Great Men And Monsters

A Monster of Our Own:

The linked article focuses on Hillary, but she is really just an example. All of us at least to some minor degree wrestle with "What is it all for?". Williamson does an excellent job of covering some of the more (in)famous examples of characters wrestling (badly) with such questions ... Faust, the Marquis de Sade, Nixon -- rather an odd juxtaposition, but he weaves them in an interesting and thought provoking way. He makes the point that "politics" is just another human false god, an idol that breaks the First Commandment. 

When Christ summarized the commandments he said “'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

He knew that for fallen man, such was impossible -- and even his word  on the subject contains a paradox. **IF** one could TRULY only love God with our ALL -- the heart, the soul and the mind, then what would it mean to "love our self"? --  because we ought love our neighbor in the same way.

As we look to ourselves, and to current and past characters, both real and imagined, much of their and our efforts can somewhat be summarized as "efforts to forget our self". Certainly the addictions mentioned in the column -- drugs, alcohol, politics, power, adulation, are all significantly driven by a drive for something like the search for an escape from "plain old us". Typically beginning with an idea of "how we will feel if / when / etc" some event, some goal attained, some ingested substance, some pleasure, some reward -- SOMETHING, alters our state. Even religion itself -- and I think here of the "born again experience", can for some be or at least be seen as an "altered state".

It brings to mind Nimoy's last tweet;  "A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" (Live Long and Prosper)

When reflecting on his life, Churchill found the greatest moments to be in 1940 -- when the situation was the most grim for England and he was the indispensable man. He had a strong sense of "destiny", yet not a strong sense of God. His faith seemed to be in himself and the ultimate victory of the English people and he regularly talked of his "mission" as being to give voice to the English people -- and he also sometimes referred to them as "the English race".

It is very hard to reflect on "monsters" of history without considering Winston's adversary Hitler. Hitler also thought he was a reflection of the "German race" and likewise was a speaker that millions were captured and motivated by. The difference in my mind boils down to Hitler's demand that the German people (and himself) RULE -- to the exclusion and even deaths of other people, especially of course the Jews.

Churchill definitely saw the English people and their empire as "special", and instruments of good in history. He certainly also saw himself as "a great man" -- humility was not his strong suit! Yet, nearly nobody thinks of Churchill as a "monster".  I'd argue that Reagan is much the same -- an also "great man", who similarly won his battle with "the evil empire".

It's very hard for me to imagine what anyone sees in a Hillary, or an Obama for that matter. What is it that is their "vision" for anyone but themselves? An easier and less challenging life for "average Americans"? Political hegemony for the Democrat party and a final resounding "victory" of single party rule for America? Some sort of ill defined "world government" where no "dominant powers" exist anymore and we may as well all aspire to be Kenya, or Venezuela, or any old "unknownistan" ?

I can't tell -- it seems clear that BO and Hillary both hate "Republicans", or "conservatives", "bitter clingers", or "the vast right wing conspiracy", but other than that, is it really only that they care about adding "president" to their resume? Sure it is still a significant title, but unless it comes with something that really makes a difference in history, is it THAT much different from any other "perfect moment"?

Perhaps that is the real unease that certainly a few more are starting to feel as Hillary dissembles and gives us the basic "what does it matter now?" sense of "I'm inevitable, live with it" sort of pitch.

While the column caused neurons to fire, I'm not sure at all that Hillary, or BO for that matter comes even close to having her name uttered among the "monsters", and certainly not among the "great men of history".

America and Western Civilization is in obvious decline. The Bear and the Dragon, both historical opportunists are rising, along with the crescent and the sword in the Middle East. For the tide to be turned, the West will have to be ABOUT SOMETHING other than "care of the elderly and an equitable distribution of whatever we can beg and borrow".

We are in need of a "Great Man", which always carries with it the danger of a "Monster". I don't see Hillary as anything other than another caretaker on our way to the dustbin of history if we are foolish enough to choose her.

Nationally and personally, we need to get outside ourselves. Ideally, to a Christian, that means putting God first, but to all, it means that we have to find SOMETHING to love about ourselves and our nation beyond comfort, income equality and obsessive worry about the climate.

'via Blog this'

Left vs Right, 47 and Servers, Worldview

G.O.P. Letter by Republican Senators Is Evidence of ‘Decline,’ Iranian Says - NYTimes.com:

The past few weeks a number of issues have yet again fanned the flames between those that see the world from the left hand and those that see it from the right. The 47 Senators Letter and Hillary's e-mail server getting the most attention, but shootings in Ferguson,  Walker being asked to comment on BO's Christianity, the ongoing "Global Warming" are also present. The animosity and sometimes downright hatred and craziness is always burning between Americans on the left and right, and it seems more often to be blazing of late again.

