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'

The Tontine, Bet The Other Guy Dies

It’s sleazy, it’s totally illegal, and yet it could become the future of retirement - The Washington Post:

Tontine -- a retirement vehicle where a group of people invests a sum of money something like a mutual fund at a payout based on performance, BUT with the twist that as people die, the remaining folks get their payments. It is much like an annuity where if you die the day after you put your money in, your fellow investors get the money over time, rather than the annuity provider getting it.

Turns out the tontine -- named after its inventor was once a very popular retirement vehicle, then, due to some scandals and people considering them a "morbid gamble", it was outlawed.

I can't see any reason at all they ought not be offered. Sleazy? We have reverse mortgages, payday loans and the biggest ponzi scheme of all, FICA, these seem like just another reasonable hedge.

I always expect to die tomorrow, so not very good for me, but OTOH, I expect my wife to live forever, so PERFECT for her!

'via Blog this'

Crash Landing SR-71

Blackbird Down | History | Air & Space Magazine:

An eyewitness account of the loss of "Rapid Rabbit" at Kadena during a high crosswind landing with tire failure. Of interest only to airplane geeks. The pilot and RSO made it without injury.

'via Blog this'

Killing Babies Born Alive, Official Democrat Policy

Killing Babies: It’s Obama Administration Policy | Power Line:

If the Democrats want you dead, you better be able to defend yourself if you want to stay alive. Innocence is no defense!

You may have thought (as I did) that if a baby got out alive, they were already a human child and murder was still murder. We are wrong -- in fact BO has promised to veto a bill that would grant them protection.

Evil has won and life has lost in this country. Continuing federal funding for Planned Parenthood is favored 2 to 1 even after the grisly videos. We are a country with more blood on our hands than Nazi Germany, we have no excuse.

Democrats want to insure that there are no more survivors of abortion like this courageous lady.

'via Blog this'

The Have Less Crisis

WSJ Middle Class Squeeze

An excellent but somewhat long article on the state of the malaise of the world economic system.

Since the financial crisis of 2007-08, which Western leader could boast of spreading ownership in any important way? In the U.S. and Britain, the percentage of citizens owning stocks or houses is well down from the late 1980s. In Britain, the average age for buying a first home is now 31 (and many more people than before depend on “the bank of Mom and Dad” to help them do so). In the mid-’80s, it was 27. My own children, who started work in London in the last two years, earn a little less, in real terms, than I did when I began in 1979, yet house prices are 15 times higher. We have become a society of “have lesses,” if not yet of “have nots.”

I think the summary of the state of affairs is stated well here.

The relationship between money and morality, on which the middle-class order depends, has been seriously compromised over the past decade. Which means that the mass bourgeoisie (a phrase that Marx and Engels would have thought a contradiction in terms) start to feel like the new proletariat.

I'm not sure how learned the author of the column really is, but he said a HUGE mouthful there!

First, everyone knows that "morality" is a very difficult term in our current world. What do we "value"? As traditional morals of chastity, truthfulness, thrift, prudence, hard work, honor, trustworthiness, meekness, temperance,  etc. have fallen from favor to become terms of derision hurled at some "hypocrites" who still "bitterly cling" to such. The very concept of "morality" has left the building -- and "money" has become a primary "value" in itself -- of both good and ill. "The Party" TP-D  getting lots of funding for a campaign? GOOD ... Koch brothers providing lots of money for an R? EVIL ... Lots of money poured into TP teachers unions? GOOD ... lots of money for a CEO? EVIL ... and on it goes. "Morals" relative to your POV -- the essence of the "all things are relative" view.

So to Marx, the "bourgeoisie" were the evil -- the owners of capital. The shop, farm and factory owners -- those that hired and fired and "leeched" off from labor -- the "proletariat" who were trapped and basically slaves.

The column goes on.

