Nearing "The Day After Tomorrow"

We’re closer to a ‘Day After Tomorrow’ ice age than we thought - The Washington Post:

The article is worth a read for at least entertainment value, but the bottom line is that the Warmists are hedging their bets with the idea that the "pause" in warming now nearing 20 years in length might quickly slip into COOLING! ... ****BUT**** !!!!!

Yup, you guessed it, that cooling will be CAUSED by warming, which is caused by humans and CO2. Such has been "settled". As Karl Popper pretty much tautologically said: "A theory that explains everything explains nothing".

That used to be trotted out by atheists against God for obvious reasons, but if "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" explains ALL things that happen to the climate, then it really explains nothing.

If you look at the tired old Vostok ice core data, our temps have peaked 4 times previous to this time in the last 500K years and then plunged. None of our current historical models include advanced carbon burning civilizations in the previous peaks, so while it is possible we are having an effect, it seems pretty clear that the planet warms in 100K year cycles and spends most of it's time far cooler than it is now.

As least future generations will have the satisfacting of knowing that in this case, the cooling was caused by humans!

'via Blog this'

Moral Ecology, Naming Disaster

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/10/donald-trump-and-the-decline-of-americas-moral-ecology.php

The linked column chooses to name our moral decline as "Moral Ecology" based on an article from David Brooks. As "Closing Of The American Mind" might say, the morals you make up are a lot less likely to be really believed than the ones that are a few thousand years old. Make it so nearly nobody believes that how they live has the potential to affect how they spend eternity, and "morals" become "suggestions".

"Suggestions" to the real "god" of the modern world, and especially America -- **ME**!!! David Brooks identifies the problem in this following quote, but unless people have been totally asleep or so far into denying the obvious to miss that BO is a narcissist beyond previous imagination for an American President, this isn't very newsworthy. Sure, "The Donald" is another of the species, but in a nation that gets all thrilled over the Kardashians, the person formerly known as Bruce Jenner, etc, etc, the cult of me is considered to be high moral fiber, so who can really be surprised?

Over the past several decades we have built a moral ecology around the Big Me, around the belief in a golden figure inside. This has led to a rise in narcissism and self-aggrandizement.

So we have shooters that "just want to be famous".  When there are no morals or even standards, fame is just about all their is. Wealth is bad if you aren't famous -- but fine if you are.

At one time kids wanted to be astronauts, now they want to be mass killers. For "progressives", that must be progress. The latest is always best -- or is it possible that "progress" sometimes isn't?

Closing Of The American Mind, Allan Bloom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Closing_of_the_American_Mind

After a lot of rememberance (some of it false), I re-read the book that along with National Review and Ayn Rand was one of the early works that led me to "open my mind" to the ancients, the classics, philosophy and the radical ideas of thinkers not sanctioned by the modern academy or culture. Call it the inverse of the kind of relativist, collectivist,  politically correct education that Bloom laments in this work. I find the following explains the title and purpose of the work.

"Actually openness results in American conformism -- out there in the rest of the world is drab diversity that teaches only that values are relative, whereas here we can create all the lifestyles we want. Our openness means we do not need others. Thus what is advertised as a great opening is a great closing. No longer is there hope that there are great wise men in other places and times who can reveal the truth about life." 

The book is a survey of the leading thoughts to Western civilization and what has become of them in the American University. The basic answer is that there is no truth, and therefore all points of view are somewhat equivalent, although the most "progressive" is favored, since it is current. Science is king -- but alas, Science has no values or meaning  beyond "it works" and "we have lots of detailed data about stuff", so thought is atomized along with matter. The post Nietzsche world of philosophy is summarized thusly:

"The revelation that philosophy finds nothingness at the end of it's quest informs the new philosopher that mythmaking must be his central concern in order to make a world."

Once God and Religion are gone, there is a vacuum that must be filled by myth, because man does not live by mere fact.

The first time I read this book, I struggled mightily with it -- and was not sure that I got it at all, but it made me aware that in my single minded focus to attain a career through college education, I had completely missed even a rudimentary understanding of the culture that had created the world I was intent to seek my livelihood in with all haste.

