The Democrats Are Crazytown

     As a public service, I urge all my Gentle Readers to view and popularize this 42 second video:

     How many unaffiliated and weak-liberal voters see that video could determine the results of the 2018 midterms. Spread it far and wide.

“We’re All Disconnected”

     If you’re old enough, you might remember the days of telephone monopolies. The various companies that offered phone service were all part of the “nationwide Bell System,” and had carved the nation into zones where only one Bell subsidiary was permitted to offer service. That ended with telecom deregulation, more than thirty years ago, but the memories linger – especially of how BLEEP!ing costly it was to call someone outside one’s own area code.

     New York Telephone, the Bell subsidiary in my area, is survived today by Verizon. Verizon still has some clout other companies don’t have, but it no longer has a regional monopoly. Back when it was NYTel, one of its ads featured the stirring phrase “We’re All Connected:” by implication, through NYTel’s telephone services.

     Relax, Gentle Reader; this won’t be a piece about telecommunications. I just wanted to share that memory with you as a counterpoint to the title of this piece.

---

     Today, Dr. Helen Smith has a brief piece about loneliness:

     If a person has negative thoughts about being lonely, then it can be a health concern, but if they are happy being alone or content, it is not. Half of all Americans are now unmarried and I wonder how this plays into loneliness.

     Ignore the poor grammar. The above is the meat of the loneliness problem: If you’re alone, are you unhappy about it? If so, you have a problem. How did it come about?

     No one is born alone. So far at least, we’re all born from mothers. If we omit consideration of the wretches who abandon their children at birth, that means we start life in company. Perhaps there’s a father available too, though that’s getting to be a problematic thing all by itself. He who has siblings has even more company...though let it be admitted that not all siblings are the sort of company we’d choose for ourselves.

     He who is involuntarily alone must first lose the company of his family. How does it happen?

• Death;
• Separation or divorce;
• The “family diaspora;”
• Deliberate disavowal of or by one’s family members.

     Except for death, those developments can be combated, though the outcome is not guaranteed. The maturing child can also compensate for those forces by acquiring friends. But friends, too, can be lost: through physical or emotional separation, the development of serious incompatibilities, and the extra tensions that arise from marriage and choice of occupation.

     A friend one can retain lifelong is a treasure. Few Americans manage to do so – perhaps fewer today than ever before in our history.

     Time was, the companion one could most confidently rely on retaining was one’s spouse. But mating among Americans has become extremely problematic, in large part because of the plague of willful offense-taking.

---

     Solitude is my lifestyle. I spend virtually my entire waking day alone. It’s not burdensome to me; I became accustomed to it long ago as the proper course for a thinker and writer. But then, I have a wife whose company I can enjoy at least an hour or two per day.

     Consider the plight of the unmarried American man. How shall he acquire a wife? The traditional methods have all fallen into disuse. Those that have arisen in their wake are anything but reliable. And then there’s the sociopolitical toxin called feminism.

     In a culture in which the sexes are seen not as complements to one another but as competitors for money, status, and power, even tentative gestures toward the development of a romance and a marital bond can be viewed as attempts at a “hostile takeover.” Moreover, the Left’s militant-feminist adjunct has worked tirelessly to promote and intensify the conviction among women that men are “the enemy.” That conviction is wholly compatible with the vision of the sexes as competitors over commercial and political achievements.

     While there are other causal factors involved in the decline of marriage rates and the dwindling resilience of existing marriages, this one deserves particular attention. At a time when other sorts of friendship and companionship are badly threatened, the reduction of marital prospects is especially significant.

     Many Americans, especially the older ones among us, would spend their lives entirely alone if not for their spouses. Those parted from their mates relatively early in life have many sad tales to tell.

---

     Human nature has provided us with natural connections. We have the capacity to forge other sorts of bonds, but those that arise from love and family are paramount. He who lacks such bonds is in greater danger of protracted miserable loneliness than anyone else. A great deal more could be said about this subject – a lot of it has been said eloquently by Dr. Jordan Peterson – but I’ll allow it to rest here for the nonce.

Propaganda theme of the week.

That is to say: deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian casualties as moral show stopper.