I'm about 1/2 through a re-read of "A Conflict of Visions"(Thomas Sowell), my favorite book on the topic, and about 3/4 way through "Suicide of the West" -- a good summary of "liberalism" and it's effects circa 1964. No doubt I'll comment more on both to come. Anytime I take up this topic, I also like to mention "The Righteous Mind".

When we are faced with issues like the 47 Senator letter or Hillary's e-mails, we see how profoundly our world views vary between husband/wife, family members, friends, etc. We see the "facts" in TOTALLY different ways, and most of us are at a loss to understand WHY?? We ask; "How can "they" possibly see the same things so differently???"

The core reason boils down to "Worldview" -- the filter / colored glasses / model that we see the world through. It is to some degree wired into our brains (as Haidt covers),  and largely developed through a life of family, education,  church, reading, thinking, etc (also in opposition to those inputs) The facts of the variance in the worldview are well documented by Sowell in "Visions".

To grossly simplify the two world views in the US today, we have:

1. "Liberal" -- The dominant US view. Most of the media, education, etc. Democrat. "Man is born free but is everywhere in chains "(Rousseau) Tradition is suspect, often considered wrong. People are born as good. Education, laws, government, experts, etc can solve any problem. RIGHTS, Change, Justice are big liberal words.
   
2. "Conservative" -- “Prudence is not only the first in rank of the virtues political and moral, but she is the director and regulator, the standard of them all.”(Burke) The opposition, Republican. Man is born sinful, "redemption" is required, normally by religion, in addition, self control,  rewards and punishments (sanctions) and lots of individual work are needed. Responsibility, Tradition, Freedom are big words. 

These positions should be seen on a "range" -- nobody is entirely in one camp or the other, and there have and always will be disagreements between them. But why so vehement now? 

Up until the 20th century, and even through at least the 60's, Americans had a couple big elements of a SHARED worldview -- heavily built around Christianity and the Constitution. People could disagree on many things, but over 90% mostly agreed that both Christianity and the Constitution were "sacred" -- they were "above the fray".  "All decent people" could agree on the "basic tenets" ... God as creator, Christ as Savior, Separation of Powers, Limits on Federal Government, etc.

We are far more divided by worldview now than ever before in our history. Even during the Civil War, we were divided on the ISSUE of Slavery, but reverence for Christianity and the Constitution was much more generally present in the country that in is now. 

But we no longer have those points of agreement. The Constitution may state that an agreement with a foreign power has to be ratified by the Senate to be binding, but there are a lot of people that don't care and are completely angered when it is brought up. One might point to MANY times that congressmen and senators ACTUALLY "negotiated with a foreign power" rather than sent a letter quoting the facts of the Constitution. It makes no difference. "They have a right to their own OPINION" ... and as even the NYTs has discovered, pretty much anything but 2+2 is just "opinion" these days, and in the absence of a higher standard, "all opinions are valid".

John Adams called the situation perfectly when he said:
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other,".   Indeed. 

In order to hold truths to be "self evident" and consider man as "endowed by his creator with unalienable rights",  a people MUST believe in a "creator" and that there is such a thing as "truth". Take the sacred away,  thus making "man the measure of all things" and we are reduced to that measure being the ballot box or the bullet. We are left with no common worldview on which "all decent people" agree and can therefore discuss things rationally from a shared perspective. 

What we have are increasingly divergent world views that can be "settled" only temporarily and intermittently at the ballot box, but increasingly are UNsettled with unrest up to and including violence as we have just seen in Ferguson, and earlier in NYC with the two police being murdered. 

As we ignore the Constitution, even elections become meaningless -- an executive and decree that immigrants are legal, the Internet must be regulated, agreements are treaties, or effectively ANYTHING since he is no longer bound by an oath to uphold that once sacred document. When one party decides that the only thing sacred is political power, then there is no remaining foundation on which to base a country. 

So as tribes prior to the recognition of one God above all, and the subsequent march from Christ though the rise of Western Civilization, we fight. We fight "as the flies of summer" (Burke) -- alienated from God, our own history, and morality beyond "our side must win"!  For the present,  we go on feeding on the carcass of the once great civilization we were bequeathed, but with little remaining understanding of the founding principles needed for it's continued operation.

'via Blog this'

Motorcycle Addiction

Tuesday I took communion to a shut-in lady from church that rather likes the idea of her Elder showing up on a motorcycle. It was a really nice day and I hadn't had the Wing out yet, so I thought I'd give her one more sign of spring.

