Thursday, December 31, 2015

Modern Courts and Ignorance of the Rule of Law

This coming year, the Supreme Court will take on some major cases dealing with abortion, affirmative action, the contraceptive mandate in Obamacare, and Obama's attempt to circumvent Congress on immigration law.

As we have seen with other cases from the Supreme Court, the Court is no stranger to legislating from the bench in order to promote leftist ideology. In Roe v. Wade, the court contrived a federal "right" to abortion. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the court stepped on state constitutions to invent a "right" to same sex marriage. In King v. Burwell, the court upheld Obama's "right" to change the law concerning Obamacare willy-nilly.

Since today's Supreme Court leans to the left on social issues, we can assume that the decisions this coming year will maintain the progressive status quo which will once again ignore the plain meaning of the US Constitution, step on the rights of all citizens, and ignore the rule of law.

In order to ignore the rule of law, progressive ideology preaches the doctrine of "social justice," yet never clearly defines what constitutes justice. Instead, it names some vague ideals surrounding the term "equality." Progressive "equality" is another vague term which changes almost daily with the liberal cause du jour.

While progressives may logically argue their case for their ill-defined social justice, they do so by resorting to false premises which ignore the rule of law and threaten to destabilize the entire country.

I am reminded of a quote by the English Judge William Blackstone:
The liberty of considering all cases in an equitable light must not be indulged too far, lest thereby we destroy all law, and leave the decision of every question entirely in the breast of the judge. And law, without equity, tho’ hard and disagreeable, is much more desirable for the public good, than equity without law; which would make every judge a legislator, and introduce most infinite confusion; as there would be almost as many rules of action laid down in our courts, as there are differences of capacity and sentiment in the human mind.
As we approach the national elections in 2016, remember that one of the responsibilities of the President of the United States is to nominate federal judges. Electing a president who will recommend justices who further the progressive deconstruction of the United States will have far reaching effects toward supporting or destroying the rule of law.

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

What Is Equality? The Progressive Vision


A stamp from the USPS which promotes the division of society.

Sometime during the past decade or so, progressives began flinging around the term "equality" as seemingly the most important principle on which the US was founded. However, the definition of equality for progressives is far different than the term as originally understood when Thomas Jefferson penned the phrase "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence.

If we are to defeat the worst abuses of progressivism, we must understand that when progressives say "equality" they really mean two things.

First is the socialist ideal of economic equality, where the government controls wages and prices, and also provides "free" services, so that everyone maintains some fanciful Utopian ideal. That this ideal is an unattainable chimera has never seemed to bother socialists. That such an ideal tends to promote totalitarian systems is largely ignored.

Second, and more damaging to American society, is the ideal that "oppressed" groups of people are entitled to more opportunities than non-oppressed groups. This ideal is extremely dangerous to society because of the undefined and slippery term "oppressed." In today's world, according to progressives, nearly everyone belongs to an oppressed group (except heterosexual white males and anyone who holds conservative ideals).

We see that this skewed ideal of equality promotes the most outlandish and silly categories of "oppressed" people. Progressives seem perfectly comfortable calling black, white when it suits their ideology. Hence, whites can be Black (Rachel Dolezal). Blacks can be white (Clarence Thomas). Men can be women (Bruce Jenner). Women can be men (Hillary Clinton). And on and on and on.

Worse than these artificial categories is the propaganda used to support progressive claims to their ideals of equality. Progressives use propaganda in to form of "facts" as made up by progressive propagandists. For every outlandish claim to equality, a progressive will point to some study or another which uses false premises to support it.

This is the way of propagandists throughout history. As F.A. Hayek put it:
The thrust of organized, systematic propaganda, especially in totalitarian states, centers precisely on facts and causation as the pivots of belief.
Non-progressives are able to see the harm to society that such a view promotes. The basic problem stems from the inherent inequality of such ideals. To promote one group over another is to promote inequality, not equality. To support the inherent inequality, progressives use propaganda to drive public opinion. Such propaganda creates an ever-increasing divide among the people of the United States which will lead to a breaking point.

In the world of fantasy equality, we must ground ourselves in the reality of the physical world, and we must understand history to show us what works and what doesn't work.

Monday, December 28, 2015

Why We Have a Difficult Time Selling the Idea of the Free Market

Cholita at a mercado in La Paz, Bolivia

Democracies thrive on the principles of the free market. The market economy always trends toward an equilibrium between price and cost, and between supply and demand.

The free market has always been distrusted by socialists, who in the US now call themselves progressives. (In the case of Bernie Sanders, he admits he's a socialist, but qualifies himself as a "democratic socialist" which basically means that the people are deluded into voting to give government control over the economy.) Socialism is highly seductive, offering the illusion that government can manage the economy to create a fair and equitable system for everyone.

When the socialist system inevitably fails to deliver sufficient goods to the people, those who operate the system can easily explain its failure.

They blame others.

For example, with the readily predicted failures of Obamacare, progressive politicians blame Republican interference. The US is $18.8 trillion dollars in debt? It's Bush's fault. Students aren't passing basic math and English standards? We haven't spent enough money on education. There are still poor people? Rich people have stolen all the money through greed.

There is no end to progressive blame throwing.

Progressive programs have a long and venerable history of failure, yet progressives sell their bankrupt ideas with the promise that more money or fewer Republicans will fix everything. Their arguments and conclusions are entirely false, but that doesn't matter to a population seduced into thinking that the government will pay their medical bills, or for their cars and houses.

Getting back to the market system, we know that it works because it has produced the richest countries with the least amount of poverty in history. Even the poor people of the US have more than people from non-market and non-democratic countries.

Yet the market system is a difficult sell. It doesn't have the seductive promise of (illusory) equality. It doesn't pretend to promise to take care of all the nation's poor. Most people cannot even readily explain why a market economy is so successful. Even those who have promoted it, such as Adam Smith, rely on vague explanations of its success ("the invisible hand").

And that is why, in today's world of ignorant Americans, the market system is distrusted. It's a far more difficult sell than the unicorn promises of socialism.

As the free market diminishes, so does democracy.

Friday, December 25, 2015

Merry Christmas from Euripides Self Evident Truths

Painting by my friend Howard Lyon

A Blessed Christmas and a Happy New Year to you. May the peace of the season find a place in your heart. May you and your families be blessed. May you find courage to recognize what's good and right in the world. May the light of Christ shine before you to light your way in dark times.

Thursday, December 24, 2015

Putting Our Faith in Politicians


If there is one failure among people on both sides of the political spectrum, it is the belief that electing a certain person, or a person representing a political party, will "fix" the problems of the country. This faith and belief in politicians is folly of the highest order.

I am reminded of a statement from an economist made 40 years ago:
The prime problem of politicians is not to serve the public good but to get elected to office and remain in power (Harry G. Johnson).
The principle was true then. The principle is true now.

This coming year we must nominate, then elect, someone as president of the United States. While none of the candidates can "fix" all the problems we face, we can be assured that some of the candidates will certainly make things worse.

Stop listening to the pleasing words of candidates who tell us things we only want to hear. Stop basing your preferences on trivialities of showmanship. Stop believing that a single person can wave a magic wand and reform the US to your satisfaction.

Be informed. Choose a candidate who has consistently worked to improve the US. Choose wisely.


Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Book Recommendation - War: The Lethal Custom by Gwynne Dyer


Years ago, I was introduced to Gwynne Dyer's book entitled War: The Lethal Custom. I recently picked up the book again and have been reviewing the video series that he made back in the 80s. While his overall thesis surrounds his desire for humans to give up war as a human institution, Dyer does retain a realistic sense that such a thing may never happen as long as humans remain human.

