Dreaming Of Equally Lawless Destruction

Obama Power: Cruz or Trump Can Use It Too:

The main topic of the column is the old playground ethic of "anything you do to me I will do to you twice has hard and twice as nasty!" -- revenge, as the Klingon's say, "Is a dish best served cold" (so does "The Godfather" BTW).

The thing is, that conservatives tend to be aware that the ethics of the playground, as understood at least since ancient times, as in an "eye for an eye" needs to be LIMITED. You don't understand "an eye for an eye" as being limited? Oh, it IS ... VERY ... compared to "kill them all -- women, children, oxen, slaves, ....) People like BO ... who proudly claims that the true identity of being a Luo Tribesman, subscribe to the "law of the jungle", that of "tooth and claw", that which Hobbes claimed we created Leviathan with it's "law" to make more just, thus trading some of our freedom for the benefits of law.

Law found it's power in ancient things like "The Ten Commandments", or "Hammurabi's Code", and demanded to be revered -- but reverence is unknown on the playground, in the jungle, or with the tribe, so we have returned to our "roots" -- meaning NO LAW!

I really don't think it is very likely that ANY Republican will be elected next year, and I firmly believe that if that unlikely event happens and it is anyone other than Trump, the playground ethic of revenge from this column will hold no sway. Conservatives believe in not just the rule of law, but even in divine power beyond law,  precedence even, as in not overturning things like "Roe v Wade", even though they are noxious usurpations of the rule of law.

HOWEVER, if Trump is the whirlwind that we reap, then absolutely -- all bets are off, and our new King will behave much like BO. I'd see him as "better" than BO since a lot of what he might do would at least be AN ATTEMPT to "Make America Great" rather than "Attempts to make America Like Greece" as we have seen BO doing, but lawless just the same.

The sad thing is that once law is traded for power, we live in the jungle -- the path of restoration of law is very unclear at best, and most likely goes through things getting MUCH worse, followed by one or more revolutions, after which MAYBE our people come to their senses and realize that LAW means "agreed to LIMITS for ALL", not "if I can get MY judges, bureaucrats, lawless president, etc elected, then I will run roughshod over YOU with impunity".

TP (The Party) DID get all that, and they HAVE been running roughshod -- but at some point, it always slides into Totalitarianism. Trump may be that point, or it might be delayed a bit -- or Hillary may well be that point. She has declared that she will do "something about guns" via "
executive order", which means that she has promised to take an explicitly unconstitutional action, thus violating in advance the oath she would take if she won the office.

The "round up the guns" might bring on the war that officially ends the America that has already ended as a culture and an ideal.

'via Blog this'

Gender Is Fluid, Orientation is Fixed

Why I Won't Label My Sexuality:

OK, COSMO was the ONLY article that I could find to anchor my "random neural firing of the day". On my way home from workout and running a couple errands ... a little slowly as the rain changed to snow during my workout and it is white now, I was treated to a conversation on NPR about how racist MN is.

Turns out it is MORE racist than Mississippi and Alabama BECAUSE, some of the statistics -- like gap between white / black on test scores, gap in income, prison population, getting arrested, etc are WORSE in MN, but PR believes that CAN'T be true, because MN is "progressive". I'm not going to spend time on this (little things like if MORE white people are earning more and there is a LOWER percentage of black people, it seems like the numbers might be skewed), but "whatever". For the blacks in the conversation it was ALL due to white racism, and to the progressives, it HAD to be something else, but they were at a loss to explain it ... such is the left.

Somebody commented on a post on FB that "gender is fluid, and it is WRONG to try to make it fixed", and my brain fired, did a Google, and here I am.

Is it not ALSO wrong to try to assert that sexual orientation is "fluid"? Is not the idea of counselling to change from gay to straight one of the "new abominations" (the old ones are all now legally protected classes!) I could swear that in the same universe that I'm currently occupying people recently said things like "a person that is gay is exactly the same as people that are heterosexual, only with the orientation to being gay -- and it is ALWAYS going to be that way for them! It is COMPLETELY FIXED and they MUST act on it, or they are not true to themselves!