Trump, Pompeo, Keane, and assorted trolls have escalated the rhetoric from “we won’t tolerate an chemical weapons attack” to “we won’t tolerate Syria’s clearing out terrorists from its own sovereign territory because they and the Russians deliberately attack civilians to achieve their goals.”

Why this is as rational as the idea that pointless chemical attacks targeting civilian are the way to go is beyond me. Terrorizing civilians is a feeble, worthless tactic which does little to nothing to interfere with actual enemy troops and it sure as hell doesn't do much for building loyalty to the regime.

On top of which, deliberate bombing of civilians is a waste of ordnance which, hard as it may be to believe, does not materialize cost-free out of the ether every time you use some of it. Killing 10 jihadis is better than killing 100 civilians for no rational reason and keeping your expensive ordnance for the former purpose over the long haul is the way to go.

And, CW use is about as suicidal as you can get when you have lying, hysterical, arrogant hypocrites outside your country just looking for the slightest excuse to attack your forces and infrastructure.

The CW/civilian bombing idea is absurd, like everything else about our involvement in Syria.

And here's a little reality check:

Russia is now preparing to support the upcoming attack of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) on the militant-held areas in northwestern Syria. Many Western countries criticized Russia because of this and claimed that such an attack will threaten the lives of millions of civilians there. The problem of these statements is that they ignore the presence of tens of thousands of terrorists.^[1]

Oh. Them.

A trivial consideration. And while you’re at it, ignore U.S. methods in the reduction of Fallujah, Mosul, and Raqqah. Namely, indiscriminate use of artillery and aerial bombardment. Nothing to see there. Oh, no. Let’s indulge instead in “Let no sparrow fall” posturing. The U.S. never unleashes ordnance from the skies unless a red laser dot from an orbiting satellite lights up a jihadi forehead. The U.S. military never, ever causes "collateral" damage. Our hands are clean.^[2]

The caption to the above picture reads “Paratroopers engage ISIS militants with precise artillery fire in support of Iraqi and Peshmerga fighters in Mosul, Iraq, July 6, 2017. The paratroopers are assigned to Charlie Battery, 2nd Battalion, 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division. (Sgt. Christopher Bigelow/Army)”^[3] The piece may be an M777A2 lightweight 155mmm towed howitzer which has a “2 meters miss distance regardless of range” out to 24km, 30km, or40 km depending on whether the projectile is unassisted or assisted. Whether the 2-meter accuracy is available when the projectile has no GPS receiver I do not know. Suffice it to say, this (and follow on) systems are indeed enormously accurate, especially as the guns can self-locate by means of GPS.

The problem with any weapons capable of such amazing precision is that a human observer still must designate the target. In urban warfare, the photo below is basically what all observers see absent that rare, fortuitous situation where intel knows what pocket the jihadi keeps his wallet in and exactly where he is:

Spot the jihadi scum, please. Avoid civilian areas. Easy, right?

And witness this airstrike:

Any civilians in harm's way there? Air strikes don't always involve laser-designated targets but, even if they do, you've still got the problem of flawless target designation. No by-guess-or-by-golly decision making. No blatant disregard of who suffers at the other end of these weapons. Ever. Right?

Well, of course that's the way it goes down in the vast, vast majority of cases. Lots of guesswork and focusing on getting the slaughter over with as soon as possible (unless you are the U.S. and are waging a life-and-death pretend war on ISIS and your top priority is kissing al-Nusraqaida ass). "Collateral damage" is a concept notable for its casual acceptance. Too bad. So sad. We're exceptional but you all are animals.

This greasy sanctimony about Russian and Syrian deliberate targeting of civilians and effortless avoidance of civilians is just garbage.

Notes
^[1] "Russia: We Have Killed, Will Kill Terrorists In Syria." By South Front, 9/6/18.
^[2] "U.S.-Led Forces Said to Have Used White Phosphorus in Syria." By Anne Barnard, New York Times, 6/10/17.
^[3] "Commentary: Iraq endures the crucible, and emerges transformed." By Lt. Gen. Paul E. Funk III, Army Times, 7/9/18.