As he says:
The universe does not give guarantees. But change is certainly possible, provided that we understand the nature of the institution we are trying to change and are willing to accept the consequences of changing it.
I am more cynical and pragmatic than Gwynne Dyer. I agree with his ideal, that we as humans ought to strive to end war. I do not think, however, that imperfect governments can or will band together to broker an uneasy peace across the world. There are still far too many dangerous types of governments, including the socialism that modern progressives are trying to build out of the US. All the great evils of the 20th Century arose from the foibles of trusting government to "fix" the inequities of humans. The ideals behind ISIS rest on socialism as a means to force others to convert to Islam or die.

I also substantively disagree with Dyer about the causes of war. Conservatives tend toward an understanding of human nature that liberals cannot grasp. Dyer, being more liberal in his views, doesn't see the value of honor and patriotism in helping humans get along in groups. He also doesn't quite view evil as an absolute (except of course, the absolute evil of war). Most of you will disagree with Dyer in his analysis of war.

Still, the book is worth a read. The video series is also worth watching once. All the parts are on YouTube.

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

My Christmas Wish List or How to Fix Our Government


Dear Santa:

For Christmas this year I'd like the following which, I believe, would go a long way toward fixing our government. You won't have to make anything for me, or even bring me anything. All you need to do is to get rid of some things that make life difficult.

1) Repeal Obamacare and deregulate the health insurance industry.
Obamacare's killing me off, Santa. My monthly health insurance payments now cost more than my house payment.

Remember a long while back when telecommunications was deregulated? Everyone thought that catastrophe would strike the telephone industry. To be honest, for awhile prices went up, especially for long distance services. Then the market took over and startup businesses started competing with Ma Bell and AT&T. Today, you can call someone across the world, using a phone no bigger than a pack of cards, and pay pennies for the service.

If health insurance companies had to compete across the entire US, we'd see a real drop in the cost of insurance. In return, I believe the insurance companies would help stabilize the exorbitant cost of medical care. Yes, we'd see several years of chaos as insurance companies scrambled to provide services, and yes, we'd see a market equilibrium reached that defied anything the "Affordable" Care Act could ever produce.

2) Disband the Department of Education and remove federal education mandates on states.
Frankly, Santa, the ED is getting in the way of our children's education, instead of promoting it.

Getting rid of the ED would have three effects. First, schools based on touchy-feely progressivism would lose out to more pragmatic educational practices. (Creating pragmatic education is what I currently do in the private sector.) Second, progressives would lose a major hold on indoctrinating our children to create ignorant liberals. Third, such a measure would piss off progressives. That is always a good thing.

3) Disband the EPA.
If there ever was a money waster, Santa, the EPA is the Grand Poobah.

The EPA ceased to be relevant some time in the 1980s. Today, the agency just piles on more and more regulation which merely promotes increased cost of production.

4) Repeal the entire federal tax code.
No one understands the tax code now Santa. No one. Start over. Try again. Rewrite the thing.

Better yet, help Congress figure out how to run the federal government without stealing money from Americans.

5) Get rid of the Department of Homeland Security.
Do you feel safer with the DHS Santa? I sure don't.

The idea behind the DHS was to coordinate intel between several government agencies in order to combat terrorism. What was really created was a policing agency that interferes with the everyday lives of Americans without producing noticeable results.

Frankly, the whole "Homeland" idea sounds a little too much like the "Fatherland" of Germany or the "Motherland" of the Soviet Union. Wouldn't it be better if we went back to being "The United States of America?"

These easy fixes would go a long way into making the US a better place for everyone, especially for our struggling middle class. What do you think, Santa? Could you possibly give us a Merry Christmas this year by getting rid of these money pits?

Monday, December 21, 2015

Blogging Along or Coming Out of the Closet


In 2008, I and several other folks started blogging because we saw a clear and present danger in the push to legalize same sex marriage. We noted that gay activists had latched on to rich and corrupt donors, had sympathetic and unthinking media support, and had finally convinced enough people that homosexuality was somehow a protected class, covered by the 14th Amendment. Through a long and expensive process, the Supreme Court agreed and effectively destroyed the institution of marriage by declaring that marriage had no real meaning in today's society.

Initially, I had begun blogging anonymously because I was square in the middle of a profession where jobs are usually held only by those who maintain the highest standards of progressive dogma, or who happen to be a gender or skin color that is acceptable to the educational establishment. As most of what I have written seems highly offensive to the long-toed left, and because I have been active in several organizations that are anathema to modern progressivism, I've kept the moniker of Euripides.

The caution was justified at the time, as I and others who supported one man-one woman marriage were threatened with physical violence, with legal action, and with cowardly and petty acts of hatred.

Over the years, many have learned my name. I'm proud to be friends with several fellow bloggers who keep plugging away day after day and year after year to uncover the follies of progressivism. Others, among the perpetually-offended class, who discovered who I really was, have gone out of their way to try to force me out of my chosen profession. And do you know what? To some extent they have been successful.

Over the years, I've been marginalized at the school where I've taught for over 20 years. I've been passed over for several positions which were filled by less qualified, but politically correct people. Teaching hours were cut because the school didn't want to pay for Obamacare-mandated insurance for most of its faculty. The school stopped contributing to a pension plan.

To continue in education, I turned to the private sector and got hired as director of a private school. Yet, even as I doubled the student enrollment and filled the campus, I was suddenly and illogically pushed out of my job and replaced by, you might guess, a less qualified black woman. Even in the private sector, education is ruled by political correctness and inane progressivism.

Which is all a long way around a short horse to say that even though I have generally hidden my identity from the general public as a proud and outspoken advocate of the US Constitution, I have still been marginalized by political correctness. There is no hiding the fact that our modern education has been derailed by progressives who despise anyone who holds an opinion different from their own and who will disenfranchise anyone they disagree with.

As for me, there is simply no reason to remain anonymous any longer, as schools continue to enforce poor thinking, and society in general grows ever more ignorant. In short, my work is no longer at risk because I've been forced to seek employment among people who still appreciate the value of an education, rather than the indoctrination of ignorance.

I will continue to post as Euripides, as there is value in maintaining a "brand name." And who knows, with the change in my life's direction, I may find time to write that book I've started.

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Suggested Readings in US History


As part of my classes in US History, I require students to read books and write summaries of them. Here's a short and quite incomplete list of some books that I can recommend to take a closer look at US History. You'll note that I lean toward military history. Your tastes may differ. 

What are some of your favorites?

Early US History:

James West Davidson, After the Fact - A fascinating look at the history that isn't covered in a typical textbook.
Kenneth C. Davis, Don't Know Much About History: Everything You Need to Know About American History but Never Learned - An interesting book that gives a question and answer format to talk about all the history that the textbooks gloss over. Be sure to read the revised edition, which includes information on the Clinton administration and 9/11.
Frederick Douglass, Autobiography - Douglass wrote this book in part to prove that he did indeed escape from slavery and became an educated proponent of abolition.
Joseph J. Ellis, His Excellency: George Washington - A fairly concise biography of one of the great people in US history. Check out Ellis' other book Founding Brothers as well.
Shelby Foote, Shiloh - Okay, it's historical fiction, but it's a terrific account of what it was like to fight at Shiloh during the Civil War.
Ben Franklin, Autobiography - One of the truly great men of history, his autobiography is on my personal required reading list of U.S. history.
Adam Goodheart, 1861: The Civil War Awakening - A readable account of the ideas and events leading up to the first battle of the Civil War. It includes a lot of ideas not expressed in other books and places the accountability of the war directly on the inability of the US to compromise on the question of slavery.
David McCullough, 1776 - A popular and readable book that gives a modern interpretation of the military events surrounding the establishment of the US.
James McPherson, Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution - One of the best on the Civil War. Check out his other books.
Edmund Morgan, Puritan Dilemma - Edmund Morgan is one of the better historians in colonial history. You can also check out his biography of George Washington.
Edmund Morgan, Benjamin Franklin - A great biography of a most interesting man.
Thomas Paine, Common Sense - Here's where it all started. Although a little difficult because of the language, this is well worth studying to understand the foundations of American Liberty.
Marion Starkey, The Devil in Massachusetts - Salem has always fascinated me and this is a good place to start.
Ronald C. White, Jr., A. Lincoln: A Biography - A good biography of the great president's life. This covers his entire life, not just the Civil War period.