But pretty much the whole of the developed world is still in the convalescent ward, and no one is sure whether the wonder drug of quantitative easing can yet be abandoned, or even whether it does no more than suppress the symptoms of disease. Despite years of supposed austerity, debt is still strikingly high. It remains possible that banks, or even whole countries in the eurozone, could collapse. And who knows whether or not China’s big banks are bust? 

There is clearly an unmet need for a politics that goes beyond mere grievance-peddling to develop a new way of thinking about what makes a society free and secure at the same time. If this were easy, we would have heard more of it by now, and I won’t pretend to have the answers. But certain basic principles seem like the proper foundation.

He is brilliant up to here, but then goes on to pretty standard ideas, that while good in general, don't really make one feel "he's got it" -- get markets working better, get stock ownership to be more responsible, get a better balance between globalization and nationalism ... not wrong, but not really a clear marching order.

I'm going to throw out a couple of generalities here, but I think the BIG deal of this article is that it does a good job of stating the core of the problem -- We have lost our moral compass and are adrift. Until we fix that, all activity is pretty much just churn! We are also very vulnerable -- to attack from without or within.

I'm working on my review of "Closing of the American Mind" -- hopefully more detail there, but I think the big point is that as the Roman Empire, and to a lesser extent, the British Empire,  found "well fed ease and leisure" is not a meaningful goal for mankind. Everyone has to believe in something and really DO something in service to that belief in order to be happy! "I believe I'll have another beer" is a cynical JOKE ... but right now it is more in keeping with the "values" of Europe, America and Japan than anything else.

 Conquest, exploration, saving souls, moral perfection, defeating evil, "truth, beauty and the American Way", etc ... those have been and in some cases still are worthy goals. Certainly ISIS believes that they are undertaking a "conquest for saving souls" -- their own, and the infidels they convert to what they see as the truth. They are "defeating evil" from their perspective -- but we are "the evil", and we have decided to stop resisting as much as we can.  It seems the Putin also sees himself as restoring Russia to it's "rightful place". I suspect that China is also in this camp.

Real morals and values are DANGEROUS! They MEAN SOMETHING! Because they move people -- and nations, and potentially worlds. The Bible as always has pure truth on this -- "Man does not live by bread alone" -- without spiritual meaning, man dies. "Without vision the people perish" ... this article does a good job of pointing out how we are perishing --- not so much how to LIVE!

We need to figure out what is worth not perishing for, if we truly want abandon the terminally ill patient that is Western Civilization -- that is unless we just want to continue to kill ourselves.

Krauthammer's Islamic Presidency

Islam, Ben Carson & Krauthammer| National Review Online:

The article makes a persuasive case that Charles Krauthammer's comments on Ben Carson relative to Islam and the presidency were very ill advised. The article is quite long and detailed, the bottom line is this:

1. Carson didn't say the Constitution didn't allow a Muslim, he said that HE doesn't find Islam consistent with the Constitution. Those that are claiming otherwise are either being frivolous or disingenuous in attempting to smear Carson. 
2. The Presidency is a special office -- it is one of the 3 branches of government in a single person. The basic world view of that person is critical, and since the founders were clear that it required a "natural born American citizen", it does have special requirements. Attention to that person's religion, philosophy, leanings, etc is a critical responsibility for voters. 
3. One can claim that being a "born again Christian" is a "personal faith" -- no creed, congregation or leadership to agree with for better or worse. Not so Islam or even Catholicism. While Kennedy declared the Constitution higher than the Pope, that is a legitimate question for a Catholic seeking to be President. A supposed "Islamic President" would have a LONG list of such questions, which would involve making statements that would make him an "infidel" rather than  a "Muslim" in order to serve under our Constitution. Looking at the treatment of women, Christians, homosexuals, criminal jurisprudence, etc in Islamic countries will give you a start on how long that list would be. 
4. Given the above, the burden really ought to be on any Muslim (or person thinking that a Muslim would make a good president) to answer a myriad of "gotcha" questions relative to their religion as Christians often now are called to do ... eg. "Islam states that the earth was created in 6 days about 6K years ago, do you agree with that?", "Islam states that homosexuals should be killed, do you agree with that?", "Islam states that all governments should serve Allah and operate by Shariah law, what is your stand?" ... etc, etc. 