NOTE:: This is completely different for alcoholics, who we are told also are "made that way", but for them, nobody that I know suggests that "They MUST drink, to not drink would be a LIE!  They would not be being true to their NATURE!" ... Just for the record, my belief is that we ALL have "tendencies", to A LOT of stuff, good, bad, or indifferent. Our genetic tendencies, our upbringing, our choices, chance, etc and a whole set of factors make for "behaviors" to arise from "tendency". While some tendencies are VERY strong, "compulsions" even, WITH THE HELP OF GOD (or "higher power" it you must), we all have hope of being "more than our tendencies".

We used to have "GLBT" ... which was Gay, Lesbian, BI-sexual, and Transvestite ... and they have completely the same "rights" as the tired old "H" for Hetero ... and boring "He made them male and female". (although exactly what "Bi-sexual marriage" was or is (since it IS a "right"), is not really defined).

But already we now have "GLBTQ" where "Q" is typically either "Queer" or "Questioning". A "definition from proximate link:

"Queer retains that critical edge against regimes of the normal of assimilation and privilege," Octavio R. González, an English professor at Wellesley College told USA TODAY Network.

I'd have to say they have possibly arrived at the best "definition" of what it means to exist in the broad swath of N America between Mexico and Canada today. "Critical edge against regimes" -- I certainly feel that against the TP (The Party-D)  regime of BO! ... "the normal of assimilation and privilege". Hmm, I'm guessing he doesn't mean "the normal" of universities, the MSM, entertainment, government bureaucracy and the domination of TP, but what does he mean? "White people"? or just heterosexuals? I'm not in favor of the current regime, and I definitely don't want to be assimilated into TP, so maybe I'm "Queer"??

As you might guess, Q is not likely to be the last letter ... "A" is either "asexual" as in not having any, or "allies" meaning whatever someone comes up with (assuming it isn't something weird like Christian heterosexual), you are "allied". There is also "I" for "intersex" which at one time covered the tiny percentage of people who really do have crossed sexual organs, but now apparently includes people like "Bruce/Caitlyn" Jenner who are modifying themselves ... as opposed I ASSUME to "transvestite" who are dressing only, or "Queer" which is "defined" above  ??? ... I think I'll go with Young Frankenstein on what it actually means.

There are a lot of letters left in the alphabet ... when there is no truth, only relative opinion, then truly none of us can "know" anything relative to the ever changing "culture". There are a lot of letters left in the aphabet and we will probably run out, or have to use each for multiple meanings like we already are for the A and the Q. Your first reaction might be that I'm being facetious here, but remember, Facebook has 51 genders!

The words of Lewis Carroll explain it well:

"‘When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'
‘The question is,' said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things."
‘The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that's all.'"

Consistency is not an issue, WHO IS MASTER is the issue! So there are more genders than letters in the alphabet, and they are FLUID, but sexual orientation is FIXED ... genetically, and it CAN'T BE CHANGED! Thus saith "the masters".

Wonderland was a very reasonable place compared to whatever the current madhouse we exist in might be called!

Hell?

'via Blog this'

Clinton's Love Child -- Rubio!

The Half-Hearted Case for Rubio - The Daily Beast:

I'll admit it, I really like Scott Walker, and I HOPED (too much) that he would be the candidate. I also held out some lesser hopes (very faint) that there was some TINY shred of decency and character left in "The Party" (TP-D), and that the combination of a sneering, arrogant, unlikeable, congenital liar, felon, idiot,  combined with what used to be the biggest political sin of being completely unlikeable and a terrible campaigner, would give us an easier TP candidate -- BS is as good a designated initial as one could imagine for a TP candidate!

But no, it is Hildebeast, and it looks like Trump will be hanging around for awhile yet. I still REFUSE to believe that I will have to choose between Trump and just staying home -- which is probably not going to happen, so in that universe that I refuse to visit yet, I will vote for Trump -- BECAUSE, we have SEEN how bad Hildebeast is at merely being Secretary of State! At least we haven't SEEN Trump as president (not that I want to) ... but in a world of picking between a "likely disaster" and a "KNOWN disaster", I have to go "likely". Besides, there were Top Secret e-mails on her private server, which is a FELONY ... and I still believe in laws even if the rest of the country does not.