When I re-read it ... I assume in the late '90s, I was better equipped and felt that I understood it, this time it was a relative breeze. Education does work -- even autodidacticism.

My false memories were related to how early I thought it was written and that I must have read it sooner -- I thought it was written in the 1960's, it was published in '87. It DOES cover a lot of discussion of the '60s, which is where I must have gotten the idea.

It was more popular than I imagined -- I read it on the Kindle this time which included an afterword by Andrew Ferguson. Bloom died of AIDs in 1992, five years after the book was published. That fact no doubt figures heavily into some of the criticism of the work out in Wikipedia (linked at the top) relative to people claiming that young people coming out for gay rights and "marriage" is "proof of morality". One would hope that anyone who read the book would realize that it is rather proof of "all things being relative" in the now even more closed American mind.

Must all alcoholics be in favor of prohibition or of complete license to consume alcohol? Must all alcoholics hold any specific view relative to alcohol? Why would not the same be true of someone with homosexual tendencies? Will we someday state of alcoholics as a group that "You are born with a genetic disposition to alcoholism. If you do not drink, you are not being true to yourself"?

Such inconsistency -- and in fact, the creation of a mind so closed that it may not dare recognize the inconsistency in the previous paragraph is the core of what "Closing" teaches. The actual open mind is open to the possibility of truth, error and even paradox. It is willing to continue to seek "the good", even transcendent, divine truth rather than be closed to even the potential. It may not find what it seeks, but it does not discount it, and it does not give up the quest because the current times assert it MUST not exist.

I'm glad that I came full circle and re-read this one probably for the last time. It opened my mind, and the mind of America has closed beyond what I suspect even Bloom might have imagined since his death.

Moving Extreme

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/10/who-you-callin-extreme.php

Good PL post relative to a study that shows (unsurprisingly) that when Republicans are called "extreme", it is relative to CURRENT Democrats -- which have moved FAR to the left from what they were even ten or twenty years ago ... witness Hillary tacking LEFT to compete with Bernie Sanders, an avowed Socialist, while her husband Bill, tacked RIGHT and the whole Democrat push of the '90s was CENTRIST!

Not anymore ... it is now EXTREME! The assumption of the left or "progressive" view is that a nation ALWAYS moves left -- moving left, to more government, more control, more regulation, less personal freedom in every area save morality, etc is "progress". The left assumes that the ultimate state of mankind must be absolute control from a centralized authority with all people living in some relation to that authority -- both enslaved and completely dependent at the same time (which is a definition of slavery).

The assumption though is that if you "properly educate" the masses, that total enslavement to a collective cause is the proper state of the mass of humanity -- once people are "sufficiently educated", they will willingly salute their complete dependence for everything including their daily direction from the state. This has all been covered in plenty of fictional works -- from Orwell's "1984" to Huxley's "Brave New World", as well as in plenty of works of non-fiction -- "The Gulag Archipelago" leaps to mind, as well as the excellent reality fiction "The Lives of Others" about East Germany.

This constant slide to the left has been going on in this country at least since Wilson, and really before. It is enough to make one wonder if it really and truly actually is inevitable!

The Immigration Drive of '65

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 -- Its Effect Today | National Review Online:

Excellent article covering the 1965 Immigration Reform that I covered here ... losing America to cultural and racial overrun was not inevitable. The left claims one of its favorite reasons for the outcome "unintended consequences" -- like their poverty programs destroying the inner city family, their economic programs destroying the economy, their social programs driving the nation to destruction by debt -- the programs of the left are FAMOUS for "unintended consequences". They always find them "surprising", but if you read of some of their leaders, like Saul Alinsky, it certainly looks like the damage they do is actually by design!

A worthy though somewhat pedantic read on how our culture was changed by legal invasion.

The article seems to think it can be fixed now -- unfortunately, looking at the demographics and birth rate,  that hardly seems likely.

'via Blog this'

Pleading The 97%

Climate Change -- Statistics Aren't What They Seem | National Review Online:

One is reminded of a witness consistently pleading the 5th Amendment -- or my only pleading for my sins, "I plead the Blood of Christ"!