Later US History:

Stephen E. Ambrose, Band of Brothers - A readable account of Easy Company of the 101st Airborne Division during World War II. Heartrending and funny at the same time. First rate storytelling of the US soldiers who fought in the war.
Stephen E. Ambrose, Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors -A good introduction to these two which also sheds light on the controversial period of the war between the U.S. and the Sioux. Quite readable.
Rick Atkinson, Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War - This is fabulous reading. Atkinson's writing is compelling and the story is a fair representation of the Gulf War.
Mark Bowden, Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War - This book is about a mostly forgotten episode in Somalia. Written in journalistic style, this is not for the weak of stomach. It lacks some of the historical background I would have liked to see but is a quick read.
Sean Cashman, African-Americans and the Quest for Civil Rights 1900-1990 - A good outline of the civil rights movement in the US.
Laura Hillenbrand, Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, and Redemption - A readable and inspiring biography of Louis Zamperini, an Olympic distance runner, who served on a B-26 bomber during WWII. He faced tremendous trials in combat, in surviving a month in a rubber raft, and as a prisoner of war to the Japanese.
Stanley Karnow, Vietnam: A History - Although longer than the others (669 pages) Karnow's book is readable and will give you a good background on the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Don't skip the sections on the earlier history, especially the French invovlement or you'll miss out on some important background.
C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite - Sociology of who really runs the country. Kind of dry reading, but an important contribution to understanding the US.
David Riesman, The Lonely Crowd - Sociology of individualism as it developed in the 20th century. Also kind of dry, but groundbreaking.
Frank Thompkins, Chasing Villa - A look at the clash between the U.S. and Mexico's Pancho Villa.
Robert M. Utley, The Lance and the Shield: The Life and Times of Sitting Bull - I have a lot of respect for Robert Utley and consider him the finest of historians who cover American Indians.
Tim Weiner, Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA - A thoroughly readable and chilling account of how the CIA formed, what it's original goals were, and how it got derailed by politics and its own agenda.

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Tips When You Buy Your New Gun


Whenever there is a mass shooting, either by wackos or by terrorists, the immediate response from the left is to posture for more gun laws. In direct response to political posturing that threatens the Second Amendment, the people of America go out and buy more guns.

I applaud those who wish to protect themselves and their loved ones buy purchasing a gun. That said, I want to offer a warning, yes, a warning to those who are considering buying a gun.

1) Take gun safety training.
I strongly encourage you to take gun safety training. Guns are tools, albeit deadly ones. Treat guns with respect and they will serve you in the purpose they were intended, to help defend you in a deadly situation. Remember the basic rules of gun safety:
  1. Treat every gun as if it were loaded.
  2. Never point your gun at anything you don't want to destroy.
  3. Be sure of your target and beyond.

2) Shoot at the range. All the time.
One of the scariest (yes, scariest) things I can think of is someone buying a gun, strapping it on, and feeling secure in having a gun with them, at the same time never having fired the gun. You must know how to fire your gun - not just any gun - the gun you just bought to carry with you. For example, I prefer shooting a full-sized 9 mm, or S&W 40, or a .45 ACP to shooting a .38 Special revolver with a 3" barrel. Why? Because the little revolver kicks like a mule and the muzzle flash burns my hand. Hence, I carry a larger gun. I enjoy shooting it at the range and am comfortable with it.

If you're not used to shooting your gun, get used to it. Shoot it at the range. Go to the range regularly to get the feel of the gun. Take the time to learn how to shoot your gun accurately.

3) Take a tactical shooting class.
There's a world of difference between shooting a handgun at the range and drawing and shooting under pressure of deadly contact. Take a tactical shooting class to become familiar with stance, drawing, aiming, and firing. Learn how to move and take cover. Learn how to double tap. Learn how to reload. Especially learn how to stay away from situations where you may need a gun.

4) Take the responsibility seriously.
Carrying a weapon means that you have a responsibility to protect the Second Amendment in a grown-up and responsible manner. Don't take the decision to carry a weapon lightly. When you carry a handgun you have the onus to recognize a potentially dangerous situation, to protect yourself and those around you.

Remember that if you should ever draw and fire a weapon in self defense, you will be responsible for the consequences of your actions. If you shoot yourself accidentally, you'll wind up with a large and messy hole in your body. If you shoot your friend accidentally, you'll go to jail. If you shoot an innocent bystander, you'll go to jail. If you shoot a dangerous perp, you'll be the hero.

5) Get a good holster.
Do not ever stuff a gun in your pocket or down your pants. That's a one way ticket to disaster. Get a good holster, making sure you can actually wear the thing. Comfortable holsters are your best friend when carrying a gun. There's a holster I can recommend from Crossbreed. If you carry a handgun in your purse or bag, get a good holster that covers the muzzle of the gun and keeps it clean.

6) Learn the law.
Learn the laws for carrying a gun. Here are a few things to consider:
  • Better safe than sorry with a police officer. Know the law when it comes to interacting with the police.
  • Here's an article from Guns & Ammo that outlines the basics.
  • Learn and know the places where you cannot carry a weapon, for example, bars, school campuses, police stations, and many government buildings.
Take care out there, and enjoy and respect your new gun.

Monday, December 14, 2015

Whinyism - The Left Just Keeps Getting More and More Annoying


The left keeps getting more and more whiny and annoying in their demands for whatever it is they think they want. These whiners don't really know what they want, except for some vague sense of entitlement. How are rational people supposed to understand what they want? I call this new trend among the left, whinyism.

Sometime in the not-too-distant past, whinyism replaced the left's attack on America and American culture. Instead of demanding their usual Marxist progressive changes to the economy, government, and social institutions, the whiners now demand that anything deemed offensive be eradicated. In their view, the world should hand them whatever they want on a 24 carat gold platter. Anyone or anything that gets in their way becomes the enemy.

Here are some brilliant examples of whinyism from just this past week.

Whinyism 1 - Uncomfortable 11th Grade Students
Mark Twain's story, Huckleberry Finn, has the dubious honor of being a top banned book in the US. Many argue that Twain's treatment of the subject of blacks is too racist for students' tender minds. Among some teachers and librarians, we should never be exposed to foul language such as the word negro, or especially nigger. (Of course, English teachers have no qualms about exposing students to the most foul and depressing language of, say, Catcher in the Rye.)

Once again, the debate over banning Huckleberry Finn has arisen, in Philadelphia schools (source). This time, however, a group of brainwashed students complained that the book made them feel "uncomfortable" and wasn't being "inclusive." The book was removed from schools in the county where those students complained.

As one school principal put it: "We have all come to the conclusion that the community costs of reading this book in 11th grade outweigh the literary benefits."

Yes, we must never allow students to be uncomfortable with any ideas contrary to progressive dogma. That is a community cost that must never be paid.

Whinyism 2 - Outraged Administrator
In Southern California, Ben Shapiro, a popular conservative radio talk show host, was invited to speak at a high school. His presentation was interrupted by an socialist school administrator who sent the students back to class. The crime? Shapiro made a comment about poor people being bad at handling money (source).