It is what it is ... which means that LAUGHTER is even MORE critical, so thusly I encourage you to go read PJ and get used to the idea of Rubio. I find the assertion that Rubio was fathered by Bill Clinton to be pretty much a certainty next to "there were no classified documents on my e-mail server" (which we KNOW to be false, and disqualifies her all by itself!) !

So I guess I'm a Rubio guy ... maybe a little more tepid than PJ, but he makes a "good case" ...

Rubio was born in May 1971. Do the math. 

In September 1970, where was Bill Clinton? 

Maybe in Miami on Yale Law School’s extra-early Spring Break? 

You heard it here first. It’s the kind of news that will get Marco the media attention he needs. He’ll be on all the morning talk shows and Ellen and The View talking about overcoming emotional obstacles in his journey to reach closure with his personal issues and accept himself for who he really is.

'via Blog this'

Hate Crimes Against Muslims

Jews Are Still the Biggest Target of Religious Hate Crimes - News – Forward.com:

We have been admonished a good deal the past week to be VERY careful about what is said about Muslims.  The following graphic gives an interesting view of Hate Crime statistics, at least as gathered by the FBI in the US.

Strangely, at least in 2014, Hate Crimes against JEWS led by a WIDE margin with basically 60%!!

Anyone hear BO chiding the US to be less hatful of Jews? ... No, I didn't either.

Also, if you add "Catholic", "Anti-Protestant" (I wonder if the "Hate Crimes" against Catholics are non "anti"???), plus "Anti-Multiple Religions", you get 14% ... same as anti-Islamic.

I'm not really interested in digging into this a lot, but since there is yet another category for "anti-other", when the whole chart is purported to be Hate Crimes due to "religion", can we surmise that "anti-multiple" is actually throwing the rest of "Christian" into a bucket, or is Christianity ALL "Protestant or Catholic"? Could be, but anyway, there as AT LEAST 10% against Christians, which is pretty darned amazing when you realize that the US was once a "Christian nation"!

(it is gratifying to see the big 1% applied to Atheism as a "religion" ... it is, but a lot of Atheists are unhappy with that).

This is from a pro-Jewish source -- something in itself which "The Party" (D) tends to take with MORE than a grain of salt, as opposed to say from an "Islamic source", which is pretty much treated in TP and the media as gospel -- "racist" or "Islamophobic" to think otherwise!

Jews OTOH ... well, we KNOW about THEM, don't we?  ... as BO's old Pastor Reverend Wright, or Louis Farrakhan  might say, "never trust a Jew!".

When TP and the media are merrily manipulating us, what they DON'T talk about is very often even more important to be aware of than what they do.

Happy Hanukkah!









'via Blog this'

Can the Left Love ISIS?

Can the Left Learn to Love ISIS? | Frontpage Mag:

An interesting discussion of similarities between the embrace of Communism in the past and the developing comity between the left and ISIS.

Islamic terrorism is excused on the same grounds that Communist terror was excused; as a response to our imperialistic foreign policy, as the outcry of the oppressed and an attempt to secure equality. Some atrocities are dismissed as myths, worries over terrorism are written off as fearmongering and terrorists are transformed into victims who were singled out by paranoid politicians for their political beliefs.

The left is using the same exact playbook on Islamic terrorism as it did on Communism.

America was founded as a Center RIGHT Republic (Left being control, right being chaos)  -- The Left continuously grows the centralized power of government until that power is TOTAL (thus "Totalitarian"). The "faith" of the left is that once complete centralized control is achieved, "utopia" is sure to result. The objective is POWER, the means are completely unimportant, and as has been seen around the world again and again they often include the killing of huge numbers of people, torture, oppression, imprisonment, etc -- ALL methods are permissible (even REQUIRED) in the creation of "heaven on earth".

Obama and Hillary contend that ISIS cannot be defeated militarily. And if it cannot be defeated militarily, the only options are Cold War containment or diplomatic outreach. It’s not too hard to imagine the arguments that will be made for the latter at the expense of the former. They were the same arguments that were made and are still being made by the left for engagement with Communist terror regimes.