Noise As A Tactic For Political Destabilization

     From this article by self-proclaimed “expert on everything” Tom Nichols, one could easily get the impression that President Trump is a borderline lunatic, and that the Trump Administration is a pressure cooker about to explode. Such impressions are easily fabricated with the use of the right rhetoric. Nichols’s piece, a pure exercise in what was once called agitprop, is a perfect example.

     The astute Richard “Wretchard” Fernandez puts the proper coloration on it in this Twitter thread. The meat of the matter:

     The new liberal strategy is not to argue but to confuse. Create phantom objects, devise imaginary plots, sow intrigue, all with the view of giving Trump "a taste of his own medicine". They reckon that by reducing the battle to pure noise output the Mighty Wurlitzer will win.

     The problem with this approach is that it multiplies chaos and essentially fries the normal comm channels. Nobody gets the "word" because there is no word, unless that word is Noooooooo!!!

     There is a second component to the liberal strategy: a deliberate attempt to be unpleasant, increase anxiety and induce an atmosphere of crisis. The goal is to inflict deliberate pain, a pain that will only go away if you give them what they want.

     I would add to Wretchard’s observations that “frying the normal comm channels” is to the advantage of that side whose internal (and therefore protected) communications network is better established. The Left believes that it has an edge in that regard. It could well be so. Whatever the case, the Right needs to buttress its own communications networks. Else persons disposed to support the Trump Administration and its essentially libertarian-conservative thrust could be winnowed away from like-minded others. While that might not expose them to subversion, the Right needs all the support and supporters it can muster. The gloves are off, and they won’t be put back on at any time in the foreseeable future.

Does Anyone Remember “Anonymous?”

     Today, concerning the “anonymous” author of the New York Times’s recent op-ed by a self-described “senior administration official,” Byron York writes:

     Anonymity is good marketing. What if the author had simply identified himself? Not only would everyone be able to evaluate his position, they would also look into his background and try to draw connections between his past and his role as self-appointed, in-house Trump resister. Instead, by remaining anonymous, the author — and the Times — have not only avoided scrutiny but have added an irresistible element of mystery and suspense to the story. That means more attention.

     But York concludes his piece with the following:

     We'll know more soon enough. The Times wrote that it granted the author anonymity because his "job would be jeopardized" by disclosure of his name. It seems hard to believe the author truly thinks he can remain anonymous — and keep his job — in the white-hot public attention his article will attract. One way or the other, his identity will likely come out, probably sooner rather than later. And then the story could become even more interesting.

     Indeed. Joe Klein couldn’t keep his identity secret for as much as half a year, and publishers have a much stronger incentive for securing an author’s secrets. The author of the Times piece, if he’s what he claimed to be, will be exposed in short order. When that occurs, we’re likely to get quite a bit of information that was strictly sub rosa within the author’s circle of collaborators.

     Of course, the possibility exists that the piece was a fabrication by someone sufficiently skilled to persuade the Times of his elevated stature, despite being no more than an under-deputy assistant junior attendance trainee in the Department of Thinking Good Thoughts. In that case, we may have a good laugh at the Times’s expense...and President Donald Trump, who continues to make good on his campaign promises and to inspire millions to whom politics had become nothing more than a carnival of impotence married to corruption, will have the biggest laugh of all.

Working My Way Through "Clinton Cash"

It's about time. Before, during, and immediately after the 2016 election season, I was just flat-out too busy. I was working through June, 2017 at a full-time job. With the normal household activities, church, and family, I was stretched pretty thin.

I've begun a serious reading program - I still do read thrillers, suspense, science fiction, and the occasional murder mystery, but I've decided to broaden my reach into more non-fiction. Most of my energy is on shoring up my weak spots - conservative philosophy, history, and military/war history. I'm allowing myself to take an occasional side trip into quirky/fun stuff (For All the Tea in China: How England Stole the World's Favorite Drink and Changed History - quite eye-opening as to the impact of trade on politics, history, and international relations).

I just finished Three Felonies a Day, which gave me a good grasp on how politicizing the Justice Dept. has led us back to the arbitrary prosecutions of the Tudor Era - with similar results (cementing the party/king in power, and both politically and financially destroying its enemies).

