unpoliced “no-go” zones. The emergence of cooperative arrangements between law enforcement and criminal organizations. And now, two months of highly destructive riots, supposedly over the death of a convicted felon at police hands.

     Economist Herbert Stein has famously said that “If something cannot continue indefinitely, it will stop.” Needless to say! The absence of a reliable end date does not invalidate the observation. It does, however, make the rest of us wonder what “stopping it” will require of us.

     Quoth Fred Reed:

     [R]ace is just the most explosive part of an unfunctioning polity. Other things ratchet up the fury. Add economic decay and you get more anger, more pressure. People live paycheck to paycheck, maxed out on credit cards. They don’t have a thousand dollars, or five hundred, for an emergency. The young live in their parents’ basements because they can’t get jobs to buy houses and start families. People don’t see doctors because medical care is both costly and wretched. Student loans crush the young. Grade schools are propaganda mills; parents know it, but can do nothing. Retirement programs vanish as employers turn employees into independent contractors, avoiding the expense of benefits. People see no hope. This makes them dangerous. Watch.
     And BLM wants to go into the suburbs to get Whitey. God help us. Then it will well and truly blow. BLM doesn’t know how many white men are sick of the chaos and destruction, sick of BLM. They quietly say, “Bring it on. Let’s settle it.” Laden words.
     While these undercurrents grow, the media will chirp and lecture and say virtuous things. Then, boom....
     The deadliest question is how to accommodate blacks. One mustn’t say what everyone knows, that blacks are the least educable, least productive, most criminal, most violent, most dependent, and least assimilable of the population. If anything can be done about any of these, it won’t be, because no one is permitted to name the problem. No one is in charge.

     [Emphasis added by FWP.]

     Fred is spot on, especially in the emphasized sentence. Further accommodation is not possible without surrendering the country to a black-supremacist ideology in which enough melanin renders the possessor above the law. Yet we are here because of previous acceptances and accommodations, mostly the fruits of benevolent intentions.

     We meant well. Every step of the way, we told ourselves that we only meant to help. And the Good Intentions Paving Company was there to reassure us that we were “doing the right thing.”

     Were we?

     I’ve described one possible outcome to this madness. There are others, mostly worse. Whichever one should ultimately arrive, it will be mainly our fault for acting on our wishes and intentions instead of on the evidence of our senses.

     Further relevant links:

     Buy ammo. And pray.

An essay on "proxy" forces.

It is inconceivable that the British government believes harboring thousands of terrorists within its borders will not result in terrorism.

It harbors these terrorists in order to cultivate and deploy them in future proxy wars and in the meantime prevents them from being liquidated abroad when targets of Western aggression get the upper hand.[1]

The use of proxies or indigenous troops is as old as the Khyber Pass but the hypocrisy about their use of late can be cut with a knife. If Mr. Cartalucci is correct then we see that Britain is using the vilest of the vile for its foreign policy games. As does the U.S. in Syria and did in Libya. The attack on the consulate in Benghazi resulting in the death of Ambassador Stevens and other brave (!!) Americans illustrated that proxies are a dangerous tool as likely to buck in your hands as an improperly used power tool. Hillary and Obongo had no appreciation of this at all and scattered like cockroaches in the kitchen when the chickens came home to Capistrano.

The U.S. used ethnic (Montagnards, Nung) and religious minorities (Hoa Hao, Cao Dai) in Vietnam masterfully. I never for a moment feared any kind of a betrayal from the good-humored and effective Hoa Hoa troops with whom I served. Their religion is quasi-Buddhist by which term I mean no disrespect and their hostility to the Viet Minh and the local Cong needed no affidavits of sincerity.

It isn't the cooperation with and support of various groups here and there in the world that are the problem per se. Rather, the national goals served by establishing such relations, the moral obligations created in the process, and the choice of "partners," as the U.S. loves to say, are what are important.

"American interests" is term that's downright rubbery these days and I can't see how sending arms to ISIS troops in Syria advances even the most limited sense of that term. (And it IS obvious those arms came from Jordan where we and the Saudis have a presence.) As is true of our primary role in Operation Inherent Resolve with its 500+K civilian casualties and immense destruction in Syria. Massive death and destruction and for what?

In Syria the goal of getting rid of Assad the Mad Dog Ophthalmologist is rotten from the git and allying ourselves with ISIS and al-Qaida there is a move that stains ANY goal we might have for involvement in that country. We've been disgraced by our "partners" in Syria and Cartalucci points out how the British have been bitten by their coddled proxies right in their own backyard. Things not looking good for their and our arrogant dabblings in the lives of various "enemies" here and there.

