PLEASE READ! ... The Reason for God, Belief in the Age of Skepticism

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594483493/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=53943455438&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=7298185130422206397&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_7vqca73v59_b

This book, by Timothy Keller, Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan may save a lot of souls, and possibly even provide a downpayment on saving America and Western civilization. It truly is THAT GOOD!

I tend to write direct and often "in your face". Quiet, reasoned, caring conversational style is not my natural mode in writing -- but I **DO** understand that it is important, and I **DO** very much respect it when I see it. Keller very much has that, plus he has an extremely well stocked brain coupled with the gift of writing both well and compactly with enough personal anecdotes to make this book more reachable than many of similar depth of content.

In part 1, called "the leap of doubt", he covers a series of objections to God with great insight and hard philosophical backing. They are:

1. There can't be just one true religion. 
2. How could a good God allow suffering? 
3. Christianity is a straightjacket
4. The church is responsible for so much injustice. 
5. How can a loving God send people to Hell? 
6. Science has disproved Christianity
7. You can't take the Bible literally. 

In an "intermission" between parts 1 and 2 he discusses the various arguments for and against -- "Strong Rationalism" -- essentially "proof of God", which is no more doable than proving our own existence. We then arrive at "critical rationality", the idea of "best fit". Evolution can't be "proven" in a strong rationalism sense given the time scales involved, yet most scientists find it compelling. 

"The view that there is a God, [Richard Swinburne] says leads us to expect the things that we observe -- that there is a universe at all, that scientific laws operate in it, that it contains human beings with consciousness and with an indelible moral sense. The theory there is no God he argues does not lead us to expect any of these things. Therefore, a belief in God provides a better empirical fit ..."

He then moves to Part 2, The Reasons for Faith

8. The clues of God.
9. The knowledge of God
10. The problem of sin
11. Religion and the Gospel 
12. The true story of the Cross
13. The reality of the Resurrection
14. The Dance of God 

At the end of chapter 9, which is basically my old belief that if you look in your heart, you already know there is a God, he summarizes: 

If you believe human rights are a reality, then it makes much more sense that God exists then that he does not. If you insist on a secular view of the world and yet you continue to pronounce some things right and some things wrong, then I hope you see the deep disharmony between the world as devised and the real world (and God) your heart knows exists. This leads us to a crucial questions. If a premise ("there is no God") leads to a conclusion you know isn't true ("Napalming babies is culturally relative") then why not change the premise? 

As frequent readers know, Nietzsche and a lot of other lesser philosophers have decided long ago that "God is dead, so power = morality" (might=right)".  The baby of morality goes out with the bathwater of God, and the world ends up arguing in strange gibberish that has been known to be gibberish since the Greeks. It seems to be getting clearer every day that our civilization is dying rapidly without God.

The review could go on forever -- the book is a treasure trove of understanding what the COSTS are for creating a God in our own image. How God is the sworn enemy of the smug -- both the smug because they believe that they "do a better job" of following rules, being successful, etc, AND of the smug that "have a more open and sophisticated mind than the unwashed masses". Christ came to comfort the "poor in spirit" (comfortable), and more-so to  make the comfortable UNcomfortable ! ... no matter what it is in this world that they believe is to their comfort other than serving the REAL Christ, not one of their imagination.

He makes it clear that ONLY in giving our WHOLE life to Christ is there a way out of our broken state.

"It is only Grace that frees us from the slavery of self that lurks even in the middle of morality and religion. Grace is only a threat to the illusion that we are free, autonomous selves, living lives as we choose". 

He quotes a lot of CS Lewis, who I love, he also is high on Jonathan Edwards who is now on my reading list. There are others. This book is a TREASURE to anyone who seeks God and restoration of our broken nation and world! I can't recommend it highly enough!!!

I'll close with this quote from Lewis on love that is oh so true:

Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable.

I Don't Care About BO Nominations

The Supreme Court and the Hypocrisy of the Left | Power Line:

I haven't written about the BO nomination of Garland for SCOTUS because I could care less about anything BO does anymore, and I hope the Republicans can manage to play hardball politics for a change. Would I have played it this way? No, but they did, so now they better follow through!

I did learn one thing from the linked PL column:

Let’s not forget that Bork had been approved unanimously by the Senate for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. So much for that Garland talking point.