After the visit I decided I needed to take it down Circle Drive and open it up a wee bit (condensation, carbon and all you know), then somehow I turned right and the next thing was out by Oxbow park, then Pine Island. At which point I realized that I needed to head home for dinner lest I be a negligent House-moose. Cruising southward on 52 with my feet out on the pegs and classic rock on the speakers it occurred to me that "addiction" is a good description.

We have all seen the questions about alcohol at the Doctors office or relative to some problem with a friend or even ourselves. "Do you ever drink more than you planned to" was the question banging around my spring bike fevered brain. I didn't really intend to go for more than a short spin  -- and of course given riding a Wing, I can certainly rationalize that anything under 200mi is "a short spin", but I'm guessing you know what I mean.

One could dig a bit deeper;  "Does drinking affect your life, finances, etc?", "Have people let you know that you are drinking too much?", "Do you spend a lot of time thinking about drinking", "Have you thought you should quit drinking?"

I've clearly got a problem. Two touring bikes is too much. I'm a worry wart -- when I'm NOT getting on one of the bikes or riding it I regularly obsess about the risk. Oh, my standard statement is "I'm 58, if something bad happens I was doing something I loved" -- which is true, but I have a great imagination. I'm very aware it definitely could happen -- and it could be paralysis, brain damage, etc, etc. -- when one is worrying, no need to just stick to the quick end of it all when the years of lingering regret in the nursing home while everyone knowingly shakes their head at your poor risk management choice and your poor long suffering wife burdened because of your self indulgence.

Needless to say though, that isn't the angle my wind in the face, corner leaning, rumble craving, mile destroying, addiction addled brain spends the most time on though. "ONE MORE FIX" is the general refrain -- "I'll give it up someday" ... and I'll be LUCKY! I'll get one more big trip in on the Wing, and then "responsibly" sell that and trade in the Ultra on a new "safe Harley" -- one with linked brakes and ABS. What could be more responsible?

Indeed. There is much truth to "while alive, LIVE!" -- as one ages, the cancer diagnosis, the stroke, the heart attack, the alzheimers and many other things become increasingly common among those of "around our age" in our circle of awareness. Also, like motorcycles on the road when you ride one, you just tend to notice it more.

Both my bikes have now made it out. I got the Ultra out from the lower garage and took it to pick up my newly sharpened chain saw chain -- and took the long road home as well, though not as long as the Wing ride. The Ultra  still makes the figure 8's on the Cul-de-sac feel like cheating next to the Wing.

The topic for the next couple of weeks is Ireland -- but I suspect that motorcycles will be near the top ... although shared with the promise of a granddaughter and the plans to build our lake shed in IA once I return.

Lent .... can I really be a Christian and so often have to pray for forgiveness for again losing sight of the cross? There are definitely times I feel the proper feeling of addiction to Christ, but he certainly understood what it is to be human with "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak"!

Kerry Learns of Disbelief

Secretary of State John Kerry blasts Senate GOP letter to Iran - Nation - The Boston Globe:

Ah yes, "disbelief". The picture of Senators John Kerry and Tom Harken breathlessly preparing to lick the boots of Communist Nicaraguan Dictator Daniel Ortega while Reagan assists the Contras, attempting to overthrow said dictator. Kerry's memory seems to be a "bit faulty" on the "he has never seen anything like this".

It is understandable, his memory, even when something has been "seared" into it, has never been very good. Even the lefty Washington Post can't ignore all his whoppers:

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."

Small problem, as the WaPo column clearly points out, he was never in Cambodia, not at Christmas, not ever.

One of the features of a compliant biased press is that what 80% of the population hears is the sound of one hand clapping -- Senator's quoting the Constitution from the opposition are "traitors", Senators visiting dictators in direct opposition to US foreign policy are "courageous", "peace loving" or some other positive approbation.

Truth? Ah well, truth -- that is whatever THE PARTY says it is!! ... just read the news.

'via Blog this'

The Culture Lost

The Cost of Relativism - NYTimes.com:

Remember "the culture wars"? In case you missed it, the culture lost".

You remember, our once dominant old culture. Western Culture -- the Judaeo Christian Culture of nearly 2K years. It lost -- first in  Europe, and then in the US. We ought to have had a funeral.

The big battles started in the '60s with drugs, easy divorce and free sex. In the '70s we added the gay element, more drugs, disco, "zipless sex", and more disdain for "the square life" and the idea that people were responsible for their behavior, Nah, anything that goes bad is somebody elses fault -- parents, church, your sex, your sexual preference, discrimination -- you are OK, everyone else, especially society is all screwed up!

