Sunday, December 25, 2016

Come, Lord Jesus by the BYU Men's Choir


May the peace and Blessing of this Christmas day abide with you and your families and friends. It's been a whirlwind year and I'm honored to have shared my thoughts with some of you this past year.

Saturday, December 24, 2016

Mary Did You Know Sung by Mark Lowry

On this Christmas eve, here's my favorite version of this song, sung by the man who wrote it and Voctave, one of the great singing groups of the day. What do ya'll think?

Monday, December 19, 2016

Random Thoughts on a Monday

The Electoral College will officially elect Donald Trump President of the United States today. This despite the best efforts of Hillary's campaign, President Obama, apparently the CIA, and the mainstream media to derail the political process outlined in the Constitution.

Nothing is worse than hearing a bunch of leftist progressives lecture the people of the United States about what the Constitution says. If leftists were so concerned about the Constitution, they'd defend it all the time instead of throwing it in the trash.

I'm especially fed up with Hollywood has-beens reading from a script to try to delegitimize Donald Trump. Are we going to have to put up with that spew for four years? It was bad enough to listen to leftist whining through the Bush years. Talk about "fake news."

This past month's political backlash against "fake news" was an amazing display of anti-freedom and anti-speech politics, the likes of which hasn't been seen since Joseph Goebbels refined state-sponsored propaganda to a fine art. The first thing I thought of when I heard President Obama talk about "domestic propagandists" was the reference in George Orwell's 1984, describing the Ministry of Truth. We've lived with fake news for a long, long time. (It's called the mainstream media.)

When elitist politicians start demanding control of speech, it's time to worry about the nation's future.

My thoughts on the "revelation" that the Russians hacked into computers and helped Trump win the election? The idea doesn't even make sense. If Russians are hacking servers, which they probably are, it's the fault of those who don't protect their servers, aided by the regressive and dangerous foreign policy of the Obama administration.

Do we have Russians to thank for Hillary's downfall? Not really. They didn't force her and the DNC to use woefully inadequate protection on their servers. They also didn't copy Hillary's emails onto the computer of a sexual predator.

I've noticed more and more students who contact me at the end of the semester trying to salvage their failing grades. They must think that tactic works because they persist in using it. Sorry, but there is no death bed repentance when you are flunking my classes.

While we're at it, no, students may not read a fifth-grade-level book for a final college research project.

Lack of student interest in taking control of their own lives may be a direct result of university policies that reward poor thinking and touchy-feely curriculum with degrees in Gender Studies or Social Justice Studies.

Thank goodness the semester's about over.

We went to see Moana the other day. It was silly, formulaic, and a heck of a lot of fun. Take out the one "obligatory" joke using bathroom humor and Disney's got another winner.

Saturday, December 3, 2016

Random Thoughts on a Saturday


The mainstream news media continues to promote story after story about how awful Donald Trump is. Considering the love affair we had to endure when President Obama was elected, we are now subjected to even worse propaganda - the propaganda that any and all of Mr. Trump's actions does not reflect "American" values.

Considering that Trump got himself elected President of the United States, I'd say that the news media have absolutely no clue what American values are.

Hillary lost the election. Get over it.

Why did Hillary lose the election? Perhaps not all of the people of the US are mindless zombies who agree with the shrill shrieks coming from progressive elites that the US is The Evil Empire, founded on the principles of H8 and victimization.

Did you notice how quickly the the media dropped the story about the Muslim terrorist who plowed a car into, then cut up students at Ohio State? Apparently, even devout leftists cannot convince themselves that the violence: 1) wasn't motivated by extreme Islamism; 2) can be blamed on a gun; 3) was stopped by someone with a gun; 4) was perpetrated by a US-born white male.

Not that the progressive elites and the media didn't try to blame white males for the attack. Their attempts only underscore just how bizarre and out-of-touch with reality progressives have become. (Thank you Tim Kaine for your anti-gun Tweet!)

As far as I can tell, Mr. Trump's greatest problem right now is his ego. Hopefully, when he settles on a cabinet and fills the immediate government positions with capable people (General Mattis!), he will become a capable policy maker.

Can Trump survive four years of bad press?

Can Trump survive Chinese posturing?

He's got to be better at foreign affairs than Mr. Obama.

Jack Whittaker, a man who won the Powerball lottery to the tune of $315 million dollars, went broke, lost his daughter, lost his granddaughter, and his home recently burned down. What can we learn from this? I take away the lesson that the lottery is an evil institution that gives false hope, even to those who win.

Even after the government takes half of the $315 million winnings, how do you go broke living on $157 million dollars?

Meanwhile, in Progressiville, USA, Colin Kaepernick, quarterback for the 49ers who sat through the national anthem in protest of Trump (or something) and praised Fidel Castro for his values (or something), just bought a Manhattan condo for $3.21 million dollars.

Kaepernick has now, officially, become the poster child for all that is so very wrong with progressive ideology.