The difference in the way Christians and Muslims are treated by the ruling elite gives some solid insight into what the game being played really is. Unless one is a practicing Christian, in which case one is forced to declare love for even enemies, human nature is that "Like likes like" -- in which case one is forced to understand why "liberals" like Muslims -- a seeming mystery actually easy to parse. 

The outcry from left and right on Carson's statement gives us yet another marker on how really really bad the state of political discussion has become in this country. Krauthammer is brilliant, but he is not a Christian. Since he is human, he tries to make the Constitution into a religious, sacred "didactic" (teaching) document.

The Constitution is not just a legal document. It is a didactic one. It doesn’t just set limits to power; it expresses a national ethos. It doesn’t just tell you what you’re not allowed to do; it also suggests what you shouldn’t want to do.

As the linked column points out ... hogwash. The Constitution WAS our base LAW -- and since we don't even follow it for that ( "right" to abortion, "right" to gay "marriage", limits on executive power, etc), it's value is more like that of used toilet paper. What it was INTENDED to do is LIMIT GOVERNMENT ... it has completely failed at that. Claiming it tells political candidates how they ought feel about Islamists heading the executive branch is a fantasy that shows how difficult it is for even an intelligent unbeliever to understand the values that founded America.

'via Blog this'

Why Do Liberals Love Islam?

http://jonathanlast.com/why-do-liberals-love-islam/

I've got my "simple theory" for at least the leftist overlords -- totalitarians like other totalitarians. Our left LOVED the USSR, they still like Cuba, China has gotten a little too commercial for them but still better loved than say England or certainly Israel.

The linked article tries out a couple other theories ... "relativism" is an all-purpose for both sides of the relationship. While the left holds to "absolute, lock them up if they disagree" relative to white christians supporting gay "marriage", relativism allows them to decide that such rules can be suspended for Muslims -- sure, they might have to avert their eyes a bit when gays are actually thrown from high places or stoned in Muslim countries, but hey -- it allows one to REALLY earn their multicultural diversity chops!

Remember, far left is ABSOLUTE rule of the State, and the State is human, not divine, so "cognitive dissonance" is required. The key skill is to be able to parrot what the party line says in the face of even massive shedding of blood. Six thousand young black men killed in the streets yearly by other young black men need to be completely ignored while marching for "Black Lives Matter" over a couple trumped up justified police shootings of blacks.

From the Muslim side, there are only two political parties -- the D's may support gays, women's rights, sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll, but they support it for INFIDELS! One doesn't have to be a very smart Muslim to realize that if enough Muslims can be brought in, enough kids can be had, enough dead or imaginary votes created, it would be EASY to be Muslim nation -- probably already close to having a "Muslim seat" on the SCOTUS, make common cause with the black seat and who knows?

Besides, they sure are not going to vote with heavily Christian, Jewish-loving, strong US loving and flag waving Republicans! Sure it takes a LITTLE cognitive dissonance for them to vote D, but get real!

The other theory offered is the old liberal "we are really nice to our pets" theory.

I think the issue is more that they see Muslims as a new potential mascot group that they can champion and therefore obtain that cheap sense of moral superiority that comes with riding in like a white knight. I think a lot of liberal attitudes towards minorities aren’t actually based on the good of the minorities, but how good it makes the liberals feel to champion them.

It seems completely insane to see folks that would lock someone up for not baking a cake for a gay "wedding" falling all over themselves to defend a group whose religions teachings generally make the Westboro Baptist Church look like really easy going liberals by comparison. After all, Westboro has yet to stone, throw from a cliff, behead, drown or even rape anyone! Let alone threaten to implement laws to make such the standard for behavior!

But then, these are completely insane times. 