If you send up someone to talk about Climate Change at a Senate hearing, doesn't it reflect pretty badly on the cause at hand -- maybe unless it is a religion, which really ought to be considered, if the only response the witness has is to plead a completely bogus statistic? (covered in the past here)

It is worth following the link and seeing the idiotic responses on video ... and a more detailed explanation on where the 97% comes from than mine of you care. I guess after the stench of BO we are a people with no potential for embarrassment.

'via Blog this'

SNL Contributes, Citizens United

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-goldberg-1011-20151010-story.html

The headline on the Daily Beast's review summed it up well: "'Saturday Night Live' Premiere Basically a Hillary Clinton Campaign Ad." And, as the Daily Beast's senior entertainment reporter Kevin Fallon notes, it wasn't just the skit with Ms. Clinton's walk-on that was a gift. It was almost the whole show.

The preponderance of left leaning thought in the MSM is well known -- this just happens to be a fairly egregious example, but as the few people of conservative views that listen to some NPR, look at NYTs, etc, know, the daily drip-drip-drip of story selection and dutiful left only views probably has greater effect.

Again, "Saturday Night Live" has the same First Amendment rights as The New York Times and The Washington Post. But you know who else has the same free-speech rights as the mainstream media? You and me — and George Soros, Charles and David Koch and every other citizen of the United States.

It would seem that any "fair minded person" would conclude that if the rights of the first amendment apply to partially corporations like "The Corporation for Public Broadcasting", NBC, CBS, NYTs, etc, etc, then it would obviously apply to individuals and other private corporations. Public Broadcasting even picks up a very partisan half billion or so from the government -- more in Minnesota. For some reason, the left assumes that only private money carries the "follow the money" admonition. Public money is free from any special interest from its beneficiaries.

In the arguments before the court, the Obama administration took the position that the government could even ban books during election season if those books amounted to "express advocacy" for a candidate, even if that advocacy took the form of a single mention of a candidate. 

The court rejected that argument, and President Obama, along with most liberals, have never forgiven the justices. Hillary Clinton is so opposed to the ruling, she has made amending the First Amendment a cornerstone of her campaign.

The Democrats hate the First Amendment relative to politics rather more than they hate the 2nd -- for if they get their way on the 1st, the level of their control ratchets up significantly. They demand nothing less than government control of political speech -- where the vast 99% Democrat unionized federal bureaucracy reviews all political materials, broadcasts, books, contributions, etc to make sure that they were "proper".

In their world, we will have achieved "fairness" when this blog is censored -- which in this case, would mean "removed" for anything other than just my personal observations on life. My views are clearly not in proper support of THE PARTY!

Shrinking US, The Desert Classic In Syria

U.S. Sees Russian Drive Against CIA-Backed Rebels in Syria - WSJ:

How many times did we see headlines hammering on any "failed" W foreign policy during the W administration?  Harry Reid said that Iraq was lost in April of 2007 even STILL, with BO screwing up on Iraq beyond the maximum anyone could imagine, it isn't completely lost even YET! This video needs to be etched in EVERYONE's MIND ... it is the "essence of BO".

But one thing we never lacked was extremely direct, if not completely insane and over the top criticism of every single move that the W administration made.  The press was totally energized -- casualties, territory losses, criticisms or challenges from foreign governments, accidents, costs -- the list was literally endless, and the drumbeat of criticism never ended. If the press treated both sides the same way, this would be appropriate for an "adversarial press" (perhaps with a bit less false and over the top reporting as per W years).

How different it is for BO. Here is a paragraph from the linked column ...

U.S. officials say they now believe the Russians have been directly targeting CIA-backed rebel groups that pose the most direct threat to Mr. Assad since the campaign began on Wednesday, both to firm up regime positions and to send a message to Mr. Obama’s administration.

There you have it ... just the facts, and pretty muted with very few headlines. BO established a policy that he claimed was a success in Yemen, it wasn't, and not only fails miserably in Syria, the Russians kill the few rump forces that policy trained just so everyone gets to see how truly hapless the US is. This is the moral equivalent of the Jimmuh Carter Desert Classic! America is destroyed at home and an object of derision on the world stage!