Through it all, more abortion, more divorce, more birth control, less religion, less "rules / standards / values / etc".  More "liberation" -- "do your own thing", disdain for "family values" -- and ever louder cries for removal of religion from the public square. Religion HAD to be the PROBLEM!

Now it seems that at least a couple guys at the NYTs have a morality hangover. They woke up in the AM, looked around at all the wreckage and filth that has been wrought by "progressive morality" (a major oxymoron)  and said "what that hell happened"??

Reintroducing norms will require, first, a moral vocabulary. These norms weren’t destroyed because of people with bad values. They were destroyed by a plague of nonjudgmentalism, which refused to assert that one way of behaving was better than another. People got out of the habit of setting standards or understanding how they were set.

Ya think?? Wow, brilliant deduction.

I guess it counts for something though to have seen this obvious development coming for about 50 years. Is there going to be a trend here before somebody just finally kicks our morally decrepit nations ass?

I've covered everything in the Brooks column a number of times. I guess it is good to be right -- although about something this obvious, it is hard to get very excited about it.

'via Blog this'

Quoting Constitution Now Treason

Iran slams Tom Cotton letter: ‘Undiplomatic’ - Nick Gass - POLITICO:

Letting a foreign power know what is written in the US Constitution about how treaties are negotiated, ratified, and the result if they are or are not approved, is now considered "treason" by some on the left.

Joe Biden certainly agrees -- he probably plagiarized that opinion from somewhere.

Apparently the "soft liners" in Iran also agree. The definition of a soft liner in Iran has to be kind of interesting -- usually the US is "The Great Satan", perhaps to  a "soft liner" rather than being evil we are just stupid so they would call us "The Great Idiot". Perhaps a "soft liner" just uses a sharp knife when they cut off your head -- those are the kind of people that we ought to listen to!

Being "slammed" by Iran  is something that is highly unusual -- at least this version is just words. The US press hasn't much covered the Iranian war games just held in February which included a new weapon that they used against a simulated aircraft carrier. No doubt that was the "soft liners" assuming that sinking one of our carriers with 5K seamen and airmen aboard would help "educate" the Great Idiot. I mean, we must be thinking the "soft liners" have the upper hand in Iran, right?

So do we show our "intelligence" -- in Iranian and US lefty eyes, by accepting whatever kind of raw deal  a country that explicitly calls us "The Great Satan" and proudly builds and tests new weapons to attack our carriers? Given that they hold war games while the "negotiations" go on, they seem a LOT less concerned about us being "offended" than the folks worried about a letter outlining how our Constitution works relative to treaties.

There is no comparison with a letter simply informing an adversary of the content of constitution and decades of trips/negotiations by TP congressmen and senators to North Vietnam, USSR, Nicaragua, Syria (Nancy Pelosi 2007 ), etc, ... all hailed by the TP media as "constructive", "useful", etc  TP congressmen have a great history of actually usurping the position of R presidents to negotiate -- not sending a letter quoting the Constitution. (TP doesn't care much for the Constitution -- is it supposed to be a state secret now?)

TP likes to blur the definition of "treason" because they are so good at it  -- "Toddy" Kennedy provided a great example.

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

Try to remember that -- TREASON, selling your country out to an enemy for your own personal or PARTY gain.

It is hard for conservatives and patriots to even understand the meaning of THE PARTY for a D -- combine your love of God, Country and Family together and you have a hint of what a committed member feels for THE PARTY!


'via Blog this'

MSM Goes Straight on Madison Killing

Police kill teen: Why Wisconsin's investigation will be different - CNN.com:

The disclaimer that needs to be made CLEARLY on all these incidents is that if you violently resist arrest you are likely to be shot, tazed or whacked with a billy club, all of which might result in your death. Police are under NO OBLIGATION to engage you in a "fair fight" because you "appear to be unarmed". All of their training is to insure that any physical contact with them by you is avoided. You may or may not have a gun or knife, but they DO have a gun -- if they engage in a "fair fight", you may obtain that gun and turn the tables.

This is a rather amazing column to read about a shooting of an unarmed black teen by a white officer. It is the ONLY article on the topic I see on CNN and on my Google News the Madison shooting isn't listed as an topic.

The funniest part politically is that even though the CNN article praises a WI law passed last April (PRIOR to Fergusson and NYC "Black Lives Matter") it is for some reason mysterious who the Governor of WI that signed that into law is!

I'm guessing that may be in fact be the MAIN reason that this story will go nowhere in the national media -- given that law and the politics of Madison, there could be a positive reflection on Walker, and neither the national MSM or the local far left Mad City MSM would want that! A Chief Executive that signs a positive law on prior to an incident is a significant difference from a President whose most common response to trouble is "I just heard that on the news like everyone else"!