The real situation here is exactly the same as the discussion of wealth and poverty. Poverty needs no explanation, it is the natural state! It is wealth that has to be created by systems and actions that are successful. The state of nature is poverty.

Evil is the the natural state of a fallen world, it needs no explanation. Is it REALLY hard at all for any remotely intelligent person that still has some contact with what was once the standards of Western Civilization to look at Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, etc, and not see evil? The rape and child molestation of women and young boys, the abject poverty, the repression, the violent attacks on Christians, destruction of cultural/religious icons, stoning gays, etc?

The claim of "liberals" is that the fallen world is not fallen -- but rather that it is GOOD! Their alignment with Islam is actually consistent because ultimately, the destruction of Western Civilization will bring us to a state of nominalist control by POWER. Might is right is morally arbitrary! -- any claim to what many see as "natural" (Biblical) morality is removed. "Morality" becomes whatever POWER says it is -- Islamic "morality" is no better or worse than any arbitrary morality since POWER literally IS "morality" when evil reigns.

"Liberals" love Islam because it is rule by POWER. The natural state of man is always "like likes like".

'via Blog this'

Boehner, Reign of Tears

NY Times, Bye Bye Boehner

Farewell, John Boehner, farewell.

These departures are a little wearying. It was not long ago that we said adieu to Rick Perry. And then Scott Walker. And of course we are gearing up for the moment when the political world says goodbye forever to Donald Trump. 

Good times, all.

The level of snark from the NYTs as The Party (TP-D) approaches absolute power gives one an insight into what other times were like as one party claimed victory.

However, the minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, had expressed confidence that Planned Parenthood would be safe even if the Republicans “vote their alleged hearts out.” We should spend more time quoting Nancy Pelosi.

No mention of the millions of babies murdered, including as the videos showed, some who have their hearts cut out and sold. They see any who have a shred of emotion for those dead babies as beneath contempt. One can hear the echos of Himmler given details of the "Final Solution" ... we should spend more time quoting Himmler! No doubt they felt their oppositions hearts were "alleged" as well.

Boehner was not an appealing guy for the traditional rock ribbed Republican. Preening, seemingly painted on tan and blubbering at inappropriate moments. Both US Grant and Winston Churchill were men that cried -- but it wasn't what defined them.  It defined Boehner -- it was a reign with a rain of tears.

Boehner was what is still "an establishment Republican", looking at all scenarios with shrewd tactical analysis. You know they want to label you a "bomb thrower" and a "crazy", so do all you can to execute maneuvers that hold what little territory you can as quietly as you can.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that this is a losing strategy. First of all, you WILL be called a bomb thrower, crazy and worse -- you have an R next to your name. This is not a time of "reasoned political debate" from TP -- this is a time of VICTORY and abject defeat for Republicans, by any means -- legal and illegal. Folks like BO and often five justices on the SCOTUS don't have any respect for any stinkin Constitution!

When your opposition is confident and entrenched enough that grisly videos of babies being dismembered and sold out in parts are so little a concern that using a line like "vote their alleged hearts out" gives not a moments pause, you know you are living well past the point of tired old words like "morality" or "decency" or "civilized". This is a time of the raw exercise of TP power with all the smugness, leering and cackling laughter that accompanies the victory of evil.

It is hard to shed any tears for the political end of Boehner. Significantly no doubt because of his personality, but also because of the times. When babies are being sold for parts, hundreds of thousands of refugees are storming the gates of Europe, 11 million illegals walk our streets and calls for killing police are ringing out in marches across our nation, it is hard to much lament a powerless House Speaker stepping down because he doesn't want to deal with calls stop spending government money on a non-government organization that sells baby parts.

Listening to the devils at the NYTs cackle though does give one  pause as to how bad it would be to spend eternity in Hell!