Does anybody remember BO snarkily telling Romney that "the 1980's want their foreign policy back"?

Is it petty to bring it up? SURE ... but really, just how many times did you see or hear "Mission Accomplished" ... the ship's banner, meaning the mission of the SHIP had been accomplished, but never the less, a meme that was used by the media to maximum advantage against W.

When the shoe is on the other foot, the story is MIA, even when it is completely true and it was BO's words and he really and snarkily meant it! Even in the right wing press doesn't come even close to the day by day cynical attack that W suffered under for 8 long years on issue after issue -- sometimes real, but in many cases fake.

It is insanely biased, but it is just the way it is.



'via Blog this'

BO Roseburg, Using the Dead

Obama visit to Roseburg stirs local anger about his support for gun control after shooting | OregonLive.com:

It is hard to find any reporting of the fact that many of the people of Roseburg OR are not happy to see BO swoop in and use their dead as political props for his ideas on gun control. It makes me think back to a piece I wrote in 2010 while the media was coming unglued about BO having any opposition at all -- the Tea Party.

W had plenty of opposition from day 1 -- we heard about him being appointed rather than elected, Cheney and Halliburton, his supposed stupidity, etc -- from day 1. There were ZERO concerns in the media about "he is the President, he ought to be supported". Opposition was patriotic in those days!

Even in the 2004 election, when W included pictures from 9-11 into campaign material, the media went wild -- "using the tragedy for politics" was unseemly, and "the wound was too fresh".

BO? Completely different -- he makes a habit of using mass shootings for politics and even when locals don't enjoy what he is doing it simply isn't a story.

Yet another case of the vast bulk of people being led by the media narrative to completely different mental pastures depending on the spin. It is impossible to not be led unless you REALLY pay attention here, because they operate just like a master magician with indirection, misdirection, alternative story lines and any mechanism at all they can use to make the masses buy into what they are selling.

'via Blog this'

Republican Frustration ... Talk!

http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/story/opinion/columnists/2015/10/01/thomas-sowell-good-riddance/73151748/

A very astute one from Sowell. Republicans have to accept that the vast majority of the media and even more of the university intelligentsia are going to be totally against anything they do. If they want people to see their case they have to MAKE THE CASE THEMSELVES! Which is yet another reason that Boehner has been such a disaster.

Today’s Republicans who proclaim a need to “reach out” to a wider constituency almost invariably mean pandering to those groups’ current beliefs, not showing them how your agenda and your principles — if you have any — apply to their situation and to the good of the country. 

You won’t swing a whole constituency of Democrats your way, and neither did Ronald Reagan. But he swung enough of them to win elections and to force Congressional Democrats to respect the “Reagan Democrats” he had won over.

We all know that Bill Clinton was the last president to balance the budget. Small problem, it WAS NOT Clinton, but rather the Republican Congress led by Newt Gingrich that accomplished the task -- and took the hits for the "cuts" in the RATE OF GROWTH of some of the budget, especially Medicare. Gingrich as a good enough spokesman that at least those of us who pay a lot of attention know the truth. Even the BEST of Republican spokesman are going to fall short of having NBC, ABC, CBS, NY Times, CNN, etc, etc against them -- but you MUST TRY!

As Sowell points out, Boehner didn't even manage to mumble. It turns out that the much hated "sequester" and "government shutdowns" for which the Republicans were thoroughly castigated have resulted in some actual (though smaller than any conservative would desire) budget reductions.

The $150 billion budget decline of 4% is the first time federal expenditures have fallen for two consecutive years since the end of the Korean War.

Compared to spending in the $3.5T area per year, $150B is chicken feed, BUT! NOBODY ... not Reagan nor Newt ever REDUCED Federal spending for two years since the Korean War! Admittedly, it was "reduced" from such obscene ridiculous procine levels as to be completely beyond belief due to the election of BO and Democrats having a 60 vote Senate + the House, but STILL! 

But, as Sowell correctly points out, effectively nobody knows ... I'm an idiot that reads and Googles too much. 

What is the sound of the budget dropping if there isn't anyone in the woods to hear it?