Of course, to progressives, the poor have absolutely no responsibility for themselves or their own welfare. Poor people are a monolith and must be taken care of by taxing the rich.

What struck me as whinyism, however, was the school administrator's reasons for sending students back to class. It is a mass of obfuscation and confusion:
I’m at a point right now where, quite frankly, I’m going to dismiss students. With all due respect, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Shapiro represents a narrative that he is providing to all of you guys based off of his opinion, what he believes and what he wants to share with all of you. I know that the education was there for all of you to understand, left-side, right-side, whatnot, but also the opportunity to allow for him to impress on you some of his opinions on certain things, and I think a lesson was there for you to understand.
The lesson, of course, is that no narrative that contradicts progressivism will be tolerated. With muddled thinking like this, it's no wonder our nation's education is dying.

Whinyism 3 - What's in a Name?
At a small college in Pennsylvania, students have banded together to demand that one of the buildings be renamed (source). The building, Lynch Memorial Hall, was named after a longtime president of the college. But, of course, to the whiny, offended students, the word "lynch" has racist overtones and offends them.

Perhaps all people with unfortunate names will now be banned from society? Perhaps they will be required to ring a bell and shout "Unclean! Unclean!"? How would Jack Black respond to that? Or how about Christian Bale? Or how about the Austrian footballer Christian Fuchs? (Which of his names is most offensive?)

Whinyism 4 - Too Aryan
If getting offended by a building's name isn't a sure sign of whinyism, how about getting offended by someone's looks? Camille Paglia, a modern socialist social critic, condemned Taylor Swift in a recent article (source). Condemning Swift and her "posse," Paglia suggested that Swift "retire that obnoxious Nazi Barbie routine."

Let's review this one. Paglia feels perfectly justified in commenting on Taylor Swift by condemning her as 1) one of the most evil political movements in the whole of history, and 2) as a doll, because of Swift's looks.

Conclusion
The whinyism of the left grows ever more shrill, unfocused, bizarre, and petty. Yet it is dangerous because it allies itself with politics and the power elite represented by Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama, or Nancy Pelosi. It is especially dangerous as it is now the norm within our educational system. Now that nearly every school has developed whinyism as its central doctrine, entire generations of children will grow old without ever growing up.

Thursday, December 10, 2015

Religious Freedom Is At Risk Due to Global Climate Change


With the Western media circus trying to spin the danger of Islamist terrorism into a whirlwind of nonsense, one unlikely danger has appeared which I find quite disturbing. I recently read a news item from the Associated Press (Source) about the climate summit in Paris. Some of those involved in the summit have decided that religion and churches need to be brought on board to make people "believe" in the dangers of global climate change. To these scientists and politicians, the ideology of climate change just isn't reaching a wide enough audience. To really "sell" the idea of global climate change, we should employ churches and religion.

Think about what that means. Scientists who want to spread their dogmas of global warming want to enlist churches to make people believe in the dangers of global warming. Here's the idea from the AP article:
The world will not act enough on climate change,..."until we teach this in every church, every mosque, every synagogue, every temple."
This is nothing less than the attempt by ideologues to impose changes to religious doctrine in order to bring about changes in the new world order. This is like Henry VIII telling the Church to change the rules of marriage so he could divorce Catherine of Aragon. This is like Louis XIV telling the bishops they couldn't leave France to appeal to the Pope. While those in charge have changed names, suggesting political leaders dictate what should be preached over the pulpit is still a bad idea.

It is a dangerous abuse of power. It is abhorrent. It can be nothing more than propaganda - using biased information to lead people to a certain political view. Yet, such propaganda is completely acceptable to progressives who think they know better than everyone else in the world how to run governments and now, apparently, religions.

Such propaganda should be immediately suspect among church leaders. Unfortunately, the current Pope has made a career out of preaching the gospel of climate change, setting a standard for other church leaders to follow. Think of the dangers if all believers are taught to give in to governments which want to make radical changes to the world order based on a flimsy climate theory.

Such propaganda is also the antithesis of scientific discovery. When so-called scientists want to appeal to religious faith to convince people of the "reality" of global climate change, we should immediately suspect that science has indeed failed to live up to its own standards of proving hypotheses to form theories.

The US Constitution's 1st Amendment was written because the Founding Fathers knew of the dangers to religion and to people if government dictated religious belief. They knew the history of England with its civil wars between Catholics and Protestants when one king or another gained power. The protection of the free exercise of religion must be maintained in order for a people to remain free to disbelieve what government preaches.

I'll end with a quote from one of the great propagandists of all time, Joseph Goebbels, with only slight changes to the text:
[Progressivism] is a religion. All we lack is a religious genius capable of uprooting outmoded religious practices and putting new ones in their place. We lack traditions and ritual. One day soon [Progressivism] will be the religion of all [Americans]. My Party is my church, and I believe I serve the Lord best if I do his will, and liberate my oppressed people from the fetters of slavery. That is my gospel.
If you are unsure what the consequences are of Goebbels' "liberation," I suggest you read William Shirer's important history The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

Friday, November 27, 2015

A Handy Dandy Guide to Understanding Obamaspeak


President Obama, like any socialist politician, uses code phrases peculiar to leftist dogma. Understanding and decoding the obfuscation, distortion, confusing language, and doubletalk can be a daunting task. I've collected here a few phrases that Obama has used recently, and I have thoughtfully provided a translation of the real meaning behind the code of Obamaspeak.

I think we made some bad decisions subsequent to that attack [9/11] in part based on fear, and that's why we have to be cautious about it.

What President Obama is really saying is that he still blames George Bush for the state of Muslim countries in the past, as well as today. And, of course, he blames Bush for creating ISIL (despite being founded in 1999) and blames Bush for all subsequent terrorist responses. Implicit is the idea that Obama knows supremely better than anyone on the planet how to lead the US against terrorism.


We'll deliver justice to these terrorists and those who sent them.

President Obama's idea of justice consists of dropping a few bombs here and there, bravely authorizing air sorties, then recalling the military before it can do any real harm to terrorists. President Obama's peculiar strategy also includes that idea that he should apply US law when it comes to finding terrorists, but ignore the law when it comes to keeping whole populations of the US safe, for example, by allowing nearly unrestrained immigration.


Well, no, I don't think they're [ISIL] gaining strength. 

Obama famously said this hours before the attack on Paris. He meant to reassure the liberal US media that his strategy of not containing ISIL is really working. What that means in reality is that ISIL is now free to travel about the world, to wreak havoc on innocent lives, and to destroy property wholesale.


Cooperation and support of France would continue....

President Obama means that he'll assign someone in the State Department to think about France every now and again. He has no intention of changing US policy in the Mideast. With Obama's recent talks with the French president, Obama spewed even more empty rhetoric than usual.


Coalition of 62 countries....

President Obama means by this statement, repeated several times in the past week, that his coalition is bigger and better than George Bush's MNF coalition at the start of the Iraq war. The untold story is that Obama's coalition doesn't provide combat troops, nor does it really do much to stop ISIL.


No specific and credible threat....

This is President Obama's standard code phrase whenever he is asked about the possibility of terrorist acts in the US. It basically means, "We have no idea. There could be an attack or not. If there's an attack, we can argue plausible deniability. If there is no attack, our policy is vindicated."


If there’s one thing that threatens opportunity and prosperity for all of us… it’s the threat of a changing climate.

This is the biggest red herring in President Obama's rhetorical arsenal. Obama uses the threat of climate change as a liberal bludgeon to beat today's real issues from the brains of an otherwise thinking population:

Muslims are attacking and killing people in Paris? Climate change is a real threat!

Liberal cities are falling apart at the seams, rioting and killing cops? Hey! Look at that climate change!