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Happy Thanksgiving from Euripides

A happy and safe Thanksgiving to you this year. To celebrate the day, here's a photo of a girl and her beloved llama.

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Sunday Sermon: Progressive Thought Control and James Madison

One of my progressive friends on Facebook posted this quote from George R.R. Martin, of Game of Thrones fame:
Trump was the least qualified candidate ever nominated by a major party for the presidency. Come January, he will become the worst president in American history, and a dangerously unstable player on the world stage.
I find it ironic that Martin (and my friend) are saying exactly what conservatives have said about Obama. The difference, of course, is that Obama has proven himself to be the worst president ever, while we await to see if Martin's predictions of Trump will come true.

This past week has seen the backlash of progressives after the election that didn't go their way. They have rioted in the streets of several major cities. As nearly as I can figure it, they're demanding that a fair and decisive election be turned around to suit their ideology and to assuage the pain in their fragile, little hearts.

What's important to note is that the ideology of progressivism has convinced many Americans, and many more illegal aliens, that stifling speech, rioting in the streets, condemning those who disagree, or threatening those who disagree, are now natural roles of politics.

In essence, they reject any reality about government other than what gets filtered through their lens of ignorance, and they now attempt to enforce their opinion through physical force, intimidation, election rigging, and control of the media and schools.

We are now placed squarely on the horns of a dilemma. We now have a progressive, elitist class, well funded by conniving billionaires such as George Soros, which increasingly attempts to control or stifle the speech of dissent.

James Madison recognized this problem and argued against it nearly 230 years ago. In his Federalist #10, he notes that the people can reduce factions by removing their causes. By "factions" Madison merely means groups of people who hold the same opinion.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests. (Federalist #10)
Madison identified two methods of removing the causes of factions, both of which are inimical to the foundational principles of the US. Yet, having found the US system too slow to act or not progressive enough in its actions, progressives seek to remove the causes of factions instead of controlling their effects.

Take your pick, we can destroy liberty or we can give everyone the same opinions. Progressives use both methods to attempt to control the underlying beliefs of those who disagree with their views.

We can roll over and let them do so, or we can rely on that liberty granted by the Almighty to all men. Patrick Henry's immortal words still ring true today:
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! (Source)
***

There are several good books written about the rise of progressivism and the changes it has affected in our political arena. (Andrew Breitbart's Righteous Indignation is a good start. Check out Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions for a more scholarly approach.) 

Friday, November 11, 2016

Random Thoughts


Since when did rioting in the streets, breaking windows, smashing police cars, lighting fires, attacking police, and yelling foul words become a "protest?" Oh, that's right, the liberals of the 1960s taught those tactics to the current crop of ignorant progressives.

Even the protesters of the 60s had better manners than the children who have taken to the streets these past few days.

Were the Germans merely "protesting" on Kristallnacht?

Speaking of protesting, just what do these progressives think they want from their petty and childish reaction to Donald Trump getting elected? Do they seriously want to give up the fair election process in favor of mob rule?

This is the first photo of Trump that I've posted here. It won't be the last. I wish him well, but don't expect a lot from him or the Republican Congress. I can always be proven wrong.

My regard and respect to all the veterans who have served this country. Here's a shout out to Jared, who will be joining ranks in a week with the finest men and women our country has to offer.

All those who argue that we need to change the voting system to get rid of the electoral college seriously need to read some history. I don't mean the namby-pamby, feel good, politically correct garbage that passes for history these days. I mean they need to read real history from the Greeks to the classical liberals of the 17th and 18th centuries. They just might learn a thing or two about the dangers of mob rule.

Progressives pick and choose the laws they "feel" like obeying. If Hillary had won the electoral college vote, not a single one of them would protest how "unfair" that system was.

Most of my university students these days write history essays that include the phrase, "I feel..." instead of "I think...." Perhaps if we taught students in schools how to think, instead of how to feel, we wouldn't have been left with a choice between Hillary and Trump as presidential candidates.

I wish President Trump all the success in the world in removing Obama's legacy. Unfortunately, he still must deal with a bunch of weak and irresponsible Republicans in Congress.

Yes, I am happy that Trump was elected president, but mainly because living four years under the direction of Hillary would have destroyed what little we have left of our Republic. Then again, if the anti-Trump protests continue to wage war against the Constitution, we may yet live in Hillary's America.

The best part about Trump's election will be his Supreme Court nominations. He has the opportunity to take the wind out of the sails of the political left's war on the Constitution for another generation. Ginsburg can conceivably be replaced in the next short while. I wish we could rid the country of the opinions of the "wise Latina" who has created some of the most egregious opinions in direct violation of the Constitution. I would love to see John Roberts get replaced by a true conservative, but alas, that's not likely to happen soon.

OK, the other best part about Trump in office is that the war on the 2nd Amendment will grind to a halt, at least for a few years.

Remember that progressive socialists are incessant and patient. Just because Trump's in office, don't for a second believe that the progressives will give up the fight to gut the Constitution and replace our Republic with a socialist oligarchy. They will not readily give up power. Power must be taken away from them.