Mad City is left of left. Any program, policing gimmick, community outreach, midnight basketball or basket weaving that is possible has been done there already. It isn't a town with much for slums. It is a shining example of liberalism in a manner you can only get it in a small city, heavily subsidized by being the seat of State Government and having the big university. If liberalism can't look good here, it can't look good anywhere.

So it is an embarrassment that even in a lefty showcase of a city, black youths still do armed robbery, run amok, attack police officers (some of whom are white) and get killed. So do white youth, but the current narrative is "black lives matter", so the media could care less about the white kids, and as we have covered, they REALLY don't care about the 6K black on black young men killed every year.

The fact that nationwide the black culture has been destroyed by the programs of TP -- even in a shining showcase city like Madison, is a story that the MSM isn't likely to dwell on long.
'via Blog this'

Jesus and Socialism

Rendering Unto Caesar: Was Jesus A Socialist? (ePub, PDF, HTML, Audio) : Publications : Foundation for Economic Education:



It gets a little long, but it covers some of the points quite well. In short, Muhammad was much more of a Socialist than Jesus because Muhammad used and encouraged the use of FORCE and Socialism requires FORCE!

One difference between libertarianism [a personal choice and liberty-based system] and socialism is that a socialist society can't tolerate groups of people practicing freedom, but a libertarian society can comfortably allow people to choose voluntary socialism. If a group of people — even a very large group — wanted to purchase land and own it in common, they would be free to do so. The libertarian legal order would require only that no one be coerced into joining or giving up his property. 

As Socialism creeps in, it often seeks to deny it's forceful totalitarian nature and makes claims along the lines of "It's just another choice, if you like your XXXX you can keep it!!"



Anyone can quickly see these are lies -- anyone that is not a sheep by nature sees it in advance, but as the program comes into existence, EVERYONE sees that they were in fact lied to -- but now that choice is gone, and increasingly there are sanctions on even speaking up and pointing out the like -- the IRS audits you, the EPA knocks on the door of your business, etc. Eventually, the sanction is incarceration or death as Socialism gains power.



I love this paragraph on the Golden Rule:

The well-known "Golden Rule" comes from the lips of Jesus himself, in Matthew 7:12. "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." In Matthew 19:19, Jesus says, "love your neighbor as yourself." Nowhere does he even remotely suggest that we should dislike a neighbor because of his wealth or seek to take that wealth from him. If you don't want your property confiscated (and most people don't), then clearly you're not supposed to confiscate somebody else's.

It bears repeating -- if you don't want your own property confiscated then don't vote to confiscate someone elses!



Which leads us to the ultimate problem of socialism. In no way is it remotely Christian, so once a nation starts moving in a Socialist direction, Christians are among the first groups that run afoul of the growing government power and have to be "sanctioned" -- so unsurprisingly we increasingly see that happening in America.





'via Blog this'

Selma, Propaganda, Celebration

Civil rights landmark bridge is named for reputed KKK leader - The Washington Post:

I've already heard a lot of TP (The Party - D) religious preparation for the remembrance of Selma on NPR, but one "tiny little detail" that gets no coverage is the political party which was being fought against in Selma.

It was of course DEMOCRAT (TP)  -- even then, the dominant, but less dominant party of POWER. THE PARTY! (sig Heil!) If the National Socialist Party had won WWII we would no doubt be celebrating Kristallnacht every Nov 9th.

While TP did not have to kill that many blacks in the destruction of US African American Civilization 1865 - 1965, they VERY effectively converted a proud capable young culture that had developed after the institution of TP Slavery fell in in the Civil War, developing strong families and church allegiance while still under the thumb of TP administered Jim Crow in the South.

Blacks ended up in much the same way as Vichy France did relative to Nazi Germany -- they accepted their former masters as "caretakers" -- doling out their welfare checks, destroying their families, converting them to a permanent often criminal underclass that in return for their payoffs votes 90%+ for their oppressors in new clothing.

Here is a quote from the linked article that lifts the curtain just a bit:

Selma was known as a “safe place” for blacks aligned with liberal Republicans after the Civil War during Reconstruction partly because of a lack of Klan activity, he said.

"Liberal" in the classic sense -- meaning allowing people to hold differing views and respecting real diversity of thought as well as race. In the modern propaganda, one might think that the KKK would be aligned with Republicans under the theory that is preached from the media -- anything "bad" is R, "good" is D. But no, the KKK was primarily made up of DEMOCRATS, with the Senator Robert Byrd being a prominent past member.