Assume Surprise When Adrift

The Week of Walker and Boehner | The Weekly Standard:

Good column that points out some truth from last week  -- nobody expected Walker to drop out this and nobody expected Boehner to announce his resignation. They were surprises -- as is Trump being in the lead challenged by Carson, and Bernie Sanders supplying significant challenge to Hillary. The pundits tell us it was all obvious, but it wasn't. Their lies are an illusion of order that doesn't exist.

Most Americans feel that the country is in generally bad shape and that to the extent we have any "direction" at all, it is wrong. I'd call the problem more one of being adrift at sea on a cruise ship on which everything is still pretty much working -- the lights, the toilets, the AC, the dining halls and especially the bars -- they all are handing out booze and even weed left and right.

 But we are adrift and nobody seems in charge -- and there is no plan to get moving because there is no proposed destination.  To the degree there is "action" it seems to be deciding that some of the folks from steerage ought to be moved up to the suites with balconies -- where to move those residents is less certain, it is all a bit murky.

But other than some discussions over who ought be in what cabin and maybe how all the dining and drinking options ought to be free, there is a general unease about just how long a drifting cruise ship is "sustainable". The occasionally visible but not convincing captain just keeps saying things are fine -- but we ought to be worried about the ocean temperature if anything. He believes the ship could be entirely powered by wind.

When there is no plan, everything is a surprise. No plan, no direction, being adrift is not "sustainable" ... everyone knows that, and they know that SOMETHING is going to change it at some point. They just have a hard time imagining what it is that is worth the effort of doing something other than

But for now, just enjoy the boozy drift and wait for the next surprise. It's life in the "Lost Zone" of Central North America 2015. Eventually we will bump into something!

'via Blog this'

Until Certain Danger Meets Uncertain Danger

John Boehner’s successor inherits a diminished role. | National Review Online:

The power of the executive has risen to monarchy, the power of the Congress has shrunk to nothing. The transfer of very little power from Boehner to "whomever" is a matter of little significance now, and it will remain to be unless something very big changes the course of what used to be America. A couple very good lines in this column ...

When they write the history of American democracy, we’ll be obliged to admit the embarrassing truth that we lost it because it’s so much easier to pay attention to one man than to a congress of them.

I'd argue that stronger House Speakers could have kept us afloat longer -- the example of Newt is discussed in the article. People can pay attention to a few people, and some real contests between real leaders. Sure, the conservative side is always hobbled by the tilt of the media, but at least every one knew who the evil Gingerich was!

The close is sobering -- it agrees with the unknown but certainly painful future that I see.

Congress no longer has the power to return the president — and the presidency — to its proper role. That power, too, is now in the hands of the president, which is why it is unlikely that our national slide into autocracy will not be reversed until the current political equilibrium is disturbed, which is to say until certain danger encounters uncertain danger.

'via Blog this'

Throw Out Baby Jesus, Keep the Bathwater

Atheism starts its megachurch: Is it a religion now? - Salon.com:

 "“The church model has worked really well for a couple of thousand years,” Dodd muses. “What we’re trying to do is hold on to the bath water while throwing out the baby Jesus.”"

For ages, man has uttered the aphorism "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" ... man has finally become so lost that rather than keeping the baby -- the center, the sacred, the important, the motto is changed to purposely keeping that which is unclean, unuseable, and defiled.

The Atheists are working on a church -- here is what they have against the "Unitarian Universalist Community Church" :

“The Unitarian Church has this idea of ‘radical tolerance.’ It respects everything. It’s all good. Well that’s fine on one level, but at some point it becomes a little diluted.” Dodd was looking for a more robust secularism.

This is pretty much all the information one can get out of the article. Their problem with the Unitarians as stated in the quote was not enough "robust secularism" ... but it seems that the direction the "Sunday Assembly" is going is toward avoiding in your face atheism.

As the atheist church becomes more church-like, however, it seems to be deliberately downplaying its atheism. Where the Assembly once stridently rejected theism (at April’s Assembly, Jones poked fun at the crucifixion), it is now far more equivocal. “How atheist should our Assembly be?”, Jones wrote in a recent blog post. “The short answer to that is: not very.”