Obamacare is falling to pieces and is threatening to be crushed under its own weight? Climate change is a much, much bigger threat. The oceans will rise. The polar bears will die. The heat will cause the poor Syrians to become terrorists.


I hope this little exercise in decoding Obamaspeak will help guide you along the way to understanding the biggest danger we face today, namely President Obama's bankrupt policies. Don't be fooled by Obamaspeak.



Monday, November 23, 2015

Milton Friedman Quote: Equality Destroys Freedom


I was reading a work by Milton Friedman and came across this quote, which is a concise expression of the reason why modern progressive dogma is so dangerous:

The argument is not that it is literally impossible to reduce or eliminate specific instances of inequality, but that the very processes created to do so generate other inequalities, including dangerous inequalities of power caused by expanding the role of government.... 
A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.

Saturday, November 21, 2015

Video: Modern Educayshun

You may have already seen this, but I just found it, and it deserves to be seen again and again.


Funny. Sad. But True.

Friday, November 20, 2015

Short Review of Ulysses S. Grant: A Victor, Not a Butcher


The main point of this book by Edward H. Bonekemper III should not be a surprise to anyone who's acquainted with the history of the Civil War. The author goes to great lengths to prove his thesis that Grant was a victorious general who didn't deserve the epithet as a butcher of men. Instead, Bonekemper argues that Grant deserves a high place among all generals throughout history for his ability to win.

To me, the thesis was obvious and the book provided no great revelations. Nor did it provide an extensive biography of Grant. Nor was it terribly lucid in dealing with the many, many commanders of the Civil War.

The book, however, did provide a fast-paced recounting of Grant's battles and did demonstrate why Grant really should be included in a list of great generals throughout history. While it provided sketchy outlines of Grant's tactics, it did clearly delineate his strategies in his western campaign, in taking Vicksburg, and in his ability to finally destroy Lee's army. I would have liked the author to have spent a bit more research and time in detailing Grant's tactics when covering each battle.

The best generals in history win the love of the men who follow them. Grant's men admired him and trusted him to make their efforts, and in many cases, their deaths, have meaning. I came away from the book with a better appreciation for Grant as a commander who time and again won the trust of those who served under him.

This is not a great book to really learn about the life of US Grant, nor is it a great introduction to the Civil War. However, if you are familiar with Civil War history, Bonekemper's book will add a new dimension to understanding Grant and add a new appreciation for Grant's ability to command.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

The First Black Man I Met at UCLA


When I first started attending UCLA, I made a tour of the campus to find such things as the graduate library, the student union, and the big statue of the bear. Just outside of the student union, a black man in his thirties came over to me, acting like I was his long-lost best friend.

He said something to me that strikes me to this day. Extending his hand he said, "It's all right. You can shake the hand of a black man."

I remember that moment so well because it was the first time I realized that racism - real racism, not the fantasy of progressive agitators - was a two way street. The stranger in front of the student union assumed that because I was white, I would immediately assume him to be a threat or some such nonsense. It wasn't until he made reference to himself in such a disparaging way, that I had even thought to mistrust or misjudge him.

As it turned out, he was panhandling and wanted me to give him money. In LA, no panhandlers ever tell you directly that they want money. Instead they make up lies to make you feel sorry for them. In the case of this guy on campus, he gave me a story about raising money to fund some activist group or another. No, he was not legit.

Since that time, I've watched progressive dogma drive a wedge ever deeper into the black community, fomenting a greater hatred of others and disfranchising entire communities from mainstream America.

Within modern liberal dogma, class and race warfare must continue to be spread in order to justify an ever more expensive, powerful, and intrusive government. Like that man at UCLA, liberals always use shame and disdain for others to promote their panhandling agenda.

Monday, November 16, 2015

Some Thoughts on the Islamist Terrorist Attack in Paris


This past week, there were over 40 Islamist terrorist attacks in the world. The series of attacks that killed 129 people in Paris was the largest and the deadliest, yet on the same day, a suicide bomber in Bagdad killed 21 people and wounded 46 while attending a funeral. The day before in Beirut, two Sunni suicide bombers killed 43 people and wounded 240 in a Shia residential neighborhood.

This is the face of evil. Islamism is a plague, wantonly killing the innocent.

Yet, what strikes me about the attacks in Paris is the predictable and stupid reaction of most media sources which refuse to name the enemy and refuse to acknowledge the evil for what it really is. Searching news sites, we rarely find any sources willing to mention the word Islam (or Islamism, or radical Islam) in connection with the killings. In fact, leftists go out of their way to exonerate Islam in order not to appear bigoted or judgmental. Left wing liberals have crawled out of the woodwork to assure us that Islam is not the enemy. At least the New York Times blames those with an Islamist ideology for the violence.

Many news sources call this "senseless violence." While it is violence, it only appears senseless to ideologues who deny that Islamists have declared war on any who oppose their depraved and evil demands. Islamic terrorists have devolved into a sort of Medieval barbarism, waging a war against all whom they perceive to stand in their way. Viewed as ideological warfare, the violence may be abhorrent, but it does makes sense.

President Obama, after declaring that ISIS was contained the day before the attack on Paris, also thinks that it was “an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.” Islamists know who their enemies are. It is a shame that the president of the US refuses to acknowledge our enemies are, and it is a crime that he refuses to protect the people of our country.

After the Paris attacks, several of my more illiberal friends posted on Facebook and tweeted that the real blame for the attacks on Paris, and for the creation of ISIS, was George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. ISIS originated in 1999 (when Clinton was president) with a resurgence in 2013 (when Obama was president). ISIS declared a worldwide caliphate in 2014. During the war in Iraq, the Sunni group spent most of its time blowing up Shia Muslims. After the surge in Iraq, al-Qaeda and ISIS (and several other terrorist factions) were fractured to a crisis point and were forced into hiding. It was only after Obama reduced the US military in Iraq that ISIS became a unified terrorist force, attacking and wantonly slaughtering Shia Muslims in Iraq and Syria.

Of course my befuddled leftist friends think that the US is the Great Satan (if they actually believed in Satan), because we dared to interfere with the "peaceful" Muslims when Bush was president. We deserve the blowback from ISIS. Such reasoning is like sitting in a restaurant and seeing a man out on the street getting mugged and shot by gangsters. When we try to gather our friends together to go help the man, they say, "Nah. He probably deserved it." Blaming the victim for the evil actions of the perpetrator is logic that can only be understood by a liberal ideologue.

Lastly, in response to the attacks in Paris, some of the infants posing as college students who apparently hadn't finished complaining about how oppressed they feel, instead complained about how the attacks in Paris stole the spotlight from them. As an example, one ignorant child tweeted: "Interesting how the news reports are covering the Paris terrorist attacks but said nothing about the terrorist attack at #Mizzou." There were hundreds of such inanities, comparing the hurt feelings of some Mizzou students to terrorist attacks. After all, how dare the news media cover terrorists blowing up and shooting hundreds of people in Paris and ignore the plight of black students who were faced with an imaginary swastika drawn in feces?

Despite the convoluted thinking inculcated into leftist brains, we must still recognize evil for what it is. ISIS is evil and should be eradicated.

***Addendum***

I barely finished writing this when I crossed another news story about a Islamist terrorist attack against Christians at a university in Garissa, Kenya. 147 are reported dead. Of course, the students probably deserved that because, hey, they were Christians.

Saturday, November 14, 2015

How Much Do I Hate White Men? Let Me Count the Ways.


I saw this photo of a poster cluttering up my Facebook feed the other day. While obviously posted by clueless individuals, it does pose and interesting question: "What are the logical and historical fallacies behind this poster?"

Your ideas? Why is this poster 180 degrees wrong?