Whatever TP says, think the opposite. Being the dominant party allows them to create any sort of fictional history and present myth desired that will be believed by a majority of people.  Much in the same as BO can stand up and claim "success" on lower gas prices even though he has strongly fought every action leading to them from drilling, fracking to pipelines, so TP who were the very people fighting against those Civil Rights marchers in Selma, can claim it is "their victory".

They did "win" in the sense that due to federal programs that have destroyed the black family, they garner 90%+ of their votes. It is the kind of "victory" that destroyed Detroit, is destroying Chicago and IL, and is well on it's way in CA and NY If TP has it's way, the entire country will suffer the same fate.

It's the standard TP "victory' -- myth, oppression and ever increasing totalitarian state control. If TP is successful in the whole country, 100% of us will be voting TP in the future or we will be imprisoned or dead -- and the state of families and poverty in America will make the plight of Blacks today look like a bright spot.

'via Blog this'

Lost In Christianity

Why I’m Coming Out as a Christian - The Daily Beast:

The title is kinda like "lost in space".

In the beginning of Christianity, there was Christ and his disciples. One went bad, all the rest save John ended up martyrs according to the best histories we know. We certainly know that early Christianity was unpopular. The writer of over half the new testament, the Apostle Paul started life as Saul and was stoning Christians around the mid 30's AD -- not very long after the crucifixion, 30-33AD.

"Coming out as a Christian" is still worthy of the death sentence in Islamic territory, but here in the old US of A, apparently some feel the greatest obstacle to confessing Christ is:

No, I’m nervous to come out as a Christian because I worry I’m not good enough of one. I’m not scared that non-believers will make me feel an outcast. I’m scared that Christians will.

Compared to having one's head hacked off, being crucified, being fed to lions, or other forms of nasty death, somehow the idea of fearing one will "not be accepted as good enough" by other Christians seems rather tame. Reading through the article though, I wonder if Ms Cox may want to contract the Ex Governor of MN who feels that sueing the widow of the most successful sniper the US has ever had is the best manner to get back into the good graces of fellow SEALS whose company he claims to sorely miss. Her article seems to be spiritually aligned with Jesse's views of the proper way to be accepted by your peers. 

The claimed origin of Ms Cox's heartfelt need to stand up and be counted as among Christendom is the following. 

I’ve lately observed conservatives questioning Obama’s faith with more than professional interest. Because if Obama’s not Christian, what does that make me?

Thankfully, she can rest her fevered mind. There have been no "conservatives" questioning Obama's faith, save the quite unlikely possible case if the reporter that asked Scott Walker about Obama's faith was in fact a "conservative reporter" (a very rare breed), actually seeking some information from Walker on the subject. 

Note, there seems a second misconception in play here. While there is a good deal greater percentage of "conservatives" that self-identify as "Christian", the correlation is FAR from unity. Something like 60% is commonly quoted, vs less than 50% of "liberals". 

"Conservatives" questioning your claims of Christianity is NOT the same as Christians possibly questioning your claim. But discounting the extremely unlikely case of the reporter being a conservative looking for real information on Obama's faith from Scott Walker, we have zero recent cases of EITHER "Conservatives" nor "Christians" questioning Obama's faith, so Ms Cox stated concerns are completely vacuous. I wonder if she would breathe a sigh of relief on that news? 

It appears that SHE is COMPLETELY certain of her Christianity, however I would be remiss as a Christian to not provide a more coherent path to saving faith than she provides. 

1. As she says, we are saved by faith in Christ, not of our own works, lest any man should boast. 
2. As we grow in faith, we regularly find that we need to repent of your own sinful desires and follow Christ instead (daily repentance and contrition) . She seems to have missed this. 
3. The means of this following -- well known nearly two thousand years, but becoming less agreed to today is Holy Scripture, Holy Preaching and Holy Communion 

The following is Ms Cox "statement of faith": 

Here is why I believe I am a Christian: I believe I have a personal relationship with my Lord and Savior. I believe in the grace offered by the Resurrection. I believe that whatever spiritual rewards I may reap come directly from trying to live the example set by Christ. Whether or not I succeed in living up to that example is primarily between Him and me.

The statement leaves out recognition of sinful need, repentance, desire to follow Christ and join with fellow believers, which unless we are talking a death-bed like conversion (eg. "thief on the cross"), would be key aspects of a typical Christian statement of faith.

She seems to make light of not having much knowledge of the Bible, which is an ODD Christian position given John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.".

Christ is the Word and the Word is Christ -- to know Christ, you know the Word. As a Christian, the knowledge of Christ is knowledge of the Bible and vice versa.

It is hard to read her column as being anything but a very thinly veiled smear on Scott Walker saying that if someone wants to know about Obama's Christianity, they should ask him, not Scott Walker, but I took her more seriously than that -- anyone can write something that looks bad and mean well after all.