We are WAY into the age of incivility and NO RULES! The Bork nomination was a great milepost on the slide to destruction. The fact is, if you are partnered with a bad actor and want to survive, you HAVE to play "Tit for Tat" according to game theory and the Bible ("an eye for an eye") as the article mentions.

It's not a bad column, but I really don't care much about BO or Democrats at this point of the after America experience. Let the dictators talk in Cuba. Sounds like BO came out looking limp wristed in the dictator summit as well.

'via Blog this'

Foreign Affairs, Clash of Civilizations

The Clash of Civilizations? | Foreign Affairs:

A little historical context, like a Montgomery martini, VERY dry -- and in this case old. The article I pulled this from in '93. Some of the points that I'm interested in:

"It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future."

Remember, this is '93 -- the USSR is just gone, the first Gulf War was 1991, and appeared very economic / Arab on Arab (Iraq invaded Kuwait). The next paragraph covers the

In 1793, as R. R. Palmer put it, "the wars of kings were over; the wars of peoples had begun." This nineteenth-century pattern lasted until the end of World War I. Then, as a result of the Russian Revolution and the reaction against it, the conflict of nations yielded to the conflict of ideologies, first among communism, fascism-Nazism and liberal democracy, and then between communism and liberal democracy.

Everyone thought that the world was going to go into a "golden age" as science replaced religion, but as the 20th century wore on with it's two world wars, Korea, Mao killing millions in China, Vietnam, Pol Pot killing millions in Cambodia,  and scores of regional bloodbaths, religion started to look better than it once id.

The "unsecularization of the world," George Weigel has remarked, "is one of the dominant social facts of life in the late twentieth century." The revival of religion, "la revanche de Dieu," as Gilles Kepel labeled it, provides a basis for identity and commitment that transcends national boundaries and unites civilizations.

I'd argue that in the West -- Europe and the US, religion has NOT recovered and along with it's continued decline, any sense of culture or "civilization" has declined with it. The cultures are less damaged in Europe, but in the US, the culture is on life support at best.

Fifth, cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones. In the former Soviet Union, communists can become democrats, the rich can become poor and the poor rich, but Russians cannot become Estonians and Azeris cannot become Armenians. In class and ideological conflicts, the key question was "Which side are you on?" and people could and did choose sides and change sides. In conflicts between civilizations, the question is "What are you?" That is a given that cannot be changed. And as we know, from Bosnia to the Caucasus to the Sudan, the wrong answer to that question can mean a bullet in the head. Even more than ethnicity, religion discriminates sharply and exclusively among people. A person can be half-French and half-Arab and simultaneously even a citizen of two countries. It is more difficult to be half-Catholic and half-Muslim.

So the US is essentially unarmed in this conflict, because there is no longer any answer to "What are you". ... "black", "Christian", "progressive", etc, but NOT "American". Other than at Trump rallies, there really aren't any people very excited about "America" -- let alone rallying around it. No, it is all about "special interests" and "voting blocks" ... women, minorities, elderly, gays, the unemployed, single mothers, etc, etc ... "Americans"? You mean the "Trumpkins"???

Civilization identity will be increasingly important in the future, and the world will be shaped in large measure by the interactions among seven or eight major civilizations. These include Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and possibly African civilization. The most important conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating these civilizations from one another.

So as early as '93, there wasn't enough "American civilization" to recognize -- and there is a LOT less now! I'd argue that we are already not "playing" in this clash, but rather just LOSING.

'via Blog this'

Geezer Votes Matter

http://www.wsj.com/articles/when-older-people-do-better-than-those-of-working-age-1458498054?mod=e2fb

Watching the economic crackup of the grand Ponzi Scheme of FICA and all the other "buy people's votes with promises of better benefits when they are dead" debacle is as unexpected as hearing about a drunk getting another DUI, the government running a deficit, or the sun rising in the morning.

“It’s a perfect storm of sudden increases in longevity, combined with the global financial crisis, combined with the greater voting power of older generations,” said Liz Emerson, co-founder of the Intergenerational Foundation, a London-based think tank that argues the political clout of seniors—an age group with high voting turnout—has damaged the interests of the young.