I'm just beginning Clinton Cash; I'm about 18% of the way through it. The focus of the book is the practices of the Clinton Foundation, and how dedicated efforts to overlook its abuses have made Bill and Hill rich. And, contributed to their political entrenchment.

Don't think they are out of power forever. Either they, or their closely associated cronies, will be stuck like burrs to America's butt, until we finally get the guts to boot them out.

One of the names to look out for is Giustra, a Canadian whose appetite for mining concessions in 3rd-world countries is only matched by the Clinton's avarice.

What a combo! Giustra's desire to get mining contracts - cheaply, Bill's complete amorality in both sex and money matters, and Hill's dogged determination to do whatever it took to get the deals made.

Oh, and her matchless ability to smile blandly and spew lies before the camera, coupled with her supporters to spring into attack dog mode whenever she snaps her fingers. Jim Jones was a piker, compared to Hill! His followers largely killed themselves; Hill's followers would commit felonies, and fall on their swords for a woman who callously ignored her husband's and friends' predations, then claimed to support vulnerable women.

Hill and Russia were made for each other - both completely immoral, greedily grasping for all the cash they could stuff in their pockets, and willing to allow Russia's Putin to extend his oligarchic reach throughout the world.

The overall scheme to control uranium sources is thoroughly detailed:

• Control by Giustra's UrAsia Energy Ltd. of the merged Uranium One. He and his cronies control 60% of the new company. Keep that in mind when Uranium One comes up.
• Russia plans (still) to both dominate the world's uranium production, and to capture ownership of the resources - EVEN those in Canada and the United States.
• The role of Russia's atomic energy agency - Rosatom. It controls both civilian and military use of nuclear.
• The Iranian reactors were built by Rosatom, but supplied with uranium, as well.
• "Rosatom also operates in North Korea, Venezuela, and Myanmar."
• Hillary was thoroughly briefed on nuclear and Russia. She was not just some dumb broad who relied on the kindliness of strangers. She knew what she was doing. She just didn't care.

I'm still reading. I'll post more as I get further in the book.

Administrative Changes that Trump COULD Make

The first one - no one gets a tax credit if they use a Taxpayer ITIN (Individual Taxpayer Identification Number). If you are a citizen, you have a Social Security Number. If you are a LEGAL foreign resident, you have a ITIN - but, should NOT get a tax credit for having low income.

If you are illegally residing in the USA, you shouldn't even BE here, let alone get money for not earning enough.

It may not be CALLED welfare, but that's what it is. Money, not because you earned it, but because you are broke.

There's more on the link, including the fact that the LAW already says that you are not entitled to get that money, under PRWOA - the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (passed while Bill Clinton - that AWFUL Conservative Republican - was in charge). In addition to barring welfare benefits, it also forbids "any other similar benefit for which payments or or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States".

That denial of the UNEARNED tax credit would ALSO include those foreigners who were given amnesty by Obama - about 700K of them. It shouldn't take much work to identify them, and flag their irregularly-obtained Social Security number as "ineligible for any benefits/assistance".

Seems to me that covers an awful lot of goodies that illegal aliens are currently getting. It may include a lot of the money that is going to resettling the incoming aliens - much of the cost is ultimately borne by the taxpayer, although many of the agencies are all over themselves about their 'charitable work'.

If you take money from unwilling taxpayers to cover the cost of that work - it ain't charity!

It will take some time to implement all of this, with Democrats/Leftists screaming at Trump all the while. MUCH of this is an administrative decision - what we call properly part of the Executive Powers.

Remedies for Illegal Immigration

Some of these - there are 25 - have real promise. Even better, they do not require a new law, just an administrative interpretation.

Gravity is Overrated | Weightless.

In the Run-Up to the Election

...keep in mind the many methods the Left is using to swing - if not falsify - the vote.

Facebook 'Influence' - Glenn Reynolds is FAR more generous than I am.

The Election Year 'October Surprise' - more Business As Usual - and, now, even more so. However, the timing of the NYT Anonymous op-ed makes it clear that they aren't waiting this year. They're mounting a Full-Court Press, NONSTOP, until the election is over (IF they stop then).