But, of course, there are those Iranians and their proxy forces in Iraq and Syria. We can't have that. That's just wrong.

Notes
[1] "Reading Stabbings: Deliberate Product of UK Foreign Policy." By Tony Cartalucci, Land Destroyer Report, 7/12/20.

Pearls of expression.

The Trump administration has begun slashing the US military presence in Germany from an almost satisfactory 36,000 troops to a practically microscopic 24,000. I think we can all agree that this is the single worst thing that has ever happened in the history of Germany, and arguably the universe.

* * [Expressions of horror from John Bolton, Bill Kristol, CNN, David Welna (NPR), Fred Kaplan (Slate), and Susan Rice.] * *

So as you can see, this troop withdrawal is being met with righteous garment rending by all the best people. What more evidence do you need that we should regard endless military expansionism as the norm and treat even the slightest most peripheral deviation from that path as a freakish apocalyptic travesty?

"Is The Exit Of 12,000 US Troops The 'Single Worst Event In German History'?" By Caitlin Johnstone, ZeroHedge, 7/31/20 (emphasis removed).

Friday, July 31, 2020

Why Are Rights to Free Speech and a Free Press Important?

I was wasting time with aimless surfing reading up on current events and improving my mind, when I happened to read a post in Instapundit:
THEY WERE CALLED ‘POLITICAL OFFICERS’ IN THE SOVIET UNION: At the Washington Post, the title is “Managing Editor for Diversity and Inclusion.” I wonder if she will have rewrite authority to ensure strict compliance with the party line in every story? Remember Ivan Putin in “Hunt for Red October”?
It suddenly occurred to me: What would my present social and political thinking be, if I hadn't happened to read that book (and quite a few others from Tom Clancy). I think the first book I read of his was Patriot Games.  I'd mostly read murder mysteries and science fiction at that point, with occasional suspense thrillers as a chaser. I suppose that's how I stumbled upon the book in the library.

Heinlein books had opened my mind to the idea of opposition to the Left being  a GOOD thing. But, it took the Clancy novels to tunnel into deeply held ideas about the decency of the Left, and root out some very old misconceptions about geo-political interactions, and how the Left had distorted them badly.

I'd read some of the arguments from the NLDs - so strong was my conditioning, the arguments barely penetrated. But, that fictional portrayal of an Irish-American guy, who stumbles across perfidy, and is driven to act against it, struck a nerve in me. I could see myself acting in similar ways, given that awareness. I started to ask myself some very inconvenient questions about the Left - it was a long process, and one that my family is still puzzled by.

So. Fiction is not merely important because of it's storyline, the entertainment value, or the literary worth. It's not just a pleasant way to pass some idle time.

Fiction can change lives. It can awaken people from their slumber, and infuse them with dreams.

I'll be returning to my writing next week with some new thinking about the meaning of what I write.

It's Not Censorship, Exactly, But...

It is intended to limit Free Speech, and keep NLD opinions out of public reach.

Rather than work through legal action to try to put together a case for the Supreme Court, it might be better to use administrative/executive action to put through a RICO case - the various services, which are clearly all-but-complete monopolies, are acting in concert to promote speech benefiting only one POV, and suppressing NLD activities.

The trail of involvement by the FAANGs is overt, obvious, and - likely - actionable. After the election, Trump's DOJ needs to fire a warning shot over the bow. There are a LOT of people who would turn on them - a woman would do it in a heartbeat (NEVER trust a woman with confidential information that could destroy you - she will thrust the dagger in herself, with a cool smile on her face as she watches the lifeblood drain from your twitching body).

Let's pray for a peaceful passing for RBG (She is suffering liver cancer - it is a painful death, and usually, thankfully, quick. The way the Left has propped her up, like Weekend at Bernies, is a disgrace.)

All of this is dependent on Trump's re-election. I think it's getting more likely every day. That's why the panicked assistance to the activists, the continuation of the shutdowns, the refusal to cooperate in Congress, even though it causes the voters to enter complete indebtedness for life (both those receiving aid, and those paying for it, are the losers).

This is the Final Showdown. The Leftists cannot survive this battle, and they are determined to throw everything they can into the fight. (At least, that's what the Left are telling their supporters. The leadership will be fine - they always are. Their money is safely tucked away, their escape route already secured. But the followers? They're toast.)


The Left was always about promotion of their change in power. It was never about improving the lives of the people.