We have seen this coming for at least 40 years -- really since it was created in the 1930's. 2/3 of people were supposed to die before they got benefits, the population was supposed to always grow (more people paying in) and the economy was always supposed to grow. All three of the assumptions are wrong now -- the first HUGELY, the send significantly, and the third sometimes a little true, but WAY slower than would have been imagined.

But the old vote -- so like blacks, their VOTES matter!

“We are redistributing income within the family,” said Frank Field,who heads a British parliamentary panel that in January announced an inquiry into the issue of intergenerational fairness. “It isn’t fair and it isn’t sustainable.”

Except popular government is NEVER about "fairness" -- it is either about voting for things that cause the economy to expand which some people want because they think they will succeed and do better than others, OR, it is about dominant political parties buying votes to gain more and more power with no concern for anything other than the vote buyers winning.

The fact that BOTH the right establishment and the left establishment hate Cruz the worst and Trump the 2nd worst shows what the vote buyers on  BOTH sides are thinking!

Bernie Write

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/writing-in-sanders-clinton-democratic-nominee_b_9514188.html

Places like HuffPo are giving moonbats space to make the case for writing in BS if Hildebeast gets the nomination (a near certainly).

Their big "reason" to the extent moonbats deal in such is that "Hildebeast is a warmonger".

With subsidiary reasons like "she might get indicted", "she isn't good for the poor" ... and Trump is no worse and possibly better than Hildebeast.

It's a crazy election!

Rubio Reagan Ruse

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-rubio-and-reagan-20160315-story.html

I suppose most left wingers will find this to ring of something like "fact".

Despite being modeled on the positive side of the Reagan legacy, Rubio’s candidacy failed for two crucial reasons. First, he does not have the star power that Reagan had among conservatives. (This year’s celebrity candidate is Trump.) Second, a big share of voters in the 2016 Republican primaries do not want a smiling guy with an uplifting, inclusive message — they want someone as angry as they are; someone who will build walls, ban refugees, deport Mexicans, beat up on the media and take America back to a time when gays and minorities knew their proper place in the social pecking order. And if they feel like punching out a protester, they want a guy who says to go ahead and take a swing.

The BIG reason that Rubio lost was that he was snookered into (or maybe mistakenly volunteered, who knows) the "Gang of Eight" that displayed all the worst of the cynicism and corruption of Washington in an attempt to pick up more hispanic votes. The "gang attack" was thankfully repelled, and Rubio was toast with conservatives. Had Rubio not been part of the "gang activity" on immigration, it is likely that he would at least be in the Cruz position now, and quite possibly the frontrunner.

After the establishment winner candidate, W, followed by two even more "inside the beltway" compromisers who lost, the Republican voters wanted something different -- so the "outsiders", Trump and Cruz are in the lead and the establishment is still using Kasich to threaten civil war.

Reagan was ALSO an outsider. The establishment wanted HW Bush, and Reagan was considered DANGEROUS in 1980 -- he was a Panama Canal crackpot, anti-Soviet out of touch cold warrior likely to get us all killed, and his economics were "voodoo economics" as reviewed by HW Bush himself. How quickly the left wing memory fails them!

Naturally the LA Times wants to helpfully paint Republican voters and candidates in as negative a light as they possibly can, but it would be nice if they found something that had at least the remotest smell of truth to do it with!

BS, Topless Incoherence

A topless woman interrupts Bernie Sanders’s rally. She was there to protest Donald Trump. - The Washington Post:



Tell me again why young women would find topless protest as an effective way to make political points?



I've watched a lot of cheerleaders, dance lines, prom marches, etc and by the time I was forty or so, my excessive appreciation of the female form had cooled enough to realize that "girls like to show off". Boys do too -- we are just slightly more physically indirect. We have games like football and basketball that allow the display of hand size. It took me until this political year to figure out why women went for the QB, receivers and running backs on the football team!



So she protests at the Sanders rally because she can't get into the Trump rally. This seems like as solid a statement on the intelligence and reasoning capability of the Democrat electorate as we are likely to get!



'via Blog this'

Dilbert, Trump, Women

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/141164805651/real-donald-trump-quotes-about-women

You go off and look at the link, you will see some words from Scott Adams, creator of "Dilbert" linked to this video.

His view is that this will resonate far less with people than the creators of the video believe. His assumption is that America has had a bit too much of "feigned outrage" and that they really don't care to be manipulated anymore.