I pray that her intent is actually an honest concern and that she will seek out the Word and a body of believers in which she can receive instruction, Communion and grow in Christ.

'via Blog this'

Prejudice, Mistaken Identiy

A Letter From Black America - Nikole Hannah-Jones - POLITICO Magazine:



The attached article is a nice long explanation justification for blacks feeling put upon by police. It ends with the specific case "proving" (if there is any point to the incident brought up at all) that police also are biased against teens, or possibly just tend to want to be certain that they person that reports an incident is not involved / has a motive other than being a good citizen.



Way way back when I was 21 and already working in Rochester I was minding my own business walking down the street street one day dressed in my favorite red white and blue denim jacket, jeans, and no doubt colorful tennis shoes. Somewhat like a St Bernard or Lab that has not figured out that it is not a lap dog, I had not wised up yet to the idea that bigger people wearing bright colored things stand out -- you do need to remember it was '78, Disco, Village People, etc as well.



A police car cruised by, slowing rather obviously, and stopping to watch me stroll by. I was unconcerned having done nothing wrong and not opposed to police. I heard the doors of the squad open / bang shut and was surprised very shortly to hear, "Please Stop, we would like to talk with you."



As I turned, I noticed the officer closest to me resting his hand on his pistol from which the strap was already undone, the second officer was off on the grass at an angle to the side so it was hard to look at both at the same time ... his hand was even more prominently resting in the draw-ready position on his unstrapped pistol.



"Do you have any identification?" ... fortunately, I did, and rather SLOWLY reached to my back pocket, got out the billfold, then licence -- they looked at the ID, looked at me for a bit, then handed it back and apologized for detaining me.



Curious, I asked what was up. Apparently, a guy of my height and weight description "dressed like me" had escaped from a holding facility at the local enforcement center. It took me a few years to kind of figure out that particular description of physical characteristics and dress might have been a bit unusual, although I STILL like to think that I blend in anywhere! Moose are hard to spot!



Bill Berg is also a common name ... maybe not as common as "Mike Smith" (if that is actually anybody's real name), so I've had more than a few cases of mistaken identity there. When a Bill Berg of about my age was killed along the highway in an accident and it was reported in the news, a NUMBER of people were sure it was me.



It is also true that "teens" of any color are "targeted" by the police for certain kinds of crime -- vandalism, stealing cars, erratic and "display of power" sorts of driving, shoplifting, etc. The reason they are "targeted" is that they have a higher rate of perpetrating those kinds of acts than say 60 year old  overweight white guys, to pick a group that MIGHT be profiled completely at random.



Is there pure racism against blacks? Sure. But there is also what I would call "legitimate profiling" -- certain groups DO perpetuate certain crimes at a MUCH higher rate than others. If I want more police attention I can just put on some leathers, and rev my Harley up a bit in some areas -- add a few tats and such and the attention will rise even more.



While as I say, I'm certain there is SOME racism, I would be strongly surprised if a well groomed middle age black man in a suit and tie isn't going to get a lot less attention than a dreadlocked 20 year old with low slung pants, a bunch of bling, a hoodie and a baseball cap cocked to the side -- add a boom box on the shoulder blaring anti-cop rap and the meter likely goes up another notch or two.



The bottom line. PERSPECTIVE. Politico puts in an article in which the bulk is opinion, completely known to any breathing American from many previous sources, and the specific incident cited point to police treatment of teens that call in crimes on a cell phone, not to treatment of blacks by police which is ostensibly  the topic.



Black, white, young, big, biker, old,  hooker, etc -- profiles and stereotypes are part of living. Hang around and you will be old and uninteresting to anyone in law enforcement as other than a victim.



You may even gain some perspective.

Alternatives 2 Hilly

While TP is the dominant party and it's potential to end the USA remains as serious as a heart attack, life is not worth living without some levity!!

Even total dominance has it's trials!

Can Illinois Be Saved?

The Weekend Interview: Blue State Turnaround Artist - WSJ:



We know that Chicago is in dire financial straits from some of the articles leaking out, but the state of Illiniois is also in deep trouble.



As the article points out, the root problem for the state is public sector unions and the kickback connection between those unions and the Democrats (TP). We may hear more of a negative nature about this in the near future as things have gotten so bad that an evil Republican has been elected and is attempting to take some baby steps to curtail the level of union rape of the public purse and the related kickbacks to TPs campaign coffers.



Although a bit longish, the entire article is worth the read -- the perils of cities like NYC in the '80s, Detroit today, and increasingly Chicago, as well as states like CA, NY and IL show us the results of single party TP rule and the direction that the US is strongly headed in.