Please open the link immediately above. It describes, better than I can, the background of the Left, and the influences upon their descendants' thinking. From Rousseau to Gramsci to the Institute for Social Research/Frankfort School to Marcuse/Repressive Tolerance to Alinsky & his Rules for Radicals to today's BLM/AntiFa/Even Newer Left.

To using kids in the streets (again) to further their grab for power. It wasn't enough to destroy many of the youth of my generation, through 'revolutionary activity' (AMAZING how the leadership never has to serve a day in jail, isn't it?), drugs, mis-education that results in inability to get/hold a job, suspicion of normal family life (leading to the truly sad and lonely lives they are currently enduring), and soured outlook on life. They had to use their fading powers to ensnare another cohort of young bodies into giving up all hope of a normal life for their 'revolutionary process'.

Today's Woke shock troops have been fed this bilge since before pre-school, and they are operating on the ingrained belief that THEY are the ones that will make America better - MUCH better than the Fascist-controlled Hellhole they have been told she is.

Some will escape. Some will - eventually - be able to re-construct a life that approaches normal again.

Most will not. From our understanding of the past, we can see that it is vital to keep them from jobs in government and education, lest they burrow in and infect yet another generation with this vile disease.

Misdirection Chorus

     In the usual case it is a mistake – an epistemic category error – to believe something to be true simply because many people are saying it. And once again, the wisdom of the Buddha is relevant:

     Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it – no matter if I have said it! – except it agree with your own reason and your own common sense.

     Scott Adams, who in recent years has become a major commentator and analyst of current events, has produced a video that addresses the media’s attempt to get millions of people to believe the reverse of the facts of a most important matter:

     Yes, it’s twelve and a half minutes long. However, it’s eminently worth the time of anyone concerned about what can be done to treat COVID-19 in individual cases. It’s even more important as an illustration of the mainstream media’s attempts to manipulate public perceptions and opinions. It points up something the media is desperate that you not know. Please view it.

     Conrad Black, another relatively recent star in the commentary firmament, has written an essay highly relevant to my topic for today. Like Scott Adams, he highlights the media’s “don’t look at that; look over here!” method of misinforming the news consumer. A snippet:

     In its July 4 issue, the Economist solemnly intoned that Trump would have to reverse the supposedly rampaging coronavirus pandemic, accelerate the economic recovery, and generally be a more empathetic chap in order to have more than the one chance in nine that the magazine gave him for reelection. Biden was extolled as naturally popular and his rather glaring shortcomings, including his shaky intellectual stamina and prodigious past financial abuse of public office, were simply whitewashed....
     In what its readers presumably imagine to be a thoughtful analysis, the Economist did not mention the likelihood that much of the Obama-Biden Administration is about to be indicted for the most colossal constitutional crimes in the country’s history in trying to alter and then undo the 2016 presidential election result. It did not blink at the complete political and practical impossibility of the program that Biden has now embraced.

     What the media leaves “outside the frame” is presumed not to matter. Yet sometimes it matters more than anything the media say.

     The point of media misdirection is to get millions of people to infer incorrectly from its presentations of “the facts.” Persons thus persuaded will thereafter talk as if those inferences were Gospel truths. They become things “everybody knows,” implied to be above the possibility of refutation.

     Consider how media manipulation by misdirection synergizes with these other ongoing phenomena:

  • The attempt to atomize us through the COVID-19 scare;
  • The calumnies aimed at commentators on the Right who dissent from media-espoused positions;
  • The “deplatforming” being waged by “Big Tech” against anyone who espouses a conservative position.

     It’s a variation on the Big Lie raised to unprecedented potency by the media’s subtlety, its global reach, and the age of its institutions. Yes, it requires them to work in coordination, but all the major media are so thoroughly Left-conquered that that’s no impediment whatsoever.

     There isn’t a lot more that needs to be said about this. Just be aware of the misdirection technique, regard every media assertion of fact as subject to independent verification – the more strident the assertion, the wiser it is to be skeptical about it – and remember that priceless statement by the Buddha.

Truer words.

The oppression of normality in the globo-homo U.S. is as plain as day. The bizarre and perverted are extolled. Minority parasitism, crime, and dysfunction must not be discussed, let alone mentioned. The foreigner is worshipped. Spending, debt, cronyism, and contempt for the white majority are through the roof. Parasitism and chaos are embraced. Speaking the truth will lead to violent attack.

Every day and in every way the stupid or foul option is chosen without fail. The center cannot hold.