Friday, November 13, 2015

A Nation of Miscreants


Yesterday, while taking the day off from teaching for Veteran's Day, my wife and I headed to the zoo. The weather was pleasant. The usually raging Arizona sun was hidden behind a cloudy sky. We had a great time. The day was marred only by a few malcriados - children who probably learned their manners from university campus protestors.

For example, my wife and I sat down for a moment on a pavestone block wall to enjoy a snack and to watch the myriad wild birds which descend on the zoo every day. While we sat talking, a young man, perhaps about ten years old or so, walked along the top of the wall, then stopped in his progress because we were sitting in his path. Without missing a moment's thought, the yelled out, "You're in my way!" My wife and I, of course, did what we usually do with such miscreants. We ignored him. He yelled, "You're in my way!" at us again, and again we ignored him. Too young and small to pick a real fight, he finally went around us.

Again, as we were hiking back to our car, a different young man raised his voice to whine about some perceived injustice. The man with him, most likely his father, argued with him the entire time, while also including what I assume he considered to be witty putdowns.

It's nearly axiomatic these days that some petty offense or misplaced idea will spark a protest on one of our campuses of higher learning. We can assume from such frantic outbursts that the term "higher" learning is a measure of how much cannabis is currently in the bloodstreams of our college students, rather than as a measure of any real gains against ignorance. Such outbursts are the province of ten year old children whose parents have never taught them an ounce of self control, nor the merest foundations of manners.

The parents of these spoiled brats, whether they are the ten year olds at the zoo, or the children playing grown-ups on a university campus, have failed to instill that rarest of social commodities - common courtesy. We have become a nation of miscreants.

Monday, November 2, 2015

Hillary Clinton, Self Control, and the Restructuring of Society in Her Image



Modern liberalism maintains the doctrine that society can and must be tinkered with in order to create a more "just" and "equitable" system. The fatal problem with this social engineering rests on the fallibility of those people who change the system to suit their peculiar view of the world. As we have seen within the past fifty years or so, those who have been chosen to lead the charge into this Brave New World are almost universally incapable of governing themselves, let alone being incapable of rearranging a just society.

Johnson lied to hide the Vietnam War and his expensive social programs. Nixon lied to cover up the Watergate break-in. Carter screwed up in the Mideast so badly we're still paying the price for his incompetence. Bill Clinton lied about the women he cheated with. He even denied the definition of sex.

Now take Hillary Clinton. Please.

Hillary is the quintessential liberal, spewing socialist dogma with a vigor that would make Lenin blush with envy. We know, we absolutely know, that she has lied her way through her adult life from one subject to the next to the next. She is incapable of producing a gram's worth of personal integrity. This bastion of liberalism cannot govern her own life. How can we expect her to govern others?

Yet in today's political climate, Hillary is exonerated as a champion of social engineering, even while leaving a wake of death and destruction behind her. She is propped up by a news media who, in turn, is run by deceivers.

Edmund Burke, considered the father of conservatism, wrote against such hubris of social engineering. Writing during the French Revolution, where the French social engineers literally hacked off the heads of anyone who stood in their way, Burke turned out a scathing commentary.

To Burke, society was a living thing that cannot be disassembled and then reconstructed to suit the designs of social engineers. The results of such social rearrangements are fatal to society. Burke wrote that the French were like children, hacking a body into bits and pieces, then throwing them into a "kettle of magicians" to try to regenerate them.

Hillary, and nearly the entire Democrat party have become little children. They hack the social body of the US to pieces, then wave their wands and make their incantations in the attempt to regenerate a the pieces into a living organism.

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Senator Ted Cruz Versus the Liberal Media

I didn't watch the Republican debates today. Truth be told, I haven't watched a single debate. I'd rather pick fleas off my cat than be subjected to televised debates. The debates are a poor excuse for politics. As prime time reality TV, they rank somewhere between Boy Meets Boy and Dating Naked. No, I've never watched those shows either.

Senator Ted Cruz in the CNBC debate schooled the media and demonstrated to the world why the debates for either side are simply not worth the time spent to air them on TV. Put simply, the mainstream news media is the main culprit in allowing the current charade of campaigning to sink into the utter depths of the cold abyss.

In reviewing the Republican debate, CNN a former news station, stated: "The candidates' attacks on the media were red meat for the conservative base, which already has a deep mistrust of the mainstream press." See, here's a shining example of why conservatives mistrust the mainstream press - CNN neglects to mention that trust in the media is at an all-time low everywhere in the US. Sixty percent of Americans mistrust the press because every single thing the press says is a political statement to vilify conservatives and to push a bankrupt ideology.

There you have it. Take a look at Cruz's comments and see why the entire audience broke out in applause and cheers after he stated the obvious.

Then do a little research and see if you can vote for a candidate who isn't an egotistical, lying, cheating, incompetent, socialist reject.

Monday, October 26, 2015

MSNBC: Someone Left the Door Open on the Loony Bin


Just when you thought it was safe to get out of bed and join the human race, along comes MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry, keeper of the nuthouse.

In this video clip, she tutors Alfonso Aguilar for calling Paul Ryan a hard worker. No, it's not because Ryan isn't a hard worker, it's because using the term "hard worker" is offensive to slaves. Or something.

Just watch the video and figure it out for yourself. I'm going back to bed.

Saturday, October 24, 2015

Recommended Book - A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles by Thomas Sowell


If there ever was a book that I had wished I had written, it would be Thomas Sowell's book A Conflict of Visions. While not an easy book to read, because of its elevated vocabulary and conceptual approach to political theory, it is nevertheless an important book for many reasons.

I'm not going to write an entire review of the book here, but rather wish to recommend it to you as an important read. I especially recommend it to my friends who think that progressive or liberal ideology is on the right track.

Sowell separates conservative thought and liberal ideology using the terms "constrained" and "unconstrained." He does so to be able to take a look at differing ideologies without using terms that already have too much baggage associated with them. Here are some quotes from the book that outline the basic conflicts between conservatives and liberals. Notice how closely these show the inherent problem with modern liberalism and the current political direction of the US.
The Constitution of the United States, with its checks and balances, clearly reflected the view that no one was ever to be completely trusted with power. This is in sharp contrast to the French Revolution, which gave sweeping powers, including the power of life and death, to those who spoke in the name of "the people," expressing the Rousseauean "general will." 
To those without this constrained vision of man, the whole elaborate system of checks and balances was a needless complication and impediment. 
Adam Smith spoke of the doctrinaire "man of the system" [modern progressive] who is "wise in his own conceit" and who "seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. 
They are, in Burke's words, "endeavouring to confine the reputation of sense, learning, and taste to themselves or their following," and are capable of "carrying the intolerance of the tongue and of the pen into a persecution" of others. 
The rationalist whose reason is not sufficient to teach him those limitations of the powers of conscious reason, and who despises all the institutions and customs which have not been consciously designed, would thus become the destroyer of the civilization built upon them. This may well prove a hurdle which man will repeatedly reach, only to be thrown back into barbarism. (Quoting Hayek)
It's an important book for our times and well worth the time to struggle through it.

Friday, October 23, 2015

What Is Truth? Hillary's Testimony on Benghazi


Adlai Stephenson, in his speech to the UN during the Cuban Missile Crisis said this to the Soviet ambassador: "I do not have your talent for obfuscation, for distortion, for confusing language, and for doubletalk. And I must confess to you that I am glad that I do not!"

Hillary Clinton's testimony with the House Select Committee on Benghazi is a perfect study of doublespeak and obfuscation.

I think Charles Krouthammer best summed up her testimony: "We're not going to get the contradictions, we're not going to get the facts, we're not going to get the real story underlying it. We're living in an age where what you say and its relation with the facts is completely irrelevant as we see in the presidential campaign. And it's carrying over into the hearings."