Calling Ben Carson a 'Coon' Ok?

Ben Carson Called 'Coon' by Ivy League Professor for NASCAR Comments | National Review Online:



Looks likely ... he is a conservative, she is a black liberal.



The Oregon shooter was the same race was whatever BO is ... BO's mom was white, dad black. Shooter's mom black, dad white -- but at least the LA Times tried to make him a WHITE Supremacist, and his race and his mother's race seem to approach state secrets. Looks like another Zimmerman "white hispanic" situation.



Race, gender, "hate speech", wealth, truth  -- everything has become infinitely malleable in the service of the narrative of The Party and it's media. We're definitely beyond the looking glass into a world where everything means precisely what The Party says it does -- no more, no less.



'via Blog this'

Oregon, Lost and Evil

Another Grim Benchmark in Chicago's Record Year of Gun Violence - The Atlantic:

Our nation was founded by very decent people -- the vast majority were Christian, many of the founders at the time were "Deists" -- believers that a sovereign God created an ordered universe and then just stood back, but event they asserted that our nation could not be government under the principles they put in place without faith in God and religion. John Adams stated it directly:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

We are no longer that nation -- we are a lost nation that has abandoned its heritage and culture and now attempts to base most of our lives on pleasure, leisure, human developed ideals (like "environmentalism"), ill defined utopian dreams like "diversity", consumption, greed, adherence to political and popular causes (like gay "marriage", etc). Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.

Yeats may have said it best of all ... interestingly, a "gyre" is a historical cycle of about 2000 years.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

The linked article at the top points out that in the past two weekends in Chicago, the toll is 13 dead and 98 wounded. Chicago has record gun violence again this year. As I've covered before, those lives do not advance The Party (TP-D) narrative that the ONLY thing that can be done in EVERY case is to add more government.  Illinois and Chicago in particular have some of the most draconian gun laws in this country. So such violence tends to not get a lot of national attention -- we are to avert our eyes.

The toll included four men killed and at least 53 people wounded between Friday evening and early Monday morning, according to police. Last weekend, nine people were killed and at least 45 were wounded.

When a nation is evil and lost, having leadership even remotely connected to any reality is impossible. The blind demand to be led by the blind. This is what BO had to say yesterday -- complete remarks here:

We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don't work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens and criminals will still get their guns is not borne out by the evidence.

He is totally and provably wrong. He is stating the OPPOSITE of the truth and in general nobody is calling him on it! Can he really be that disconnected? My God, he came from Chicago, he lives in DC, he HAS to know that the US cities with the harshest gun laws are the HIGHEST in gun deaths! He is directly and 100% lying to our faces and it isn't even newsworthy!

So the rest of his speech is completely based on a lie. It assumes that some set of laws is going to keep people safer -- but as I've pointed out before, the US is the 111th worst country in the world relative to the  murder rate, more like 200th in the world if you take out the big US cities controlled by TP. Would you REALLY be less dead if murdered with something other than a gun?

Our nation is being consumed by evil. We have always had plenty of guns, and in fact, our murder rate has actually gone down as the number of guns has gone up, but as the poem says, our ears can mostly no longer hear the truth at all.

BO didn't wait to find out that the shooter was half black (like BO himself), that he asked victims their religion and shot the ones that were Christian, and CERTAINLY not how it was that he got his guns. His only care was POLITICAL (as always) and himself ... he referred to himself 28 times in the short speech.

The big legislation that BO has proposed before is to close the ability of private gun owners to make a sale without a background check. To date, not a SINGLE one of the mass killings has resulted from such a sale (the guns used in Oregon were obtained with background check)! Certainly many of the 6,000 young black men killed each year by gun violence in our major cities are killed with illegally obtained guns -- but most of them are already engaged in drug, gang or other criminal activity, so would not be affected by laws. Criminals break laws ... that is why we call them criminals.