 ISIS has not done anything that the Soviet Union did not do. Its ideology is thoroughly different, but both were built on swamps of atrocity, mass murder, mass rape, ethnic cleansing and raw butchery. If the left could serve the Soviet Union, who is to say that it won’t learn to love the Islamic State?

How often do we hear today that "Fighting/resisting ISIS is the worst thing we can do! They use it as a recruiting tool!" ... translation, they MUST be accommodated, we have no other choice! The refrain is exactly the same as that heard about the USSR up through the Reagan administration, when any attempts at showing strength were "playing into the hard-liners hands and going to get us all blown up!". "Better Red than Dead!"

Of course when the USSR fell, while the left tried to be as quiet as they good be as they sobbed and cried alligator tears, they attempted to calmly confuse us "oh, we KNEW this was going to happen all along! Reagan and the warmongers just slowed it down" ! (sob, sob, please pass a Kleenex, my cat just died! ....)

How often were Republicans accused of "playing into the hard-liners hands" as BO worked out handing the Bomb to Iran so they could eventually give us the "Missile Finger" with a mushroom tip!

'via Blog this'

Creating Racists and Hate Crimes

Scalia and the MSM — a mismatch [UPDATED] | Power Line:

TP (The Party-D) needs lots of demons to keep its masses fired up. It is easy to see that they operate this way because the idea of Republicans using "fear" (as in "Homophobia", "Islamophobia", etc) is a daily staple of the MSM news feed and TP party Talking Points.

The linked article covers tarring SCOTUS Justice Scalia as a racist because he discussed "mismatch" -- the situation where you bring an unqualified student into an Ivy League school through affirmative action and they don't do well.  The left DEMANDS that the world operate as they want, so to point out that when students don't have the preparation needed to compete and are shoved into an environment due to a preferential treatment, they often fail.

The core of TP doctrine is established by the average 2-year old -- "The world MUST conform to MY view ... NOW"!!! Full stop, end of story ... "Make it so".

So when little things like reality get in the way, the problem must be IGNORED ... and anyone that points out the nakedness of the Emperor needs to be labeled with a nasty name, in this case RACIST!

Once you are established as a Racist, the next step is to catch you in a "Hate Crime" ... and the definition of that is ALSO conveniently whatever TP deems it to be ... as we see in the recent case of the lawyer being asked if he was a "refugee" at a Vikings game.

TP understands this pattern VERY well, it is THEIR PATTERN ... it has been used before, once specifically from "the right", "McCarthyism" is the horror of a case where for a short time it was almost somewhat effective using the definition of "Communism" and then attempting to criminalize Communists.

TP didn't like their favorite technique being used against them very well, and the term "McCarthyism" is still trotted out when someone asks them a question. Meanwhile,  for TP it is "Standard Operating Procedure" (SOP)  ... Racist!, Sexist!, Homophobe!, Islamophobe! ....

We live in a world where things are precisely what TP says they are ... no more and no less!
'via Blog this'

Obama Announces New Policy for Seniors!

https://www.facebook.com/CarbonTV/videos/403997546475360/

Choose Your Destructor!

Glenn Reynolds: Liberals have chosen The Donald as their 'Destructor':

For those unfamiliar with the reference ...

It's kind of funny for an old OO programmer ... a Destructor is a method that is automatically called when an object is destroyed ...

In this case, the "Object being destroyed" is what is left of the US ...

And there’s a lesson for our ruling class there: Calling Trump a fascist is a bit much (fascism, as Tom Wolfe once reported, is forever descending upon the United States, but somehow it always lands on Europe), but movements like fascism and communism get their start because the mechanisms of liberal democracy seem weak and ineffectual and dishonest. If you don’t want Trump — or, perhaps, some post-Trump figure who really is a fascist — to dominate things, you need to stop being weak and ineffectual and dishonest.

Having BO stop being "weak and ineffectual and dishonest"  might get Reynolds on the Secret Service list as threatening the president! BO is only going to "give up" being weak, ineffectual and dishonest when he reaches room temperature!