Hard to define yourself purely by what you are against. Certainly those that "poke fun" at those who think differently from themselves are widely respected in secular culture depending on what it is they poke fun at -- the Bruce Jenner Halloween costume was so open mindedly received!

Either way, Sanderson Jones is confident that the model will spread. “We have the most natural human urge to do this,” he insists: to organize ourselves around institutions of meaning. I am inclined to agree that “Live Better, Help Often, and Wonder More” is a lovely motto to build around.

We live in a "Goldilocks Universe" tuned precisely to our existence ... to unimaginable numbers like 10 to the minus 128 needing to be "right on" for us to be here. Amazingly, on top of that we have this common urge to "organize ourselves around institutions of meaning" -- or, as we did for thousands of years, worship God.

The atheist looks at a universe impossibly built for his existence and declares it a matter of pure random chance against all odds. He then realizes that he has a "soul hole" -- something is missing, his life lacks meaning. So he postulates that against all odds, on top of his impossibly random universe, random selection has put a "God shaped hole" into his consciousness -- meaningless and randomness has most strangely selected to imprint a drive for him to seek some sort of "meaning" for his life in this universe that he has decreed to be meaningless and random.

So he grabs his bootstraps and pulls. The futility brings tears to my eyes ... and I'm sure to Christ's as well.

'via Blog this'

Not With My Kids

Brooklyn Public School Battle: Progressives Are Opposing Integration | National Review Online:

"Liberals" are quick to apply the hypocrite label to any Christian that fails to live up to the moral code of Christ -- one wonders why they think Christ died on the cross if people could just live up to Christian morals by self restraint? Hypocrite is a label that the MSM never applies to "liberals" -- they never signed up to have any morals, so how could they be hypocrites?

They did however create A LOT of POLICIES and LAWS, all often screaming loudly of "equality" and "fairness"!  ... and since government is the closest thing they have to a god, one might think that "all" might apply to "liberals" as well. But one would be wrong.

The linked article is a short read -- Brooklyn has wealthy and poor citizens living in close proximity, though certainly not "integrated". The city would like to integrate a school -- the fight is joined.

Liberal policies have real outcomes -- often outcomes that are detrimental to all, but especially to those upon which the supposed beneficial social experimentation takes place -- destroying marriage and freeing women to copulate more widely was deemed especially liberating. Apparently some collateral damage has been found ...

Though children in some multi-partner-fertility families thrive, Cherry has observed that multi-partner fertility is associated with high levels of father abandonment and child maltreatment. Boys with absent fathers are far more likely to engage in aggression, rule breaking, and delinquency than boys living with both parents, and they are also far more likely to face multiple suspensions.

Liberals often like the idea of their policies being forced upon others, but are loathe to see fruits of their policy darken their doors. 

NIMBY -- "Not In My Back Yard"

NWMK -- "Not With My Kids"? 

'via Blog this'

The Historical Hockey Stick of Capitalism

Perhaps the most powerful defense of market capitalism you will ever read - AEI | Pethokoukis Blog » AEIdeas:

BS (Bernie Sanders) and the Pope gets thrown around making people believe that market capitalism is somehow "bad". The large point they totally forget is that if you want to spend a lot of time complaining about how vast wealth is distributed, you FIRST HAVE TO HAVE VAST WEALTH!

For most of history, 90%+ of people had NOTHING -- little or no shelter, regular hunger and often starvation. They didn't even IMAGINE "leisure goods", sports, travel, entertainment, etc. -- in fact, even the rulers could not have imagined the technological wealth of the common man today.

The reason for all this is Reading, Reformation, Revolution and Revaluation.