I'd argue that CA and NY would be in the running for "worst managed", but I'm sure a case can be made for IL

Welcome to government in Illinois, the worst-managed state in the country. The Land of Lincoln is buried under staggering debts, including a projected $6.7 billion operating gap for the next fiscal year and an $111 billion unfunded pension liability. Government unions and politicians engage in legal collusion that fleeces taxpayers. Between 2002 and 2014, 86% of Illinois state lawmakers received union contributions, according to the Illinois Policy Institute.

A tiny lift of the curtain of the insidiousness of  the effects of unions and the union government connection is provided by this little piece of information that the rules applied to contracts in IL raise the costs 10-20% -- consider that ON TOP of the already higher costs incurred for government contracts (more oversight, more planning, more impact statements, etc) and one gets a bit of a hint as to why our nation now has so much trouble with "infrastructure".  Government consistently overspends buying votes with all manner of "subsidies", "grants", "aid to etc, etc", and lets the infrastructure crumble. Then, as the disrepair gets critical they demand more tax income (often gas taxes) in order to pay out yet more money to their supporters in the unions and bureaucracy. A sweet deal to all but the hapless taxpayer. 

..., Mr. Rauner wrangled approval for the mansion renovation but was told that the work, even if privately funded, had to follow the state’s prevailing-wage laws, which restrict competitive bidding and can raise costs 20% or more. 

If the new governor is serious about this we can expect Scott Walker like recall votes, destructive demonstrations and threats of violence in IL like there were in WI.



'via Blog this'

Petraeus vs Sandy Berger

A double standard on government secrets for David Petraeus - LA Times:



I had to chuckle as the LA Times got concerned because David Petraeus is "getting off easy" in their book for letting his lover / biographer look at some secret documents.



My memory is too damned good-- and having a blog and a search engine makes it all too easy.



Back in '06 I linked this little gem on Sandy Berger, seems that "good old Sandy" as Slick Willie commented took documents out of restricted areas hidden in his pants and then hid them under a construction trailer.



Naturally, even though reported in the MSM, Sandy being a member of TP in VERY good standing ... and most likely covering up for the Clintons, received NO PUNISHMENT!!!



Ah yes, such concern for "double standards"!



'via Blog this'

Unions, Terror, Walker, Reagan

Attacks on Scott Walker Remind of Reagan | The American Spectator:



Walker made a couple comments that have been jumped on relative to dealing with unions and dealing with terrorists. As the linked article coveres, Reagan did the same.



Our personal experiences tend to shape what pops into our minds. Thankfully, few of us in the US have had to deal with terrorists (yet), but more of us have had to deal with unions.



My most up close and personal  union experience was in I believe 1996 when Newt Gingrich came to Rochester for a fundraiser for then Congressional Candidate Gil Gutknecht. At the main entrance to the event at the Kahler Hotel,  a group of approximately 205 unionists were marching carrying signs and chanting -- intimidating people from entering. There were people pointing to a side entrance, but my adrenaline came up and I decided that I didn't enjoy being intimidated, so I strode toward the line at a rapid and determined pace. Apparently intimidation has it's limits;  the line parted rather quickly and even the chants went silent for a second. Nobody particularly wanted to play "Bumper Moose" that night.



Were I not as large as I am, the intimidation would have likely worked. If I had to have the courage of a Walker or a Reagan, I  would probably fold like a wet paper bag. Hope not, but like combat, you don't know until it happens. Standing up to intimidation is definitely bracing and memorable. I'm certain much more so if you are threatened with having your face caved in so you "never work in movies again" as Reagan was, or have the home of your elderly parents picketed by union thugs as Walker has.



Violence and intimidation are a huge part of the union way. "Strike breakers" are threatened with all manner of intimidation and actual violence, and it is often carried out -- in property damage, beatings and even murder. Cross a union and the threat is always implicit and often explicit.



Now unionists may be the rotary club of terror compared to ISIS -- whacking the head with a baseball bat is more the union way than severing it on TV, but the basic result can be the same. The unions are the early violence arm of TP, the shock troops.  "Labor Day" is the US version of "May Day". A day dedicated to the intimidating power of unions using both the ballot box and the baseball bat.



The union is the point at which the "mob" part of too much "democracy" starts to show it's more ugly face. The government union is the step at which the power of the state becomes a tool for union intimidation. See IRS.



Walker is going to be attacked in MANY ways if he continues to run. Make no mistake, his bravery includes bravery for his life and the lives of his family. He has directly challenged the TPs shock troops, the unions, and they believe in and regularly use intimidation and violence.







'via Blog this'