Fight back. Get off social media, particularly Twitter and Facebook, which have declared War on Trump. Make an announcement, stick to it, and detach yourself from the Forces Working to Dumb-ify You. Set your Feed to No Notifications, which will assist you in detaching.

BTW, read about election interference in previous years at the link above. I'd honestly forgotten about most of the shenigans that worked to throw the election to Bill Clinton. Remember, it takes not only a dedicated effort to finagle public opinion, but YOUR cooperation, as well.

Take heart - fortunately, the average American is a lot smarter than the Left HOPES they are.

Does A Headline With A Question Mark Imply Its Own Answer?

     You could certainly be forgiven for getting that impression. But in the meantime, such headlines beckon to us in tones of sweet reason that isn’t consistent with the record.

     Flash back to 2009. A number of Republicans, stunned by Obama’s election as President, begin a grass-roots movement to take back their party. The movement gains momentum and, over the next several elections, Republican officeholders find themselves in the fight for their political lives. Except it’s not against Democratic rivals but against members of their own party. Voters took to the polls and long-term incumbents soon found themselves tossed out of office. Sound familiar? It should. Except it isn’t Republicans seeing their party torn apart. This time, it is the Democratic Party, thanks to the Democratic-Socialists. It’s time to get out the popcorn and to sit back and watch what happens in the next installment of “How the Democrats Turn”.

     No one batted an eye when Bernie Sanders, self-described “independent” and hero of democratic-socialists around the country, ran for president on the Democratic ticket. Not even the Democratic National Committee seemed bothered, In fact, it embraced Bernie, offering him up as their sacrificial lamb to the anointed one, Hillary Clinton. What they didn’t foresee was that, by giving Bernie a national platform, they gave his political ideas legitimacy. In doing so, they brought on their own form of the Tea Party and, if you don’t mind my saying so, it couldn’t happen to a “nicer” political party.

     But the Tea Party – supposedly the “Tea” was an acronym for “Taxed Enough Already” was fiercely resisted by the GOP Establishment. Republicans in high office had been defaulting on their promises to restrain and (hopefully) downsize the federal Leviathan. The Democrats’ analogue, if such persons as Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez really do represent an “uprising” among Democrats, merely exhorts the party to go further, faster, in the direction in which it’s been headed for a century.

     I rather suspect that the “Not Taxed Enough Party” -- Thank you, Sarah Hoyt, for that translation – is a fabrication by the Democrat Establishment. They could well be using it to slide the Overton Window further to the left. Such a leftward shift of the window of acceptable public discourse could be seen as a way to limit the ambitions of the Trump Administration and to pre-constrain those of its successors.

     A great part of the art of politics, including the machinations of its media handmaidens, is prestidigitation: luring the public’s attention away from what’s really being plotted and planned with well timed distractions of all sorts. For politics is the pursuit of power. Ordinary people don’t like it when others assert power over them, no matter how high-minded the representations of the power-seeker might appear. Therefore, those who seek power must constantly work to disguise their intentions. As we mathematical types like to say, Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Shaming - The New Puritan Ethic Among Elites

For all that they revel in dressing up like Oppressed Handmaidens, the SJWs use shaming as a tactical weapon.

I see this happening all the time on social media. Many people (OK, it's mostly women and younger, more emotional men) jump on a posted "outrage", and use it to declare themselves NOT LIKE THIS SINNER.

It's like the worst combination of middle school and a religious revival. But, without the "icky" Christian thing.

Just public shame. LOTS of shame.

The screams of WITCHCRAFT! Er, I mean RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC, H8r.

I blame schools - they're the ones that insisted on assigning The Scarlet Letter. Too many girls imagined themselves as a Hester Prynne (well, not ACTUALLY like the heroine - she accepted that she was wrong, and took all of the blame to herself).

Now they've got that bizarre and twisted story by Margaret Atwood to use for their protests. I read it when it first came out - even then, I thought it was lacking coherence, and imagined a world that was both sexually weird, and not logical.

