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

100 Million Deaths, DDT, Malaria, Value of Life

Rachel Carson's Deadly Fantasies - Forbes:

Readers of this blog know that I believe ALL lives matter, and that I am intrigued, dismayed, perplexed and frustrated by the WIDE variation in how much given lives in fact do matter! To that end, I've come back to the issue of DDT and Malaria.

To make the longer story REALLY short, DDT came online at just the right point in history -- right as WWII was getting underway, and from 1943 - 1960, it saved on the order of HALF A BILLION ... yes, you heard that right, 500,000,000 lives!!!  If you have time to read just the very early part of this article, it is WELL worth your time!

Then, along came "Silent Spring" -- a FICTIONAL work, that was supposedly based on science, but was not, that is credited with founding the environmental movement. The results of the world wide emotional backlash against DDT were immediately catastrophic, and if you must see the "punchline", at least 100 MILLION dead, making Carlson in the ranks of the greatest mass murderers in history:

In Ceylon, for example, where, as noted, DDT use had cut malaria cases from millions per year in the 1940s down to just 17 by 1963, its banning in 1964 led to a resurgence of half a million victims per year by 1969.[18] In many other countries, the effects were even worse.

By 1970, the National Academy of Sciences was worried, they tried to head off the rush to disaster with this:

To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. It has contributed to the great increase in agricultural productivity, while sparing countless humanity from a host of diseases, most notably, perhaps, scrub typhus and malaria. Indeed, it is estimated that, in little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria that would otherwise have been inevitable. Abandonment of this valuable insecticide should be undertaken only at such time and in such places as it is evident that the prospective gain to humanity exceeds the consequent losses. At this writing, all available substitutes for DDT are both more expensive per crop-year and decidedly more hazardous.[19]

But it was banned in the US anyway, and many other places to follow.

And even for those that did not, the halting of American DDT exports (since U.S. producers slowed and then stopped manufacturing it) made DDT much more expensive, and thus effectively unavailable for poor countries in desperate need of the substance.[25] As a result, insect-borne diseases returned to the tropics with a vengeance. By some estimates, the death toll in Africa alone from unnecessary malaria resulting from the restrictions on DDT has exceeded 100 million people.[26]

I did more reading this PM on DDT than I really wanted to ... the guy that wrote this article used to eat a teaspoon of it before his speeches! He died of a heart attack at age 84.

I could ramble on -- in general, danger to humans, very close to nil. Danger to birds, nothing if used in ANY sort of sensible way -- the issue of eggshells / eagles is from having it virtually POURED on fields for no good reason other than it was "cheap and effective so more must be better".

Back to the important point, LIFE!

No images of lilu in her outfit today guys! ;-(

So a woman writes a fictional story about birds being killed at just the right time so a bunch of lefties go off the deep end about a pesticide that has saved HALF A BILLION lives, and it is banned!  We finally start getting back to use it FIFTY YEARS  after it's banning has killed well over 100 MILLION !!!

I understand that most of the lives saved and lost were black, and I certainly understand that from the point of view of the left-liberal-progressives in this country, black lives are "pawns". They are CRITICAL as a voting block today, but as 6K young black men die in the streets here by shooting each year, those lives matter as much as the lives of babes in their mothers wombs. Abortion falls especially hard on the black, which was the intention of Margret Sanger and the eugenicists.

The gay guys that died from AIDs mattered HUGELY, although far, FAR less than a common street thug that attacked a police officer in Ferguson. His life approached the worth of an assassinated US president if one considers the amount of media time spent on it.

OTOH, many many thousands of deaths of poorly educated white people in an epidemic of suicide and substance abuse are worth even less than those of the young urban black men shooting each other!

My answer is that we have abandoned any sense of proportion, reason and morality and are being completely driven by a politically controlled media, government and educational monolith under single party (D) control that is 100% directed to gaining and locking in POWER.

I'd like to hear alternative answers.


'via Blog this'

In Praise of Racism

How To Drive Right Wing Racists Insane With One Simple Question:

Racism --  (Google) The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Edward O. Wilson, "The Meaning of Human Intelligence", p30 and 31, 

"A second overpowering human behavior is the overpowering instinctual urge to belong to groups." ... "A persons membership in his group--his tribe--is a large part of his identity. It also confers on him some degree or other of a sense of superiority".  

The text following this gives scientific backing to these statements, but I suspect we are all humans here, we know them to be true in our very souls. A little later, we find:

".... people prefer to be with others who look like them, speak the same dialect, and hold the same beliefs." 

Wilson of course knows he is on dangerous ground and attempts to couch his obviously true statements because he knows that the dominant culture thinks like the linked article. I really like this quote from early in "Meaning of Human Intelligence" :

"When Carl Sagan won the Pulitzer Prize for nonfiction in 1978, I dismissed it as a minor achievement for a scientist, scarcely worth listing. When I won the same prize the following year, it wondrously became a major literary award of which scientists should take special note."