We can plainly see the strategy of the Postmodern establishment. In areas under blue dominion, the governing class has ruthlessly oppressed normality, while at the same time stepping back from their duty to prevent chaos and crime, actively encouraging destruction. The goal of these domestic enemy combatants seems to be to collapse stability in the areas they control, and drag the entire country down with them.[1]
Everything possible is done to punish citizens who protect themselves and to shield the vilest of street thugs.

Notes
[1] "The Postmodern War on America." By Richard Bledsoe, The Remodern Review, 6/14/20.

Thursday, July 30, 2020

One small positive sign

Last week's trip to Padre Island took me through many miles of South Texas that I don't normally see. After we got out of the urban clutter of Austin-San Marcos-New Braunfels-San Antonio I started seeing something else that I don't see in Austin: Trump 2020 signs. Large ones. Frequently paired with an American flag. I wouldn't claim there were a great many of them, but they popped up with enough frequency to keep me smiling. 

I keep reading articles warning that the influx of Californians and illegal aliens will turn Texas blue, and maybe they're right. But based on strictly anecdotal evidence, this large chunk of Texas is still overwhelmingly patriotic and voting Republican.

Marginalia

     We approach the midpoint of summer in the Northern Hemisphere. It’s been a rough one, so far, and few are the prospects for improvement. Things are particularly rugged here at the Fortress – allow me to withhold the non-weather-related reasons – so have a few bytes from other sources, with brief commentary.


     I have the utmost contempt for persons who want to impose their personal problems on the rest of us:

     Before a coronavirus news briefing in Harrisburg on Tuesday, Pennsylvania Health Secretary Rachel Levine responded to a series of transphobic attacks directed against her.
     “While these individuals may think that they are only expressing their displeasure with me, they are, in fact, hurting the thousands of LGBTQ Pennsylvanians who suffered directly from these current demonstrations of harassment,” Levine began, according to PennLive.com....
     “Your actions perpetuate the spirit of intolerance and discrimination against LGBTQ individuals and specifically transgender individuals,” Levine said of the incidents....
     “We have not made progress unless we have all made progress,” she added. “It is in this space that these acts of intolerance live and where we need to continue to work against them.”

     “Attacks.” “Transphobic attacks.” Ponder those words, Gentle Reader. What do they signify? Condemnation at the very least, no? Some form of physical assault, at the other extreme. But that’s not borne out by the article:

     Among the anti-trans incidents was a man who dressed as Levine for a dunk tank at a local fair, an off-color menu item mocking Levine at a tavern and a radio host who repeatedly called Levine “sir” during an interview.

     “Among” the incidents? Was there nothing more? Nothing worse? I’d have expected the most dramatic “attacks” to be front and center. Is the Post, a paper long known for lurid coverage, suppressing the mention of them?

     I have said it before: If you want to transition from your birth sex to the other one:

  1. Work to achieve a convincing presentation;
  2. To avoid any unwanted consequences, keep it to yourself.

     That’s the way transgenderism was handled before it was politicized, and it worked tolerably well. Levine’s presentation is laughable, and he’s compounded the damage by going public about his “transition.” Choices – decisions to act or not to act – have consequences.


     Anthony Fauci appears to have become addicted to the limelight. Either that or his dubious prestige is being exploited to intensify the New Totalitarianism:

     Dr. Anthony Fauci to @DrJAshton: "If you have goggles or an eye shield, you should use it. It's not universally recommended, but if you really want to be complete, you should probably use it if you can." https://t.co/SJPZn8fN6F pic.twitter.com/Ml87aBuclI
     — ABC News (@ABC) July 29, 2020

     This...person has been so wrong, and for so long, that it’s a marvel he hasn’t been pilloried for it. On the strength of his “expertise” we’ve precipitated a Second Great Depression, destroyed millions of jobs and tens of thousands of businesses, and inculcated an unknown fraction of the American populace with fears that might never be quenched.

     I really don’t care about Fauci’s claims to expertise. (I also don’t care about his inability to pitch.) I care about his medical-grade arrogance and inability to admit to error...especially since even the makers of the masks he wants us trapped behind admit that they cannot and will not prevent the transmission of the Chinese Lung Rot a.k.a. Covid-19:

     (Do you think Fauci would recognize a satire were he to see one?)