I mean, in REAL LIFE, women who are infertile, and want to take the children of poorer women, just adopt a foreign kid (fewer questions and background checks). If a woman wants to have her husband's child, but can't, she just outsources it. Preferably to a 3rd World country, where she can pretend the mother is just incubating the kid. Which the lawyers are advising couples to do - use the egg from another women, and implant it in the 'breeder'. If there is no genetic connection, she can't take the kid back.

******************************************************************************

On a lighter note, I've been watching - with some astonishment - the CRAZY frothings of SJWs who see a White Power Signal in a folded set of arms.

No, really.

Although, to be fair, that's NOT OK, but O-Tay!

Another WP member signaling his allegiance.

OK. This MAY be getting crazy.

Crazier?

When even the ADL - Anti-Defamation League - says you're nuts, it may be time to reach for the Prozac.

Conspiracy Theorists - How Are They Different?

One way they are different from the average person is that they DON'T put more trust in "official" sources than they do in less "vetted" ones.

In other words, it's not that they are more believing of "fake news" sources. It's that they are LESS believing of official sources - who, after all, can lie.

Study finds that so-called conspiracy theorists are NOT paranoid. Although they share some characteristics with paranoids, they clearly are not suspicious of everyone. They differentiate between those they cannot trust to tell the truth, and those who they accept as generally reliable.

In other words, there is a distinct difference between the mental condition of paranoia, and the response of people who have learned - often through had experience - that many in government or industry are untrustworthy.

These are, however, psychological studies - a general category that often has major problems with replication (ability to duplicate the results). So, take what they say skeptically.

Episodes In Identity Politics, Part 1

     We hear the phrase identity politics often enough. We’re told – mostly by persons in the Right – that it’s toxic, something that’s slowly but steadily destroying the social and political cohesion of our nation. However, we seldom get a clear explanation of why that is so.

     Here’s one, from the Web’s favorite Bookworm:

     I’ll start with a phone call I had the other day with another lawyer who is an ardent Progressive and a good friend. I usually find his Progressivism amusing because, both personally and professionally, his every instinct is conservative. It’s just that, being gay, he is marinated in a toxic Leftist soup and fails to recognize the cognitive dissonance that permeates his life. [emphasis added by FWP]

     Bookworm has noted, en passant, the corrupting effect of submersion in a fully colonized and conquered group. Let’s call this lawyer Smith for convenience, since Bookworm didn’t mention his name. If Smith’s personal and professional instincts are conservative, how did he come to embrace Leftist political precepts and positions?

     Through his identity group.

     Homosexuals have been encouraged to make their sexual orientation and political concessions to it the heart of their existence. It’s been going on for a while, of course: since the Fifties at least. Just as with the “civil rights movement,” the Left decided that it would “own” the homosexual-rights issue and use it to colonize that group. Northern California homosexuals have been a particular target of the Left, as they’re disproportionately numerous in that region and tend toward close associations.

     When a man begins to see one aspect of his life, character, or personality as central to his identity, and is regularly immersed in a group of similarly minded persons, he will tend to absorb the other postulates and convictions of that group. This influence in especially strong when the group is essentially uniform about its postulates and convictions. That makes the political subversion of an identity group a huge win for the Left.

     I’ve ranted in the past about the dangers of joinerism. Consider this another link in that chain – a chain that can be used to drag the unsuspecting away from practices and convictions that are to his benefit, and toward an abyss from which escape is problematic at best. Verbum sat sapienti.

42,000 Pages?

     The way this story is being reported, it sounds like dirty pool:

     WASHINGTON — Chaos broke out at the start of the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, as Democrats demanded an immediate adjournment while protesters interrupted with shouts and were dragged out by police.

     Just as Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) began his opening statements, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) asked that the hearing be adjourned to review the 42,000 pages of documents dumped on senators late on Labor Day.

     “We cannot possibly move forward, Mr. Chairman,” Harris pleaded.

     “You are out of order,” Grassley responded.

     But appearances can be deceiving:

     “We will continue as planned,” Grassley said as the room erupted in boos and jeers.

     “Most senators would not agree to turn over their staff’s communication to anyone,” Grassley said, citing attorney/client privilege.