I'm wondering how many women there are that have never called a guy a "dick", or a "dork", or a many other remarks are "outraged"!  Likewise some sort of reference to "wrong time of the month" from males, "nice rack", or "IA farmers dream, flat as a board" or ... well, I'm pretty certain we ALL get the picture.

Back when Slick Willie was staining the oval office and James Carville was saying things relative to Paula Jones like  "Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find." and "Elections are about fucking your enemies. Winning is about fucking your friends.", crudeness wasn't much of an issue.

As I covered here, yes, Trump is crude and part of that crudeness applies to quotes about women.

The issue comes down to how solidly the powers that be can keep the sheeple operating as they want them to. It is very close to looking like the Republican Establishment has failed, and the left is definitely getting worried -- the WaPo thinks maybe the next election may have to be invalidated! So much for "democracy".

The fact is that the culture has gotten a LOT cruder since Slick was getting "serviced" in the Oval Office, but at the same time it has gotten a lot more falsely Politically Correct. Higher and higher levels of false public standards on thousands of year old dichotomies between the sexes are puritanically pantomimed in public, but in private, little has changed.

In private, men and men, women and women, and often both together make statements very much in line with Trump -- sure, not always the SAME exact utterance or profanity, but they damned well know what they are getting at!

So in the late '90s, "The Party"(TP) and it's media arm proved to us that the sheeple could be manipulated to allow the president to get away with blow jobs at the office with an employee -- something that would NOT be allowed in any place of business in the US, even McDonalds, with "consensual" having nothing to do with it!

The Ad above assumes that people can now be manipulated to find comments by a candidate that they themselves likely use, have used, or have heard from their friends relative to their own or opposite sex, to be offensive enough to disqualify that candidate. Strangely, the candidate is running against the wife who used all means possible to demean and discount women that were providing sexual services to her husband in the late '90s.

I've given up trying to determine how the fickle and shallow American public will be affected by various media and political candidate manipulations. I pretty much just sit back and watch -- in my view, we walked off the cliff with BO, so a lot of this election is just enjoying the fall.

Finkeilkraut, France Moving Trump?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/12/world/europe/once-hopeful-for-harmony-a-philosopher-voices-discord-in-france.html

The following from the NY Times on a French philosopher,  Alain Finkielkraut. Love the name, reminds me of Charles Krauthammer.

Before and after the attacks, those themes have not varied: Much of Islam is radically incompatible with French culture and society; Muslim immigrants represent a threat; French schools are crumbling under a mistaken multicultural outreach; the inherited corpus of French culture is in danger; and anti-Semitism is on the rise again, this time by way of Islam.

Many of the 2015 attackers were French. “Hatred of France is present in France,” Mr. Finkielkraut said in a recent interview. “What the attacks proved is that we have a redoubtable and determined enemy.”

Does anyone need to think more than a second looking at this to wonder how this is not so? How about people that fly Confederate Flags? Is the US not dead set against them? White supremacists? Nazis? The demonstrators from the Westboro Baptist Church? 

We could go on, but it really isn't hard to find people that any societies "anti-bodies" rise up in rejection. Right now, lots of folks on the left, and even right are having that reaction to Trump. 

If a Confederate Flag is a "threat", how can it be that Muslims, who force women to wear coverings, support child marriage, polygamy, stoning gays, etc are not? 

Should it make us feel better or worse that the same cognitive dissonance is active in France? Remember how raptly attentive our media once was when the French opposed W in Iraq? 

Hatred of the US in the US has been alive and well since the 1960's at least. It is almost a requirement on college campuses, and rife in the media when a Republican is in the presidency. 

When BO ran for president, his associations with his virulently anti-American pastor, Jeremiah Wright ("God DAMN America!") ,  bomber Bill Ayers, and members of the Black Panthers were downplayed by the MSM and considered a matter of no importance. Trump desiring his supporters to stand up and defend their right to assemble and not be intimidated are considered "incitement to violence".  Nearly nothing is said about those seeking to disrupt Trump rallies. 

We live in strange times -- perhaps our media only finds France praiseworthy as long as they are in their cheese eating surrender-monkey pose? 