We are a nation of moral and ethical pygmies whose leaders and leader wannabes reflect the paucity of our thought by spewing constant lies and deceits. We are a nation of fallen people, as long as we continue to follow the blithe path of corrupt principles. We are a nation of fallen people when we give power to a person such as Hillary, who cannot tell the truth even when confronted with facts. We are a nation of fallen people when we excuse those who have no honor nor integrity because they claim ideological superiority.

Honesty, integrity, forthrightness, and morality are still relevant and necessary. Our nation cannot continue without them.

Sunday, October 18, 2015

Hillary's Bucket List: Leading the Campaign for President with Bad Ideas

There's a big problem with Hillary's campaign logo. It's pointing the wrong way. It should be pointing in its big, bold way to the left. Far to the left. And then it should abruptly turn downward, to crash and burn into the swamp where all bad socialist ideas end up.

I was feeling adventurous today and took a trip into the forbidden swamps of Hillary's campaign website. After a screen that asked me to donate (which I politely declined), I wandered over to the section outlining "the issues." What I found was a typical socialist laundry list of the hot button issues du jour. Hillary's entire list is based on the faulty premises of socialist dogmas. Each campaign issue promises to cost us taxpayers ever larger slices of our income, while excluding entire populations of citizens. All are aimed at demonizing Republicans and conservatives.

By the way, I note Donald Trump now has three, count 'em three whole issues up on his website. He's still a one trick pony in my book, focusing on "safe" topics guaranteed to whip pseudo-conservatives into a frenzy. Bernie Sanders is also a one trick pony who focuses on the socialist meme "income inequality." Anyone who wants to vote for Bernie needs to read a good history of the French Revolution before deciding if income inequality is best handled by socialists.

Back to Hillary. Here is what you need to know about her particular brand of socialism:

Issue #1: Campaign Finance Reform
Whenever a Democrat spews the word "reform," understand that this is a code word meaning "let's screw people we don't like." In this case, her ideas about campaign reform will empower only Democrats. All others need not apply. Sorry Republicans and independents (who, by the way, make up about 70% of the population of the US).

Issue #2: Campus Sexual Assault
If there ever was an issue that doesn't need to be number two on a list of national problems, this is it. Hillary means to "stop campus assault," which is code for "we need to emasculate men and empower women to ruin men's lives with mere accusations." The ongoing feminist dogma that preaches that all men are rapists is absurd, dangerous, and demeans both women and men.

Issue #3: Climate Change and Energy
Hillary, apparently, wants to control the weather by taxing the rich. Remember when Congress voted to take away our light bulbs? Now we have bulbs that take many, many more resources to make and are toxic to boot. Remember the billions wasted on Solyndra? The message here is simple. Never trust the government to make the world a better place.

Issue #4: College
Making taxpayers fund college for their own kids, and everybody else's kids too, is the latest socialist craze to hit the Democrat party. When we ask why we should subsidize college tuition, most Dems point to Sweden and say: "They do it!" In response, remember that Swedish universities don't have to deal with students who have been indoctrinated through Common Core.

Issue #5: Criminal Justice Reform
Remember that the word "reform" is a code word. In this case, it means "we have too many blacks in prison and need to balance our prisons by incarcerating more whites." Then, more blacks will be able to vote for Democrats. This is what constitutes justice in Hillary's mind.

Issue #5: Disability Rights
Like all Democrat-sponsored "rights," this one will also create big programs to spend money to ensure that disabled people remain chained to big government programs. Then they'll vote for Democrats who give them money.

Issue #6: Early Childhood Education
With more and more parents giving up their responsibilities to take care of and raise their own offspring, Dems think it's a good idea to get to children early to indoctrinate them into the mysteries of socialism at the earliest possible age. Don't knock it. Indoctrination has worked for totalitarian states throughout history.

Issue #7: Economy
Apparently, to Hillary, the only thing that matters about the economy is to force employers to pay more wages. Damn the national debt! Full speed ahead.

Issue #8: Gun Violence Prevention
Hillary couldn't care less about gun violence. She does, however, have deeply held beliefs about how evil the Second Amendment is. This is the one amendment that Dems love to ignore, in favor of disarming the population of the US. Hillary has plans to confiscate guns from citizens. She has no plans on how to confiscate guns from criminals. Perhaps her criminal justice reform will do that?

Issue #9: Health Care
Now that Obamacare is in full swing and all of our premiums are rising at a rate that will force us to depend on government-sponsored health care, Hillary has decided to stay the course. After all, health care is a basic human right that should absolutely be controlled by government. What could possibly go wrong with that?

Issue #10: K-12 Education
If the past 50 years of education "reform" is any indication, Hillary plans on staying the course on this one as well, until all of our children are as ignorant as she is.

Issue #11: Labor
Because, hey, if you're a Dem, you have to mention labor unions even if you're too rich to really care about them. Labor unions, after all, are great sources of income for the Democrat party.

Issue #12: LGBT Equality
Just like the term "reform," the term "equality" is a code word among Dems that means "let's invent rights out of thin air to attract loud and financially-backed minorities." On the flip side, the code word "discrimination" is a term leveled at political opponents to promote the socialist ideals of class warfare. Neither term has any real meaning anymore. They are mere weapons used to promote socialist dogmas.

Issue #13: National Security
Since Hillary admitted that her greatest enemies are Republicans, her emphasis on national security will probably include some sort of means to eliminate Republicans as a threat. Perhaps she'll find a use for the military to "fix" her Republican problem?

I actually feel sorry for anyone who gets elected president and has to deal with Obama's and Hillary's national security mess.

Issue #14: Rural Communities
Seriously? Does anyone seriously think that Hillary gives a rat's tailbone about rural communities? This is the woman who condescends to her "southern" constituents by employing a fake southern drawl when she talks to all them folk.

Issue #15: Small Business
Hillary's website says: "Hillary Clinton will be a small business president." No sane person can believe that. She'll put all small businesses out of business with tax increases, support of labor unions, health care cost increases, getting rid of industries she doesn't like (for example, the thriving gun industry), and so on, and so on, and so on.

Issue #16: Social Security and Medicare
Because...sacred cows.

Issue #17: Substance Use Disorder and Addiction
Hillary's bankrupt morals and ideologies are the reason many people are addicted to drugs.

Issue #18: Voting Rights
Remember that, to Dems, the term "rights" is a code word. This code word means: "Let's screw the Republicans by ensuring that illegal immigrants vote for Democrats."

Issue #19: Wall Street and Corporate America
According to Hillary: "Wall Street must work for Main Street." Hillary's war on Republicans will also include a war on the businesses that actually generate wealth and income. When Wall Street is controlled by government, our slide to the Dark Side will be complete.

Issue #20: Women's Rights and Opportunity
Hillary uses two code words here, "rights" and "opportunity." By this, she really means that women like herself should be able to lie, cheat, and steal just as well as any man, in order to gain power to destroy the institutions that prop up American society.

Issue #21: Workforce and Skills
This issue seems like an afterthought - a feel-good meme. Perhaps Hillary intends that after she destroys Wall Street, all the displaced CEOs can be retooled to work in factories?

Whew! That's quite a list Hillary. I'm sure your minions are too involved in their own little lives to properly pay attention to what you really intend for America. Meanwhile, we continue the slide into the swamps of a weak and socialist state.

Thursday, October 15, 2015

What I Learned from the Democrat Candidates' Debate


I didn't watch the Democrat candidates' debate. For that matter, I didn't watch the Republican debate either. There is not enough time in the world for me to waste it listening to people who are habitual liars, thieves, cheats, and simpletons. I don't like either party. I don't like most of the candidates. I don't like boiled spinach. And I really don't like Brussels sprouts.