 A marvelous and HONEST statement of human nature! We love ourselves and we love our group -- either we were created that way or we became that way because it was adaptive. Either way, that is who we are for at least many tens and hundreds of thousands of years to come -- assuming we can survive.

The one modification easy to make to the definition is the "all" -- it is of course "most", and the fact that our natural feeling is that our group is superior can be intellectually and spiritually tempered. It will still exist in our hearts, because it is our wiring, but with the help of God it can be channeled as can the other parts of our fallen nature.

We could re-write the racist definition as "Blacks believing that all blacks are superior and therefore black lives matter more than others".  It is totally clear that many current blacks are racist and extremely proud to be so, which I'd argue is the main reason that many whites are responding in kind in a world that has long left behind the unifying factor of Christian belief. Both blacks and whites are human, and barring belief and practice of a religion that specifies improved behavior, they behave accordingly.

The essence of the column above is our old friend the inversion. The "liberal" ideology/religion defines "minority" to be  "good" (even when they become the majority), and "traditional majority" (ie. white) to be "evil". This is directly in opposition to human nature, which "just is". Christianity seeks to IMPROVE on fallen human nature, not invert it. "Love your neighbor AS YOURSELF" doesn't say "learn to hate yourself, then your neighbor will seem better". It seeks to properly channel our fallen state back to God.

The purpose of leftism is to DESTROY the natural order.  Taking the natural inclination of people to love themselves (see previous Pulitzer prize) and to love their family, religion, race, ethnicity, tradition, etc and to INVERT it so that large groups are to be accepted in the new group/religion ("liberalism" / TP) by declaring their self-loathing for the natural order previously listed (self, family, etc). In order to be part of the "The Party"(TP-D), they are required to tell a lie against their very nature -- "Black Lives Matter -- but white lives do not!".

It is sad that such people as the author of the article never find me to interview -- the picture at the head of the article looks exactly like so many liberals that I have calmly explained my thoughts to. It is clear that their "tolerance" is extremely limited.

So, my off the cuff answer to "Why am I a proud white person"? The question from the article that is supposed to "drive me insane".

I believe that pride is natural but dangerous, I prefer to consider myself a BLESSED White Christian, but in the spirit of the question.

Christendom, Western civilization, the Constitution, Newtonian Physics, Albert Einstein, Edmund Burke, Winston Churchill, flight, the Moon Landing, electricity, clean water and sanitation, Scotch, Bourbon and the Green Bay Packers.

With the modifications above, I am a "proud racist" -- as a fallen human, as is the author of the article. They seek to deny their very nature and declare that they are no longer human. I seek to accept my fallen condition and become more like Christ with the help of the Holy Spirit.

As we watch the rest of  2016, we have a ringside seat for human nature and we can all see if it is redeemed by "liberalism" or if it could use some more of the help of God.

'via Blog this'

BO Made Protesting Trump Illegal

Protesting Donald Trump is Now a Federal Crime - Hit & Run : Reason.com:

There is irony, then there is irony so rich that it defies description -- the punchline, HR 347, signed into law by BO in 2012 makes it felony with up to 10 years in prison to "disrupt" events where someone under Secret Service protection is speaking!!

What might be a surprise is the fact that quietly and right under our noses in 2012, Congress nearly unanimously passed H.R. 347 (a.k.a. the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act) which makes it a federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison to "willfully and knowingly" enter a restricted area or to engage in "disorderly or disruptive conduct" that in any way impedes "government business or official functions." 

Signed into law by President Obama, this supposed tweak of a pre-existing law effectively criminalized protest of any person under the protection of the Secret Service, a select group which includes both major parties' front-runners for the presidential nomination. During the general election, the nominees of both parties are automatically assigned Secret Service protection, but Hillary Clinton, as a former first lady, is entitled to a Secret Service detail for the rest of her life, and Donald Trump has had a detail assigned to him since last November.

One has gotta love this! Every time I've been at any sort of Republican event that isn't just a local thing that isn't in the news, there have been protesters, picket lines or hecklers.  If you wanted to attend, you needed to not be intimidated. The left has a LONG history of using violence and intimidation to shut down speech that is not in agreement with them and to get their way.

This is a testament to the lack of interest in free speech in this country by BOTH political parties and a pretty good testament to why we may actually NEED Trump! I'm very surprised that BO signed this one -- he must have assumed that since the left controls the judiciary, cases from that side would just get thrown out.

Probably another asset to one party rule like the IRS. Prosecute the opposition if they demonstrate, make sure your thugs get a pass.

Want to bet how many of the felons protesting at Trump rallies get jail???

'via Blog this'