New Yorker Sees Stopped Epistemological Clock

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/21/the-internet-of-us-and-the-end-of-facts?mbid=gnep&intcid=gnep&google_editors_picks=true

The New Yorker sees Trump and worries that "Facts have ended". They have been worried for awhile,  due to "Climate Change". In their universe, there is no irony whatsoever in using Hillary Clinton has a model for truth and reality with this telling quote:

But what she means, I guess, is that even some random old lady can see what Republican aspirants for the Oval Office can’t: “It’s hard to believe there are people running for President who still refuse to accept the settled science of climate change.”

We have been over this issue WAY too often -- in order to understand the problem with "settled science", we have to understand the terms "settled" and "science".

"Settled" -- "Metaphysical core unchallengeable base belief taken as self-evident" -- "I think, therefore I am", "I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth".

"Science" -- "Testable hypothesis/theories trusted insofar as all tests to date verify the hypothesis as an inductive proof. Falsifiable if the next test fails, but never settled or proven". I often use the Thanksgiving turkey as an analogy. The turkey operates on the hypothesis that humans are a benevolent creature who feeds and cares for turkeys. This hypothesis is inductively verified each day until Thanksgiving, then it suffers brutal falsification.

This means that the term "settled science" is a logical fallacy, like "married bachelor" or , "virgin birth" (which is what makes it a miracle for Mary -> Jesus). The definition of "settled" and "science" mean that putting the terms together proves that we live in a wonderland where terms have no meaning. Which readers of this blog understand, but the vast percentage of modern people don't, and the New Yorker clearly is part of that vast percentage.

This does not however mean that reality fails to intrude on their reverie even though they have sworn rejection of reality rather forcibly. For many on the left, Trump seems to be enough of a shock to the system for them to see the broken epistemological clock of our nation. To wit ...

Lynch has been writing about this topic for a long time, and passionately. The root of the problem, as he sees it, is a well-known paradox: reason can’t defend itself without resort to reason. In his 2012 book, “In Praise of Reason,” Lynch identified three sources of skepticism about reason: the suspicion that all reasoning is rationalization, the idea that science is just another faith, and the notion that objectivity is an illusion. These ideas have a specific intellectual history, and none of them are on the wane. Their consequences, he believes, are dire: “Without a common background of standards against which we measure what counts as a reliable source of information, or a reliable method of inquiry, and what doesn’t, we won’t be able to agree on the facts, let alone values".

The foundation of Western civilization was that there was indeed such a common background -- Christianity, or at least "Natural Law / Deism". The metaphysical recursion stopped at a "prime mover" -- God, who had created us and thus we were able to discern his will / meaning / etc. Civilization requires a foundation, and it HAD one -- we would not have gotten to the lofty peak from which we now decline if there had been no foundation.

Philosophically, it is true that reason can't defend itself even WITH resort to reason. Lifting yourself by your own bootstraps STILL doesn't work, and metaphysical "Free Lunch" is STILL not to be had no matter how many Bernie Sanders voters there are. Reason always reasons from faith (in something) as it's foundation -- faith in the fact of words having meaning and comprehensibility if nothing else. But only those that understand this can even begin to discuss "facts".

The column closes with this rather chilling summary.

He [Lynch] thinks the best defense of reason is a common practical and ethical commitment. I believe he means popular sovereignty. That, anyway, is what Alexander Hamilton meant in the Federalist Papers, when he explained that the United States is an act of empirical inquiry: “It seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.” The evidence is not yet in yet".

First,  I certainly HOPE he is very wrong about Lynch (it seems unlikely a philosopher would think that), he is CLEARLY wrong about Hamilton. Hamilton was a FEDERALIST, he believed strongly in Rule of Law, Written Constitution, Separation of Powers, aristocracy curbing democracy, eg. Electoral College, Senators not elected by population, etc. 

"Popular sovereignty" is rule by majority -- mob rule! In the article he blithely wastes a lot of time showing how "proof by trial" is "atavistic" (mere appeal to "previous generations" or "tradition"), and therefore clearly wrong -- because, after all, the dominant modern religion is "progressivism", the faith that the newest is the best. It's "proof" rests on "if they were so smart, how come they're dead?". 