As Mercutio put it after being stabbed: "A plague o' both your houses!"

I did, however, read the debates. It saves me time. I read fast.

After taking a look at the Democrat debates, this is what I've learned:

The Democratic Party is a misnomer. The party leaders care little for the people (the demos) or for our ability to govern ourselves (cratia).

The most important political principle in the US today is income inequality. It's much, much more important than, say, freedom or liberty. I mean, to Bernie or Hillary, two rich white people, the rich white people are the root of all evil. Or something.

The people of the US absolutely cannot take care of themselves and must, nay, demand that a president wave a magic wand, say bippity-boppity-boo and make all income inequality go away. Money will magically appear out of thin air, and there will no longer be any poor or rich - just one big, happy middle class.

All income inequality is caused by Republicans. Or something.

The office of President of the United States is based entirely on who can give away the most free stuff: free healthcare, free abortions, free college, free vacations, free living wage increases, and free root beer in the drinking fountains. No, wait. I'm confusing the candidates with my eighth grade class elections. No, wait. No, I'm not.

No one really cares about the national debt of $18 trillion. It's all fake money anyway, right?

Hillary deserves to be President of the US because she's a woman. Or something.

Bernie deserves to be President of the US because, hey, free stuff.

Hillary can lie about committing federal crimes with her email server because, hey, Bernie's got her back. And so does the press. And apparently Americans couldn't care less if their candidate for President of the United States is a felon.

Free stuff and the race to socialize the country is much, much more important than national security.

Whenever Bernie mentioned raising taxes on the rich, he drew applause. Apparently, everyone now hates rich people. Well, rich people except for Bernie and Hillary. And Barack. And maybe Goldman Sachs. And Donald Trump.

The inalienable right to life is no longer inalienable. Go Planned Parenthood!

The biggest threat to the United States today is not the national debt. It's not Islamist terrorists. It's not a failing government. It's not the moral decay that protects the "right" to chop up babies and sell their parts.

No. To Hillary, it's Republicans. To Bernie, it's Wall Street. Or something. To the rest, it's the weather.

Heaven help us.

Tuesday, October 13, 2015


Up until recently, I thought the scariest word in the English language was "liberal." That word is closely followed by the term "progressive," which in turn is followed by the word "spiders." All these give me the willies just thinking about them.

Yet recently my wife was diagnosed with cancer and suddenly my perspective on the world shifted as we faced this new invader which threatened the very life of someone I love. The very word "cancer" became the scariest word in the English language. Fortunately, for this particular type of cancer, there is a treatment and a cure with a very high success rate. We have a long road to travel, but the surgeons and the doctors have put my wife on a path of healing.

Focusing on cancer the past few months has given me a new appreciation for just how quickly a dangerous disease can derail our lives and change our focus on the most important things in life. By extension, thinking about the disease also helped me realize just how dangerous a place the world can be. It's a world that is one hundred percent fatal to everyone born into it.

Life's dangers can appear nearly overnight. Social and political dangers have overtaken us quite quickly, especially without strong and moral leaders in place to stand against the diseases which threaten our liberties. Cancer eats away at the very foundations of our republic. (See what I did there? I segued from a life's lesson about cancer to the disease eating at the foundations of our American republic.)

The cancer growing in our system is not unique to party or to politician. Our entire party system seems to be infected with the disease, although democrats seem especially susceptible to its debilitating effects. The disease seems to attack the brain first, destroying the little switch people used to have that allowed common sense to rule. It also attacks the heart, turning otherwise caring people into unfocused and selfish zombies.

The symptoms of the cancer are readily apparent to those who aren't affected, though extraordinarily difficult to self diagnose once the disease settles in. An infected person feels as though the world around him or her could suddenly be transformed into a magical place of peace and harmony if everyone would merely follow the beatific constraints of John Lennon's Imagined world.

The disease is dangerous, and socially fatal, since it deludes its victims into giving up control of their lives to some Utopian ideal that is ripe for the manipulation of conspiring men and women.

It hides reality behind a mask of simple platitudes.

It convinces otherwise decent human beings to despise and mock anything that could get in the way.

It convinces otherwise rational human beings that wrong is right, that evil is good, and that dark is light.

It blinds others to the harsh realities and dangers of the world, leading its victims to inevitable and terrible conclusions.

There are some still left who have been inoculated against the disease, who understand the plague that spreads through the United States. I vacillate between optimism and pessimism as to our chances of stopping its spread before we reach a catastrophic failure of the whole body.

Meanwhile, I'll focus on what's really important in life, which is to take care of my wife and to teach my children to love God.

Monday, September 7, 2015

Letters to My Son: Standing Up for What's Right

Dear Son:

Within my lifetime, indeed, within the last few decades, too many of the people of the United States have turned from the ideals of the Founding Fathers, and worse, have turned from their God. They find comfort in the easy path, giving up liberty to grasp at the socialist straws of security. They deride and mock what they cannot understand, and they renounce the very structures of civilization that allow them to live their lives in ignorant bliss.

The institutions that form the backbone of a free society are discarded as dross. The security of liberty, free from government interference, is gone. The ideal of the core family is supplanted with vague and insecure commitments and neutered relationships. Marriage has been redefined into meaninglessness. Even the basic concepts of biology are rejected to feed the voracious sexual appetites of the impatient masses. Children are devalued and discarded, useful only as status symbols or to supply body parts for medical research.

Politicians appeal to our basest desires with promises of a socialist utopia that can never be reached. For example, Hillary Clinton promises to provide "affordable" college, while defending the total train wreck of "affordable" health care. She promises "quality" childcare with one hand, while supporting a system that destroys the best chance children have to succeed - being raised by both a mother and a father. She promises to "defend" Social Security, while supporting an immigration policy that threatens to upend it. Such utopian double standards can never succeed.

In contrast to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump has one promise - immigration reform. With a loud and obnoxious voice, he carefully hides his disdain for conservative ideals behind a fa├žade of loud platitudes and disdainful rhetoric. He rejects our republic's foundational principles (except where it allows him to make money) and is certainly no advocate to preserve the institution of marriage.

The very politicians who are sworn to protect the law flaunt it at every turn. We can only expect others to follow the examples of our leaders. In response, violent crime has dramatically increased within the very cities that have labored for decades under Democrat rule. It comes as no surprise that the bankrupt structures of socialism have failed the citizens of these cities. It comes as no surprise that Detroit, Oakland, St. Louis, or Baltimore are ready to implode with violence and hatred.

Those who stand against the new regime are silenced, outshouted, jailed, or shot. The immorality of homosexual ideals now trumps the First Amendment right of the free exercise of religion. The 14th Amendment has been twisted into an incomprehensible tangle of protected classes in a convoluted structure to place equality above freedom, groups above individuals.

Now is not a time, my son, for your heart and your moral fiber to fail. We must now, more than ever before, stand up for what is right. And not only that, we must stand up for whatever is good and noble and pure and admirable and of good report.

F.A. Hayek understood what was at stake when he wrote:
The rationalist whose reason is not sufficient to teach him those limitations of the powers of conscious reason, and who despises all the institutions and customs which have not been consciously designed, would thus become the destroyer of the civilization built upon them. This may well prove a hurdle which man will repeatedly reach, only to be thrown back into barbarism.
Stand up for what is right. Remember the words from A Man for All Seasons, when Sir Thomas More is thrown into prison for defying King Henry VIII:

If we lived in a state where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us saintly. But since we see that abhorrence, anger, pride, and stupidity commonly profit far beyond charity, modesty, justice, and thought, perhaps we must stand fast a little - even at the risk of being heroes.