     They who have enjoyed popular attention seldom lose their taste for it. In an attempt to capitalize on the current sociopolitical chaos, an old, nearly forgotten racialist huckster has stepped forward with a favorite slander:

     “Hitler had his Brown shirts and Mussolini had his Black shirts, now Donald Trump has his camouflage shirts.” Thus began a statement signed by 15 distinguished interdenominational religious leaders in Chicago that I joined, including ministers, priests, and rabbis.
     Comparisons to Hitler are always explosive, but the comparison is apt. “Hitler’s bullyboys,” the statement continues, “operated on the fringes or outside of the law to violently intimidate Germany’s leftists and finally to exterminate Jews. Trump’s bully boys are operating on the fringes or outside the law to violently intimidate America’s progressives and people of color who are exercising their First Amendment right to protest racial injustice.”
     Portland, Oregon, provides the model. Trump dispatched untrained, unidentified, camouflage-wearing, military-uniformed, no name-tagged bullyboys who are literally kidnapping protesters, stuffing them in unidentified vans, taking them to unknown locations without charges — and against the wishes of local law enforcement officers the mayor of Portland and the governor of Oregon.

     One falsehood after another, and topped with the Left’s favorite outrageous denunciation – “[Insert chosen Republican here] is Hitler” – from the superannuated war horse of the racialist Left, Jesse Jackson. He must miss the spotlight, or maybe it’s that his illegitimate kids are hurting for new sneakers.

     Glenn Reynolds comments:

     How explosive can [comparisons to Hitler] be in 2020, when in “In the aftermath of the Republican Party’s dramatic takeover of Congress on the strength of the conservative ‘Contract With America’ in 1994, Jackson lamented: ‘In South Africa, we call it apartheid. In Nazi Germany, we’d call it fascism. Here in the United States, we call it conservatism.’”
     Then in 2000, “During the Florida mess he accused Bush of ‘Nazi tactics’ and suggested that Jeb Bush was deliberately targeting Holocaust victims, ‘once again.’”

     That’s Jesse Jackson for you. But it’s also the behavior of the typical black racialist. Oh, and remember this one:

     “These people are committing genocide with a smile...they’re worse than Hitler.” – The Dishonorable Major Owens (D, NY), quoted in Ann Coulter’s meticulously footnoted Slander.

     And people wonder why it doesn’t trouble me to be called a racist. I simply smile, say “Consider the source,” and walk away.


     That’s all for today, I think. Perhaps Margaret, Linda, or the Colonel will be here later with meatier fare. It’s time for me to rebuild my freshly painted office. Until tomorrow, be well.

The NGOs - Non-Governmental Organizations - and the Case for Dumping Their IRS Designation

Most of them pose as 'charities' or 'non-partisan' organizations.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, these are HIGHLY partisan organizations, that work in concert with political allies to further specifically political positions, legislation, and imposition of their POV on schools.

The Left has long used the IRS cover to pay fewer taxes, and operate without the scrutiny that is given by the FEC to political organizations that forward political parties/candidates. Many wealthy people funnel huge amounts of cash to 'middleman' charities, that, in turn, pass through the money to radical organizations, often explicitly political. They couldn't have directly funded those receiving NGOs, but, by using the pass-through organization, they evaded the spirit of the law.



Another mechanism that the Left uses to direct money to political entities with Radical aims is ActBlue. Many Leftist organizations do not waste their time, or energy, setting up the means to process donations directly, but rely on ActBlue to collect the money, take a small cut - 3.9% of the total donation, and send the remaining cash on to the NGO.

One such organization is BLM. When you click on a button to donate, you are redirected to the ActBlue site. A little known provision of the agreement that you must agree to is this:

Re-designation of Contributions

In the event that a campaign or committee (a) fails for 60 days to cash a check from ActBlue which includes your contribution (after ActBlue makes repeated attempts to work with the campaign to ensure all checks are cashed), or (b) affirmatively refuses a contribution earmarked through ActBlue, your contribution will be re-designated as a contribution to ActBlue. Contributions to social welfare organizations which are similarly not cashed or affirmatively refused will be kept by ActBlue and used generally to support its social welfare activities. Contributions to charitable organizations which are not cashed or affirmatively refused will go to ActBlue Charities.

What does that mean in real terms?

Well, since all of the NGOs are run by Leftists coordinating their activities, it can reasonably be concluded that, should the political parties of the Left run out of dough, they can LEGALLY shuffle your money (meant for a specific charity/organization) to whatever one that is currently running on fumes. 

You want BLM to be the beneficiary of your hard-earned cash? Tough. The Dem effort to GOTV is running out of money, just a few days before the election. The donor will NOT be notified of the substitution of recipient. 