The closing is rather good ... it really all is. Recommended!

Hearing that Yale professor Erika Christakis won't be teaching at Yale because of the abuse she received over a respectful but non-PC email, former DNC chair Howard Dean tweeted: “Free speech is good. Respecting others is better.” To his credit, CNN’s Jake Tapper responded: “Of course only one of them is enshrined in the Constitution.” 

But Twitter humorist IowaHawk had the last word: ”With the exception of POTUS, the Atty General, both leading presidential candidates, the media, and universities, Americans love free speech.” 

If you wish to hold fascism, or even just Trumpism, at bay, then we need elites who are trustworthy, who can be counted on to protect the country, and who respect the Constitution even when it gets in the way of doing something they want to do. By failing to live up to these standards, they have chosen their "Destructor." Let’s hope that they haven’t chosen ours, as well.

Oh, and this!

'via Blog this'

Opening The Overton Window

Donald Trump & The Overton Window --Resetting America's Political Debate | National Review Online:

Another thing I had never heard of, the Overton Window:

... the “Overton Window.” Developed by the late Joseph Overton, a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, the “window” refers to the range of acceptable political discourse on any given topic. As the Mackinac Center explains, “the ‘window’ of politically acceptable options is primarily defined not by what politicians prefer, but rather by what they believe they can support and still win re-election.” The key to shifting policy lies not so much in changing politicians but in changing the terms of the debate. In other words, “The window shifts to include different policy options not when ideas change among politicians, but when ideas change in the society that elects them.”

The column is a good one, it points out how well the left, with control of the media, the arts, the university and the government bureaucracies federal and state has been able to RAPIDLY move the window in areas like abortion, restricting Christianity, gay "marriage", nationalized healthcare and transgender. Eg.

The Overton Window moved even faster on transgender rights. Ten years ago the notion that a man with emotional problems and breast implants could be named “Woman of the Year” was unthinkable. Now, in some quarters it’s just as unthinkable to refer to Bruce Jenner — Bruce Jenner! — as a man.

Right now, they are pushing the window on gun confiscation, but along comes Trump and gives it a mighty shove in the direction of restricting immigration of Muslims.

While many of Trump’s actual proposals are misguided, nonsensical, or untenable, by smashing the window, he’s begun the process of freeing the American people from the artificial and destructive constraints of Left-defined discourse.

Well said! What has counted as "debate" in this country since at least the '60s and to some degree ever since Woodrow Wilson has been a discussion of "just how far left are we going on THIS issue".  The very THOUGHT of say, reducing the size of government, or (gasp!) unravelling parts of the "Great Society" directly responsible for the yearly 5-6K violent deaths of young black men have been "radical, reactionary, unthinkable". I mean, why would you reconsider programs just because they result in 50-60K untimely violent deaths over each decade??

the Left’s very success at defining the terms of discourse meant that the price of civility and unity was all too often an acceptance of liberal norms and manners. It meant swallowing liberal pieties and confining your discourse to Left-approved terms. In other words, it often meant surrender.

Surrender is FAR too high a price for "civility". While I am now, and I'm sure very few others were aware of the Overton Window concept, it shows one benefit of Trump. We MUST get out of having the left completely declare the shape of the battlefield and ever more consistently the terms of conservative surrender if there is to be ANY hope of recovering America, and indeed of "Making it great again".

I remain convinced that Trump is the WRONG fighter, but he IS a fighter -- and he HAS changed the terms of the battle. Without "outlandish positions" being declared on the right, there is no hope at all that some of those positions can slowly seep into the consciousness of the public and people running for office and eventually have a chance.

It's definitely time for our national "window" to be a LOT less open on the left and a lot MORE open on the right!
'via Blog this'

XB-70

The Aviationist » Impressive video of an XB-70 Valkyrie Mach 3 bomber’s emergency landing:

Worthy read and an impressive video in linked article. The only remaining copy of this VERY impressive aircraft sits in The National Museum of the Air Force at Wright Patterson, Dayton OH.