Mob rule is just another form of "might makes right" ... "test by trial" / atavism. Might can come from a ballot, bicep or bullet, but it is STILL just might! For some strange reason, Trump suddenly makes all sorts of people on the left question their metaphysical assumptions -- but amazingly not the column author!  

What Hamilton DID mean is a "Government of Laws, not men" ... some of the aspects I listed above. Our founders understood a great deal of what most moderns clearly do not -- as in my favorite John Adams Quote "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other". 

Even Jefferson, who had the most faith in popular sovereignty of all our major founders rejected "democracy", and rejected it FAR more in later life after the bloodbath of the French Revolution.

Lincoln understood that a "house divided" cannot stand, but it is even more obvious that a house with no foundation cannot stand. We HAD a foundation, as this article and a lot of other "thought" (really emotion) flowing around now shows us that we have none. We will either return to the foundation we had, come up with a new one (which I believe to be impossible) or fall. 

The most likely path at this point is certainly a continued fall to dissolution.

Trump Barking Hildebeast Commercial

It's going to be a nasty nasty showdown if it does turn out to be Trump vs Hildebeast, but I think Trump wins nasty commercial round 1 ... take a look at them both and I'll comment after.

So did Trump get BO to play the terrorist? I thought the eyes looked similar ;-)

The media has of course tried to keep the Hillary Barks Like a Dog secret, but this is the age of the internet after all. I suspect we will see a LOT of that bitch a woofin if Trump is the nominee!

Some thoughts:

1. First, Hildebeast is playing "follow the leader" ... when you run for leader, you don't want to show yourself as a follower. 
2. Hillary laughing? Do even her SUPPORTERS think a Hillary laugh seems human? I think they need to avoid any commercial that has her trying to fake an emotion ... even the Onion is clued in on that. 
3. As I've said before, Trump sounds EXACTLY like BO on the narcissist  front -- BO thinks he is "the smartest guy in the room" ... better than anyone that works for him.  So Hildebeast is running as "Stench II, feminine hygiene gone bad". Does she REALLY want to claim that someone that thinks like BO, who at least SHE thinks is great (even though his approval is at best 50/50)  is "laughable"?  (to the extent she can fake laughter)

**IF** she felt she had to respond immediately -- and I don't think she did, it is MARCH after all, she needed something way different from this that wasn't so clearly a copy! 

She has NEVER been a leader, and it clearly shows! Driving home today, NPR was WAY worried about Hildebeast vs Trump -- they see the specter of the "Reagan Democrats" and they realized that while they have been PREDICTING the big browning of America, something like 33% of the electorate is still poorly educated whites that they have kicked to the curb like the old white trash that the D's look at them as being! 

Trump is the guy to throw the scum queen into the mud! 

WaPo Wants To Use Electoral College To Stop Trump

The Electoral College could still stop Trump, even if he wins the popular vote - The Washington Post:


No, it isn't April Fools! It is St Paddies Day, Trump has not won the Republican nomination, nor stood for election, but WaPo is thinking ahead to invalidating the election, using the Electoral College!

Of course the WaPo like everyone else on the left has always been WILDLY in favor of "popular vote" in every case possible, including overturning the Electoral College by making an end run around the Constitution -- here they are pretty sanguine about the "National Popular Vote" effort in 2013.

Here is their summary today:

Trump hasn’t won yet. But it is increasingly likely that we will reach precisely the kind of scenario that the founders worried about — divisive political discourse threatens to thrust a dangerous candidate into office who appears inclined to govern more like a monarch than a president. Opportunities remain for cooler heads to prevail in our presidential election. And state legislatures should consider doing so this year.

NEVER TRUST A LIBERAL! They directly state that they recognize no truth, only power, and they prove it constantly!

We currently have a divisive political demagogue who ignores the Constitution in office and WaPo LOVES IT! Clearly we already HAVE only FAKE LAW! The same people who constantly espouse all manner of democracy -- in polls, in elections, in EVERYTHING, suddenly want to use the Electoral College to invalidate an election! These are the same people that demand that voting not even require so much as an ID!

When you give up truth you give up consistency and then you can never be trusted under any circumstance. We already knew this, but this is yet another example that makes it crystal clear!

'via Blog this'

33% BS Voters Won't Vote For Hildebeast

33 Percent of Bernie Sanders Supporters Will Not Vote for Hillary Clinton. Here's Why:

This is Huffpo and I don't put a lot of stock in  it, but it certainly is out there.