1. Because of technology (printing press), people learned how to Read and write. 
2. Because they could read the Bible, the Reformation happened and the hold of the centralized Catholic Church was broken. 
3. Since the church had acted with centralized monarchy type governments, the literacy and ability to operate outside of centralized catholic doctrine allowed government to be made less oppressive. There was a Revolution from far left wing (control) kings, queens and bishops, to center right (less control) liberty -- the US was the biggest example. 
4. Because the masses could now read and write, and the strict centralized hierarchy of Church - King - Peasant had been broken, there was a Revaluation of the worth and potential of the common man which vastly increased the productive work force. 

The effects of this DEcentralized  power and economics and the Market Economy (Capitalism) broke out the strongest and earliest in the US, then in Europe, and in just the last 30 years we have seen it reach Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, China (BRIC) and beyond ... causing the curve in GDP per capita in the graph.

It is really not surprising that the Pope thinks going back to the bad old days is a good idea. Perhaps he will move to restrict reading as well "for the good of all" -- best to have "those in the know" make all the decisions! The common man might get confused!

The motivations for BS are probably just the old human standards -- lust for power, envy of those who make more than he does, wishful thinking about how things might work if he was in charge and in his case, just being a cantankerous old coot.

'via Blog this'

Hillary Able To Display Facsimile of Empathy

Campaign Staffers Making Progress Conditioning Hillary Clinton To Replicate Emotions - The Onion - America's Finest News Source:

This is AMAZING progress! They were never able to get this far with John Kerry, and Obama still just lapses into meaningless self referential reveries when they attempt  to get him to recognize the presence of other humans.

We may yet have a dictator that can feign concern for others!

'via Blog this'

Hillary Supports Stoning Gays

Ben Carson Caused a Firestorm with His ‘Muslim President’ Comments. Critics Should Look at This Map.:

Oh ... and cutting off the hands of thieves, killing those that leave Islam, women wearing burkas, etc. She disagrees with Carson that Sharia is not compatible with the Constitution and US values, so one has to assume that she thinks it IS. Right?

That is what Sharia law says, and unless you are somehow a "Muslim" that repudiates what your religion teaches, then that is what you believe. Only in the mind of the left or the insane could such a "Muslim" exist.

The left in this country believes that there is some Constitutionally mandated "separation of religion and life". They have no understanding how anyone can live by any religious tenets at all beyond the pablum of "do unto others" and "judge not". Naturally, they don't follow those either -- and believe that the "golden rule" is really "vote to have things taken from people at government gunpoint and distributed to serve the state". Oh, and on "judging", they believe that anyone that doesn't see the world as they do ought to be put in jail -- but hey, nothing personal!

The left is convinced that there MUST be "a  BIG majority" of Muslims (somewhere) that believe as they do -- that you can call yourself a "Christian", but follow none of the Bible, maybe darken the door of the church on a holiday or two a year, and otherwise "do what your heart tells you".

The same heart of which the Bible says in Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?"

Consistency is NOT an issue for the left!

But what IS an issue is POWER. So deep down, they like Sharia a lot better than a Constitution or certainly the Bible. Sharia gives the state total power -- and once the state has total power, they assume "good things will happen" ... like in Nazi Germany, the USSR, China, etc ... their "enemies" will be killed, and they see that as "the good". Or they just don't think much -- always possible.

I like Ben Carson, but we can't have another president with no executive experience of any kind like we have now. Ben would be "better" than BO, but after BO, we need someone with A LOT of capability -- we need the political equivalent of Aaron Rodgers, and I just don't see any candidate with anything CLOSE to that potential. Walker was the only (remote) shot I saw. He is gone, so the situation is grim.

Only in the current surrealistic fun-house of America could someone be attacked for saying what is obviously true -- no practicing Muslim could possibly take an oath to support the Constitution -- let alone the depraved and rotting "values" of current America. Even crazier, the ones that attack him are not asked to explain how it is in their fevered imagination that they believe that a practicing Muslim COULD take such an oath!

If you want to understand the "values" that those attacking Carson apparently espouse, go take a look at the linked article. Sanity has left the building.

'via Blog this'