I've been there and plan to go again. It is VERY impressive ... the XB-70 is off display right now, back on in June of '16 when they open a new building.

'via Blog this'

In Praise of Leo Strauss

Leo Strauss' Political Philosophy: Reviled But Redeemed | RealClearPolitics:



I used one of my favorite Strauss quotes today ... "If all values are relative, then cannibalism is a matter of taste", so I did some looking on which of his many books and articles I really need to read. I haven't picked yet -- surprisingly my reading list remains very long, but this column is an EXCELLENT synopsis of why he is so important and so reviled in the modern left wing only academy.



He is mentioned a good deal in "Closing of the American Mind" and many other conservative works. Modern "liberalism" demands the ending of dialogue and fealty to power -- as in, they will demonize you, slur your good name, etc, but they generally will not engage in intellectual and reasonable debate with a man of Strauss stature because they deny that "truth" even exists.



A quote from the article, but it is short and WELL worth just reading.

In article after article and book after book, he argued that contemporary scholars were enthralled to “historicism” and “positivism.” Historicism holds that ideas and principles are nothing more than an expression of their time and cannot transcend the historical era in which they arose. Positivism decrees that the natural sciences offer the only legitimate form of knowledge and adds that since the natural sciences cannot distinguish between good and evil, all value judgments are subjective. (Postmodernism radicalized this sensibility by denying that science itself yielded objective knowledge.) 

In much of the academy, historicism and positivism came to be taken as self-evident truths. That both imply moral relativism, which means that there is no rational basis for judgments about right and wrong, was seen by many of Strauss’s colleagues in the university world as an important contribution to progress. 

Left-liberals regarded the supposed discovery of moral relativism as a blessing because they believed it bolstered pluralism and toleration. If there is no truth about the moral life, then custom and tradition lack authority, individuals are freer than ever to make their own choices, and society can dedicate itself to letting a thousand flowers bloom.

Indeed, and in a completely relative world with no objective truth, how does one identify "progress", or a blooming "flower" from a blooming "weed"?



As readers of this blog know, and is evident from the article, BY POWER! In this case academic power "97% of Political Scientists say Strauss is "wrong, dangerous, anti-intellectual, etc" and DEMAND that nobody read or teach his material!



The base "liberal" argument -- shut up!



'via Blog this'

Sticks, Stones, and The State, Vikings Edition

My run-in with hate speech at a Minnesota Vikings game - StarTribune.com:

While I'm going to treat the tale in the linked article as completely true, I would much prefer that before the Red Star prints such a thing they would have at least found the security guard mentioned for corroboration.  As you will see, the "story" is just a BIT too pat for someone that has any shred of independent thought.  That said, let's take it as gospel.

The charge is that "some angry guy" demanded to know if the "attorney and director of the Advocates for Human Rights Refugee and Immigrant Program" was a refugee,  at a Vikings game. Nothing physical, just a question, but this attorney and director "felt threatened", got security involved, got an apology that he felt was not sincere enough, demanded the interlocutor be ejected and the Vikings failed to comply.

Asking if the attorney was a "refugee" is supposed to be clear and reprehensible "hate speech". Not "rude", not "bad manners" ...

I was raised with "Sticks and stones will break your bones but words will never hurt you", and "If you can't stand up for yourself, nobody else is going to". We don't live in that civilization today, but what IS the "civilization" we have wrought?

I remember the time in my adult life when I came the closest to being intimidated. An old candidate for Congress from our district, Mary Reider had 20-30 union folks marching in a circle in front of the entrance to the Kahler chanting and blocking people like me heading in to see Newt Gingrich speak. The more intelligent people were going around to another exit. Something in my nature compelled me to stride into the group -- which, probably since I'm slightly above average size (though clearly not intelligence) completely stopped and let me pass with a just few shouted nasty words.

Did they have a right to block the entrance? Were the words that they hurled at me "hate speech"?  -- we know the answer. "Hate speech" and "proper intimidation" are declared by "The Party" (D).

I'm reminded of Churchill, "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without effect". Walking through demonstrators is tame by comparison, but I'm sure the feeling is related.