The deeper problem, with the deaths of the young black men, the Oregon shooter, and of BO's remarks is that of evil. The willingness to take life or allow lives to be taken for selfish purposes, the willingness to lie to gain power or advantage. We have destroyed our claim to being a "moral and religious people" in so many ways -- abortion, gay "marriage" and the overall destruction of the family, robbing the productive and rewarding the unproductive -- the list is long, but the bottom line is that we once had a strong American culture in which truth, individual responsibility, faith in God, family, hard work and an optimistic view of the future justified by those values was shared by the vast majority of the country. We destroyed that culture, and we increasingly see the fruits of that.

We have abandoned our center (God, religion, culture), and thus could no longer be governed by what is left of our tattered Constitution even if it could be recovered. Much like the various shooters, we have generally become evil and lost as a nation. Our "leader" certainly embodies that for all to see.

We got sick in the 60's and 70's and revived a bit under Reagan in the '80s. Could we revive again? I certainly hope and pray we do, but it becomes harder and harder to envision the deeper we sink. May God have mercy on our souls and the souls of all those lost in Oregon, Chicago, Afghanistan, the Middle East ... and the increasing chaos likely to come.
'via Blog this'

50 Years of Democrats Selecting Voters

Ted Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act: The War On America Turns 50 | VDARE - premier news outlet for patriotic immigration reform:

Fifty years ago this week Teddy Kennedy and the Democrats passed legislation that moved America from being a predominantly European ancestry, to a nation that looked more like the rest of the planet  (other than Europe) -- predominantly non-white.

The fact of the legislation having the effect of changing American demographics and thereby culture is not in question -- "The Party" (TP-D) would say that "we were just unaware what would happen". Ignorance is always possible, but it was certainly willful ignorance if so, Customs and Immigration Services knew what was going to happen.

In 1965, the political elite on Capitol Hill may not have predicted a mass increase in immigration. But Marian Smith, the historian for Customs and Immigration Services, showed me a small agency booklet from 1966 that certainly did. It explains how each provision in the new law would lead to a rapid increase in applications and a big jump in workload — more and more so as word trickled out to those newly eligible to come.

In any case, it produced the country that used to be America that now sits between Canada and Mexico. A country with no identifiable people, culture, religion or shared values. A country whose only definition is geography and the fact that it is divided.

Republicans should be sweeping the country, but they aren’t, because of Kennedy’s immigration law. Without post-1965 immigrants bloc-voting for the Democrats, Obama never would have been elected president, and Romney would have won a bigger landslide against him in 2012 than Reagan did against Carter in 1980.

In 1965, TP was in total control of the country. I consider myself pretty well read, but I never understood exactly why my old home town is heavily Somalian, why the Twin Cities and even Rochester have large Somali populations, nor why every small town in IA has a decent Mexican restaurant. I thought it was somehow "unavoidable" given very long term US immigration policy -- as if the same laws that brought Germans, Swedes, Irish, etc just naturally allowed the Mexican, Somali, etc immigration we have seen in the last 50 years.

It wasn't, it was a specific decision made by specific people -- the Kennedy's being chief among them. Like a lot of TP actions, it was promised to be completely different than what happened, but in a rational world, we would evaluate politicians by what actually happens rather than what they promise will happen.

Here is what LBJ had to say when he signed the bill.

"This bill that we will sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions," Johnson said at the signing ceremony. "It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives or add importantly to either our wealth or our power."

I guess he was right about it not adding to our wealth or power!

TP firmly tells us through media and education that there is nothing that can be done about this now. It is over -- what was once America is dead and gone, and they and the people they have selected as voters are fast creating whatever they want to call the new nation. The culture will be what they say it is -- atheist, Muslim, totalitarian, 3rd world -- whatever. Those of us anachronisms that remember the old America need to just sit back and accept it. 

They may well be right -- but at least it is good to know exactly who it was, and when it was that they decided to stick the knife in the eagle.

'via Blog this'

Pope Loses PC Sainthood

How Pope Francis Undermined the Goodwill of His Trip and Proved to Be a Coward | Michelangelo Signorile:



The Pope may be "the Vicar of Christ" to Catholics, but even to them he is far less than Christ. If you are Catholic, you may be "supposed" to support the Pope in all he says and does, but as he is human, as are his followers, so we know that doesn't happen either.