     The documents in question had nothing to do with Judge Kavanaugh’s record as a jurist. Rather, they pertained to his prior time as a lawyer in private practice – materials to which the objecting Democrats had no legal right nor claim on the basis of the diligence expected of a Supreme Court confirmation hearing. Indeed, Kavanaugh could have withheld them under the rules of attorney / client privilege. Why he didn’t, I cannot say.

     It has become indisputable that the left will do anything and everything to impede the Kavanaugh confirmation, or any other element of the Trump agenda. No doubt the strategy has been meticulously planned out. The question remaining is whether Congressional Republicans can withstand the pressure the legacy media will bring to bear on them. So far the indications are promising...but stay tuned.

More Stuff I Hadn't Seen in a List Before

It's long, but VERY worth reading. After reading, I realized - The Donald really does lead a charmed life.

The Pope on the Death Penalty - What Does it Mean?

A lot - and, yet, not binding.

Read about it here.

And here.

I'm generally of the idea that only the cruelest offenders should die by state hand - those that torture, imprison, pick on the helpless and those who were put under their protection - and LWOP for the rest of the 1st degree and repeat 2nd degree murderers.

In fact, to keep the chuckleheads from trying to release those LWOP guys on 'compassionate' grounds, I'd favored a sentence of death - with the proviso that the execution be delayed permanently - UNLESS that person seeks to be freed on any grounds except actual innocence or prosecutorial misconduct of substantial degree. In which case, the full sentence kicks in immediately.

I do believe that testimony by someone who is accepting a plea bargain should never be used for death penalty cases. The opportunity for skewing testimony is too great.

Question: Where’s your job description?

Since before he took office Trump was besieged within his own administration by a hostile phalanx of Democrats, almost all of the GOP establishment, the federal law enforcement and intelligence nomenklatura, and the media. It doesn’t help that his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, seems to think he has nothing better to do than crank up the civil forfeiture machine and give states a hard time for playing fast and loose with federal marijuana laws, while a criminal anti-constitutional conspiracy operates under his nose at the Department of Justice and the FBI in cahoots with elements of the US and British intelligence agencies.^[1]

U.S. government.

I once had a job in the Army to meet and escort a visiting general who came around periodically to inspect our unit. I asked him what he looks for and he replied simply that he looks to see if people are doing their jobs.

It’s not complicated but now, however, good luck seeing it asked What is your job and are you doing it? Police won’t shut down AntiFa but collude with it instead. Teachers teach fairy tales. College presidents won’t defend free speech. Politicians won’t control spending. The media promotes absurdities and will not warn against the Muslim threat, call attention to black refusal to get a grip, or point out all the negative aspect of immigration. They sure as hell won’t crank up a thimbleful of skepticism about chemical weapon attacks and our crazy warmaking wherever it pleases us to force foreigners to act like people in Lincoln, Nebraska, the gold standard for sensible human thinking.

Trump won’t put U.S. troops on the border at home but ensures they’re on the job on the Afghan border. He’s supposed to be president but he acts like he has no more constitutional power than a visiting journalist from Bulgaria when he complains about Sessions and Rosenstein. Simply ensuring that the dangerous phenomenon of an “independent” counsel stays within the bounds of his marching orders seems beyond his capabilities. Do we even know if there is any limit on what Mueller can investigate?

Trump simply conveys no strategic or constitutional awareness. The extent of his pushback against the Deep State appears to be nothing more than his Twitter output and his periodic rallies where you will hear no precise analysis of the forces arrayed against him and us.

Still, that said, Donald Trump was the only presidential candidate who communicated an awareness of fundamental problems and any kind of anger at America’s being everybody’s bitch. Nonetheless, more people in our country got to do what they’re paid to do and more managers need to do the managing that they’re paid to do.

Notes
^[1] "Will Someone In Washington Play The Ace Of Spades Before November?" By James George Jatras, ZeroHedge, 9/2/18 (links removed).

Like never?

When have western governments and media ever demanded that the so-called international community “do something” to save a non-Muslim population – anywhere?

"Will Someone In Washington Play The Ace Of Spades Before November?" By James George Jatras, ZeroHedge, 9/2/18.