So how does tattling to the teacher or the security guard make one feel? I suppose it depends on the results that your tattling provides, but I can't imagine it makes one EVER feel "secure or good", because AT BEST you are in hopes that the watchful eye of the State in some form or another is ALWAYS going to be there to protect you.

It is a huge difference in worldview. Like the liberal woman's rape defense -- pee or soil yourself in hopes that the attacker will be turned off and leave you alone, vs the conservative woman's defense -- pull out your .45 and let the attacker pee or soil himself while he hopes you let him live.

But the "liberal" mind never stops at just making THEIR choice, they want to make YOUR choice as well! Gun control is just one example.

But what scared me the most was the silence surrounding me. As I looked around, I didn’t know who was an ally or an enemy. In those hushed whispers, I felt like I was alone, unsafe and surrounded. It was the type of silence that emboldens a man to play inquisitor.

I hate to tell him, but the real world is ALWAYS that way, at least until you make your play.

So we live in a society where males are feminized and individual responsibility is transferred to the State, while anyone that "gets involved" is very likely to be sued by lawyers just like the one complaining. He wants people to stand up and get involved, yet he apparently feels no personal backbone to simply say "none of your damned business"! <insert favorite emphasis here ... a*hole, d*head, would all be "appropriate">

The problem with the "liberal" world view is that the only way it can come close to being any sort of reality is "1984" -- EVERY action of EVERYONE is completely scripted and "Big Brother" ALWAYS has the video of EVERY incident so that those that fail to comply COMPLETELY with liberal dogma will be punished, and those who do comply will be rewarded. The State tells you exactly what to do, and you WILL do it!

The column shows where "Hate Speech" starts to become thought control. One person decided to ask a question that the column author decided went beyond "rude or inappropriate", but he felt ZERO responsibility to personally stand up for his rights. HOWEVER, he believes that people otherwise conditioned by thousands of cues in their daily environment to "let the proper authorities handle it" ought to somehow "step in" when the "confrontation" had never even risen to the level of "words were exchanged".

The attorney failed to cross-examine -- but it is "society's fault".

The very people intent on producing a society of absolute sheep are now incensed when the sheep behave as sheep -- and they apparently actually believe (or at least claim to) that is possible to achieve their "utopia" without levels of State control and surveillance that so far have only been imagined in fictional books.

A people who can't stand on their own feet will eventually kneel before people that can.

America, Land of the Politically Correct and home of the kneelers.

'via Blog this'

Iran Gives US the Missile Finger

US conducting 'serious review' of latest Iran missile test | Fox News:

When a nation is a has-been joke like the BO destroyed US, insult is a daily occurrence.

What are we going to do about it? Oh, "Seriously review it" ... seriously?

We are rapidly approaching the ending of the country that half of us voted for!

'via Blog this'

Watch List Consistency

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/07/two-new-york-times-editorials-terror-watch-lists-run-amok-now-lets-ban-gun-purchases-by-people-who-are-on-them/

When there is no consistency there can be no truth or reason. Looking at the position of the NY Times on the use of the Watch List"in the past, and the Watch List now the "Watch List" now, we see that what matters in a NY Times position is "which party is in office".

How does a nation descend into chaos? When truth, meaning, reason, law and consistency are thrown away. The old standard used to be God, the new standard is man ... which is no standard at all. Even relativity needs SOMETHING to be "relative to"! (the speed of light in physics for example)

When there is no standard, might is right -- POWER becomes the standard!

Trump, Obama With Balls (The Meaning of "No Rules")

Testosterone is the hormone of human action, power, swagger, bluster, attack and dominance.

As readers of this blog should well know by now, when law, reason and revelation are abandoned, there is no god or rule but power, and might becomes right. The largest armies, the most votes, the most bombastic violent dictator, the government most willing to silence, imprison and finally kill it's opposition. Such becomes "the good".

In the past two days we have a crystal clear example that would be completely obvious to a people versed in "self governing". The fact that the discussion we see happening, IS happening, makes it clear we are not a self governing people. Again, if you read this blog, that is no surprise to you and you have known it for a long time.