For Christians, Christ came to allow us to serve the Hebrew God of all without being Jewish and under Jewish Law. Salvation, redemption, communion, forgiveness, Christian love, and being blood brothers and sisters in Christ's blood. That is God's plan -- but as we all know, just as in Catholics supporting the Pope, the plan and the implementation that imperfect humans are able to carry out vary a good deal.



Secular Humanism is a religion with no forgiveness nor even hint of being non-judgemental on its tenets both great and small, as the reaction from the left to the visit to Davis shows. Thou shalt tow the line of Political Correctness and all other tenets of the secular faith, or thou wilt be purged to outer darkness!



As a Christian however, the Pope would be well within his calling to meet with Davis even if he thought her stand completely wrong. There is no question that she has been imprisoned, attacked and threatened by the culture in which she lives. Christians are called to "visit those in prison" -- not because they may not be in prison for totally justified reasons, but simply because they are in prison. Christ didn't come to minister to the righteous, but to the ungodly.



It seems clear however that Francis visited her because he finds conscientious objection to actions of the state based on religious belief to be a human right. The left finds nearly every sort of conscientious objection to the state to be a "human right" when it comes to gun control, anti-war protests, Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, drug "smoke ins", animal rights protests, environmental protests, etc. -- it is just religion as a basis for objection that they find to be objectionable, and even then, really only CHRISTIAN religion -- Muslims can avoid baking all the cakes they want.



Intellectually, those on the right now trying to canonize this Pope of the basis of a visit to Kim Davis are guilty of the same sort of one dimensional cheerleading / demonizing as the left is from the other direction. Catholicism is IN GENERAL a conservative force since it stands for the basic wisdom of the fear of God -- thereby taking man out of the false position of being "the measure of all things". This Pope has been taken in by the false doctrine of "Liberation Theology", but not to the extent that God is removed and "faith" becomes merely a social construct.



It is OK to chortle a bit at the lunacy of the left as long as we keep our minds clear as to the reality of the situation. Conservative Christians ought to see him as what he is -- a man in a powerful position, a mixed bag that has aspects of both sinner and saint as do we all.



The Secular Humanists will continue to frequently anoint new messiahs and judge new devils -- constant evidence of the futility of their faith in the forever retreating utopian future.



'via Blog this'

Only Left Turns Allowed

Anarchy in the House - The New York Times:

An aptly titled article that inherently recognizes the meaning of political left and right -- control vs chaos. Somewhere, in the middle of that spectrum -- I'd argue right of center, the column author would argue left of center, lies things like "freedom", "liberty" and what used to be the vibrant United States.

The author inherently understands that we are very far left -- which in their mind is not "control", but "good" -- they are a person of the left, as the most of the country now is.  They see the direction of movement as being inherently left, and the answer to all problems being on the left -- more government, more control, more centralization. Here is what I find to be the central point of the article.

It’s true that sometimes no legislation is better than bad legislation. But the United States faces real problems, including stagnant wages, family instability, infrastructure collapse and long-term indebtedness. If Republicans can’t advance their own solutions, they’ll have to deal with Democrats — or harsh realities — impose on them. Paralysis is not a plan.

For the author of the column it is impossible to conceive that what he calls out as the real problems of the country ... stagnant wages, family instability, infrastructure collapse and long term indebtedness, could be the RESULT of government activity having unintended consequences. Such thinking has become inconceivable to him -- it is like telling an addict that it is their addiction, not "the world out there" that is their problem. If they could see that, it would break the addiction!

So the only possible answer in his mind is MORE GOVERNMENT -- and Republicans are completely insane when they do not see that. His ONLY way "forward" is to follow the same path we have been following for a century -- ever leftward! Unfortunately, on the ideological path of increased government control, there is no physical Pacific Ocean to limit the movement as there once was with our "westward ho!" national expansion.

The one remaining small hope is that the "harsh realities" -- like a bad economy, destruction of the family, increasing crime, massive debt, etc,  wake enough people up that we change direction before "Democrat" becomes "Dictator" and the answer for EVERYONE is "deal with the dictator".

That is the hope -- but a reading of this article and the recognition of how many people around you are just as blinded by addiction to government as the column author, shows that hope is miniscule.

'via Blog this'