The Doctrines Of Men: A Sunday Rumination

     And there assembled together unto him the Pharisees and some of the scribes, coming from Jerusalem. And when they had seen some of his disciples eat bread with common, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews eat not without often washing their hands, holding the tradition of the ancients: And when they come from the market, unless they be washed, they eat not: and many other things there are that have been delivered to them to observe, the washings of cups and of pots, and of brazen vessels, and of beds.
     And the Pharisees and scribes asked him: Why do not thy disciples walk according to the tradition of the ancients, but they eat bread with common hands? But he answering, said to them: Well did Isaias prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men. For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these.
     And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.

     [Mark 7:1-9]

     There have been many changes in Christian practice over the centuries, but one thing has continued from the time of Saint Paul all the way to the present day: the tendency among clerics, starting with Paul himself, to substitute their own preferences for the teachings of Christ.

     Jesus of Nazareth did not demand much. The Two Great Commandments, and the Ten that Moses received on tablets of stone, were all He asked of anyone. Yet just as politicians have strained to “reinterpret” the words of the Constitution to prescribe and proscribe as they prefer, so also have clergy of all Christian denominations meddled with the teachings of the Redeemer, such that the behavior they prefer to prescribe and proscribe somehow becomes what He wants.

     Jesus was quite willing that His followers should cast off the traditions of which the Pharisees were so protective. He and His disciples performed various labors on the Sabbath. They ate without first performing the ritual washing of hands. And He twice told those who would listen that His Father wants “mercy and not sacrifice:”

     And when Jesus passed on from hence, he saw a man sitting in the custom house, named Matthew; and he saith to him: Follow me. And he rose up and followed him. And it came to pass as he was sitting at meat in the house, behold many publicans and sinners came, and sat down with Jesus and his disciples. And the Pharisees seeing it, said to his disciples: Why doth your master eat with publicans and sinners?
     But Jesus hearing it, said: They that are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill. Go then and learn what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. For I am not come to call the just, but sinners.

     [Matthew 9:9-13]

     At that time Jesus went through the corn on the sabbath: and his disciples being hungry, began to pluck the ears, and to eat. And the Pharisees seeing them, said to him: Behold thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days.
     But he said to them: Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and they that were with him: How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the loaves of proposition, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for them that were with him, but for the priests only? Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple break the sabbath, and are without blame? But I tell you that there is here a greater than the temple. And if you knew what this meaneth: I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: you would never have condemned the innocent. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath.

     [Matthew 12:1-8]

     Christ did not command Man to suffer. Yes, we grow old. Yes, we fall ill, or are injured. Yes, every one of us must die. But between birth and death there is no sort of privation or suffering which we are commanded to accept and endure for God’s sake. If privation or suffering can be averted or ameliorated – without breaking either of the Two Great Commandments or any of the Ten of the Book of Exodus – it is entirely within God’s law that we should do so.

     You could hardly discern that message from the traditional stories of the lives of the saints, nor from the preachments of Christian clerics, with few exceptions even today.

     The tales of the lives of saints are often filled with “penances,” even “severe penances.” Seldom are we told what these holy men were doing penance for. Indeed, we are often encouraged to believe that God is pleased when one of us performs a “penance,” regardless of whether he has sinned and requires expiation. While other Catholics might find this shocking, I will argue that to inflict privation or suffering upon oneself for any reason other than expiation of a sin is contrary to the will of God. For God designed Man’s life – body, mind, and soul – to be lived in accord with that design:

• To seek the good things: learning, achievement, prosperity, love, progeny, wisdom, serenity, happiness;
• To avert or ameliorate the bad things: poverty, pain, suffering, injury, loneliness, blasphemy, cruelty, injustice;
• And to be grateful for the faculties He has given us for those purposes, and to praise Him for His blessings!

     But just as the easily understood words of the Constitution don’t make enough room for the ambitions of the venal and power-seeker, “Live in the fashion for which God has designed your body, mind, and soul, and give thanks to Him for His blessings” doesn’t leave enough room for the clerical power-seeker. Emanations and penumbras, anyone?

     Beware the man who seeks to persuade you otherwise. And may God bless and keep you all. Enjoy your Labor Day weekend.