LPLs Get FURIOUS at Dissent on C-19

I'd recently found an article in the London Times, that discussed a scientific study that found there has NOT been transmission from students to teachers. I posted the link in FB, as many of my teacher friends had expressed fear of returning to school (in all fairness, some of them are 60+, others have been putting on weight - as most of us do - and, hence, have heightened risk).  

I was surprised to receive comments that I would be unfriended. My position: 

Truth is NOT a Hate Crime. 

With that in mind, I'm linking to this article, also recently found. Apparently, MN and WI have similar population size. WI did not stay shut down, but opened for business. While MN continued to see a rise in cases, WI did not.

So, the EVIDENCE on shutdown vs. return to business is not solidly in favor of huddling inside our houses. It's time to let the sun shine in.

LPLs (Liberals/Progressives/Leftists) need to get a grip. Get cleaned up, dress in normal clothes, and dare to resume normal life. Stop listening to the MSM re: politics/medical/reality. Talk to Normal people, and stop throwing the F-shade at them.

Get out of your bubble. There's a whole world of difference out there; opinions that differ from yours are not being voiced by Nazis/Fascists/White Supremacists - there just Regular People, who don't see life from within the Elitist World View.

The final stages of the Great Betrayal.

The casual citizen might inquire as to how such things as the takeover of a portion of a major city in America might occur; how history and monuments can be erased by hostile action. The truth is, it cannot take place in a nation that values what it is, but it has, because the United States of America no longer exists. It no longer has the will to defend its history, its sovereign territory, preserve truth or allow others to speak truth to those dedicated to its very destruction. No nation exists where that is true and where history and truth of one nation has been erased, the new nation can rise and rename the monuments and erect new ones for their heroes.
"The New Nation." By T.L. Davis, Twelve Rounds, 7/23/20.

Wednesday, July 29, 2020

The Demise of Congress

     Congress no longer has any claim to dignity – nor any claim to moral authority – after this display of unlimited venality:

     The patent absurdity that these Democrats would demand that Attorney-General William Barr appear before them, face their harangues, yet not permit him to speak goes beyond anything in American politics to date, including the felonious farce that was the “Russian collusion” hoax. At least that was mostly a “Deep State” operation, with little participation by elected Democrats until it was plainly a failure.

     As usual, Ace has some penetrating comments:

     The Democrats shredded the social compact today.
     As they shred it every day, lately -- there's not much left.
     Today they shredded the social compact by defending and justifying terrorist attacks on law-abiding Americans.
     They also shredded it by holding a Stalinesque show trial of AG Barr.
     They would "ask questions" -- really lob unfounded accusations -- and then cut off Barr as he attempted to answer. They would shout "I'm reclaiming my time!" as a way of telling Barr to shut up, as they did not want his answers to count against their five minutes of time.
     I wondered why Barr didn't just walk out of the hearing.
     I think that obese malignant dwarf Jerry Nadler might have actually tried instructing the Sergeant of Arms of the House to put Barr under arrest if he tried to leave.

     John Hinderaker expands on the theme:

     [T]he Democrats were outrageously rude to the Attorney General of the United States. The hearing was devoted to their abusing him on various ridiculous grounds. He barely got a word in edgewise. At one point, he said something like, “This is a hearing. Aren’t I the one who supposedly is being heard?” Of course not. Whenever he got to mid-sentence, the Democrats interrupted him. “I’m reclaiming my time” was the theme of the day.
     I am not sure who the Democrats think is the audience for this sort of nonsense. Sentient voters watching on television couldn’t possibly have been impressed. Maybe they are just looking for sentence fragments they can use in fundraising emails.
     Then there is the larger point. The Democrats are committed to the view that what is happening in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Atlanta and other cities is mere “peaceful protest.” Thus, the Trump administration is unjustified in sending in federal officers to protect federal property, like courthouses. And to the extent that anything untoward happens, it is Donald Trump’s fault. This was the main theory that the Democrats tried to advance through their “questioning” of Attorney General Barr.

     Outrageous. Insupportable. If any of these vipers in human guise continue in office after the November elections, it will cast a final judgment of condemnation upon the Democrat Party.

     Was there nothing the Republicans on the committee could do to compel a degree of fairness (not to demand courtesy, which is plainly beyond any Democrat in federal office) toward the Attorney-General, who had appeared voluntarily before them? Are the “rules of the House” unable to compel fairness toward a Cabinet Secretary who has presented himself before a committee of his own volition?

     I’m more disgusted than I can say. Accordingly, I’ll stop here and fume silently, though I may be back later.