To state the obvious:

Exhibit A: Sunday Night, The President goes on national TV and says; "That is insane. If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun."

The "No Fly" list is a semi-secret list with no Due Process to get on it. To take away an enumerated Constitutional Right without Due Process as been declared unconstitutional over and over as I covered in detail here.

Exhibit B: Last night, Trump calls for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering our country until our officials can figure out what is going on". The media and many that should know better go berserk saying this is "clearly unconstitutional"? Really? We have restricted immigration over our history on the basis of damned near anything you can think of -- country of origin, mental health, criminal record, skills, age, disease, etc, etc.

The Constitution (the one we no longer follow) was for AMERICANS, not the whole world!! We may have been imperialist, however we were not THAT imperialist.  (note, I disagree with Trump's position, but it is NOT obviously unconstitutional like BO's)

When the rule of law is removed (and even knowledge of the law), removal of consistency is absolutely required (consistency relative to ??), which in turn makes reasoning and peaceful negotiation impossible, since THERE ARE NO RULES! This being illustrated extremely well by this movie clip:

Obama believes in the power of manipulating the masses through the media and buying votes -- he scolds, pontificates and whines, he is bored and disappointed that he has to school the stupid recalcitrant masses yet again,  but he gives off no sense of personal power.

Trump does.

I have always assumed that our destruction would just continue the long slow slide to being a single party socialist dystopia like the old USSR, China, Cuba, Venezuela, etc with a media yammering about "what a paradise it is" while most waited in line for toilet paper and traded recipes for rat.  Those of us who foolishly spoke out remembering what once was, either died slowly in Gulags or rapidly by the "Stazi", while the youth, brainwashed in the horrors of "nasty old America" prior to the forces of of our new "woke enlightenment" approved demise.

But Trump shows us another face of lawlessness -- the kind our founders dealt with in the King, and the kind that arose in Germany. The CORE of conservatism is the recognition that man is NOT the "measure of all things", and that ALL human nature is both flawed and fixed -- it can be directed, cajoled, influenced, dominated, manipulated, etc, but it remains.

Humans like "royalty, wealth, athletes, movie stars, big televangelists, demagogues, etc" ... we don't all react the same to each one, but on the mass scale, we DO have an innate "urge to be led", urge to look up to SOMEBODY -- like testosterone, it isn't really bad or good, it just **IS**. It is BOTH a strength and a weakness like all our humanness.

So, once you throw out the rules, and people no longer even know what the rules once were, they start "seeking" -- "safety in numbers" is the Democrat way -- buy all the votes, dumb down the masses, promise them what they want, rig the "elections" with open borders, no id voting, etc, and EVENTUALLY all the power is yours! (and power is ALL without law)

Another way is the Trump way -- to hell with "Political Parties", to hell with anything but POWER! Sure, make use the hulk of a minority party out of any real power for 20 years (W was a RINO) as a vehicle, but make it clear, THERE ARE NO LONGER ANY RULES AND I AM PROOF!

Side Note ... The "nice" thing about lawless chaos is that there are MANY ways it can go -- the bad thing is that like all disordered systems, the VAST bulk of those ways are BAD -- yet another way than the Trump or BO, a better way would be a "return to revelation, law, reason and consistency", but that is REALLY unlikely right now!]

Once the mass of the people no longer care or even know about laws, reason, consistency, truth, morality, etc, as has happened here, things go "fully chaotic", or if you prefer "insane", but in any case "Beyond Reason" (Nietzsche),  what piece of vacuous fallacious rhetoric conjured for the purposes of today will win out with the ever flowing emotional tide of the shallow and fickle masses? Nobody knows -- the center has been removed. THERE IS NO LAW! LONG LIVE THE PEOPLE!

"Give us Bread and Circuses!", "Give us Barabbas!", "Sig Heil!", "Hope and Change!"  ... "Make America Great Again ??"

At a fundamental level, they are all the same. A republic with the rule of law was pretty nice in retrospect -- certainly "flawed", but then once you accept human nature (as our founders did), what you are seeking is a "bad system that is better than all the other systems", to paraphrase Churchill.