Some thoughts:

• Democrats think that raising taxes on cigarettes cuts cigarette consumption, but don't believe that raising taxes on business cuts business activity in the US. So why would I believe anything a Democrat tells me about anything, let alone percentages? 
• On top of that, these are Crazy Bernie voters -- hello? 
• I accept that my sanity is in question for reading this, HOWEVER, I believe that reasonable people owe it to ourselves to read how genuine moonbats actually think! 

To wit ... "The problem with Hillary supporters is that they have no concept of hypocrisy." So apparently people detached from reality enough to vote BS still think they know what hypocrisy is? Well, once the surly bonds have been slipped --- "whatever"!!! 

Oh, you don't think the person writing this is INSANE! This was written TODAY, 3/16, AFTER Hillary won FL and OH! 

That being said, Bernie Sanders is still the front-runner. Clinton could get FBI and Justice Department indictments at any moment, and future primaries are favorable to Sanders. This is far from over.

It's a feast of the imaginary, the unhinged and the delusional. Seriously worth reading just to realize that we not only have people walking around that think like this, but we have major news outlets that give them a forum! 

I'm actually pretty surprised that even 50% of BS followers find their tail-mix often enough to keep body and soul together. 

Perhaps some conservative stops by and feeds them???


'via Blog this'

Diaper Gap, Mixing Common Sense With Socialism

Why socialists need capitalism: best explanation so far:



This is all worth a read -- short version, disposable diapers are now a "human right" and someone who grew up in the old USSR has some insight on how this all works. A key quote:

"Socialism conserves the stage in which the society existed at the time it was overtaken. Cubans still drive American cars from the 1950s, North Koreans still dress in the fashions of the same bygone era, and in the USSR I grew up in a government-owned house that was taken from the rich and given to the needy in 1920s and remained without indoor plumbing or running water and with ancient electrical wiring until it was condemned and demolished in 1986."

This is how the ex-socialist utopia citizen viewed the process ... I lifted it from the article, but my usual quoting indent didn't work for some reason.

This is how the process happens today, time-wise.

1. When capitalist entrepreneurs create a new product or service, it is usually expensive and is only available to the rich. 
2. Once rich customers have parted with enough money to buy the new product, the entrepreneurs have accumulated enough capital to send it to mass production, making it affordable to the middle class.
3. Once the market is saturated, the government steps in, declares the product a "human right," and provides it to the needy for free. All the costs are covered by the taxes extracted from the entrepreneurs who invented the product and from the rich who already paid for its mass production.

'via Blog this'

Hildebeast, AIDS, Progressive Narrative

This post is a discussion of primarily how one of the shards of the false narrative of modern liberal/progressive dogma is created and cemented into the popular culture.

First of all, the Huffo on Hillary doing a retraction on nice things she said about Nancy Reagan relative to AIDs.:

Michelle Goldberg noted in Slate how absurd the former Secretary of State's comments were, given that the Reagan administration publicly laughed at the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. Nancy Reagan did little to sway her husband, Goldberg said.

Then, the New Yorker following the same vein, chimes in against the Reagan administration on the issue of AIDs.

President Reagan’s first speech on the subject wasn’t until May 31, 1987. By then, more than twenty-five thousand people, the majority of them gay men, had died in the United States.

First of all, the idea of "the Reagan administration laughing at AIDs" is a completely fabricated part of the lefty false narrative covered here, but if you follow the MSM, it is GOSPEL, and "apostates", or even those that "speak well of the dead" as in Hildebeasts case, have to recant immediately!

Trying to write this post got me thinking about the value of life and I wrote this post.

In the left wing narrative, the deaths of gays from AIDs are like "martyrs for the cause", somewhat like young blacks killed by police. Their political value as "wedges" is huge, and as the take-down of Hildebeast shows us, there will be NO DISSENT! One might think that letting the current presidential candidate slide on comments at a FUNERAL 30 years after the fact might be OK, but one would be WRONG!

For we poor humans, it is ALL about the narrative, and the left has an extremely firm grasp of that! They make the Baptist Fundamentalists of my youth look "loose" by comparison.

Fundamentalist extremism in the defense of liberalism is no vice to the left!





Secondly