Tuesday, November 8, 2016

Shocked Clinton Supporters: The New Face of Liberalism

Here's a modest tribute to the new face of liberalism, the shocked, sad, horrified faces of Clinton supporters as they see the New World Order collapse in front of their eyes. (Source)






Election Day

Work has won out over blogging this election. Yet, today when the people of the United States step up to elect our next president, let us pause a moment to mourn the things we have lost....


Friday, October 21, 2016

I Knew I'd Seen Hillary's Outfit Before


Christian Bale's uniform on the left is from the movie Equilibrium. It's a story of a dystopian society where questioning the authority of the state is illegal. Hillary's uniform on the right is from real life. That one's a story of a dystopian society where questioning the authority of the state is illegal.

Coincidence?

I think not.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Serious Reasons Not to Vote for Hillary


I could never support, nor vote for Hillary Clinton for president of the United States. Unfortunately, the people of our country have generally become selfish, immoral, and greedy because of the false promises of Santa Claus socialism. Hillary represents that part of our population which, through severe ignorance, has deluded itself into thinking government is the solution to the problems in the world. Here is a short list of reasons why I won't vote for her, which should be reasons why no one should vote for her.

  1. The next president of the US will be picking several Supreme Court Justices. Our court system teeters on the edge of a complete disregard for the Constitution and the laws which created the best system of government and the freest people on the earth. Hillary would choose justices based merely on the nebulous ideology of social justice, rather than choosing justices who would protect the Constitution and uphold our laws.
  2. Hillary will actively abuse her office to undermine the 2nd Amendment. She has little regard for the Constitution and none for the right to keep and bear arms. She doesn't understand the 2nd Amendment, except as an obstacle in her path to remove guns from the population. The 2nd Amendment gives all Americans the right to defend themselves from tyranny and violence. Hillary wants to take that right away.
  3. Hillary wants to protect the wonton killing of babies at any price. She calls it a woman's choice. Abortion is an inherently immoral position that flies in the face of a more reasonable and careful population. Our society as a whole has so devalued human life, that we sustain businesses such as Planned Parenthood that promote abortion and the selling of the dismembered parts of the unborn. Those who so callously support killing the unborn bear the shame and guilt of heinous acts against humanity.
  4. Hillary cannot both support her ideology and support the free expression of religion. She pays lip service to the rights of the religious, but every word, action, and belief denies religion the free exercise to disagree with her ideology, and to disagree with the special interest groups her ideology has created.
  5. Hillary's concept of economics is blinded by the bankrupt policies of socialism. Simply put, the government cannot tax and spend itself into prosperity.
  6. Hillary has proven that she is incapable of forming a coherent, strong, working foreign policy. Under her guidance as Secretary of State, US relations with other countries has never been worse. Her policies have left the Mideast as unstable as any time in history. Russia, China, Iran, and even North Korea are more dangerous to the world than ever before.
  7. Hillary will attempt to implement an open border policy. Open borders, especially with Mexico, will allow thousands upon thousands of unemployed people into the US. Since, under Hillary, the government must take care of all of them, the people of the United States will be robbed of their money to pay for Hillary's folly. 
  8. More importantly than people crossing the border, terrorists, drugs and weapons are now freely brought into the US because of our porous borders. The ideology of open borders is as immoral and destructive as starting a land war in Asia.
  9. Hillary's solution to all the ills of the country is to make the rich and the corporations "pay their fair share." This point of view is economic suicide. The middle class will suffer the most from tax and spend policies.
  10. Hillary's desire to expand government entitlements threatens to destroy the US economy. Obamacare has proven to be a huge waste of money, which threatens to pull down the entire medical industry. Prices rise as services disappear. Obamacare threatens to drag a large percentage of Americans down to a subsistence level. Hillary wants to add even more unwieldy programs into the overtaxed system and fully supports Obamacare.

Monday, October 17, 2016

Progressivism Summed Up in One Photo

OK, so I haven't posted in awhile. I am swamped with my workload these days. I did come across this photo, which completely sums up Progressive ideology.


I'm off to bang my head against the wall, then start grading for the evening. Banging my head on a solid object really heard reminds me that grading student essays aren't as painful.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

It's All Thanks to Obamacare!

When Obamacare passed through the Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid Congress without a single Republican vote, then was signed into law by President Obama, a lot of people cheered that the US had finally come into the 21st century to form a wise and glorious health care system to insure its citizens.

It was lauded and praised in the news media as the best thing to ever happen to any government ever in the history of forever.

I come here today, not to praise Obamacare, but to bury it.

That year Obamacare passed, my insurance premiums went up 280%. That's right, the brilliant plan of the "Affordable Care Act" had the nearly immediate effect of reducing the amount of money I could spend on my family by some $900 a month.

Each year since then, either my premiums have risen, or I've had to take greater economic risks with huge premiums, high co-payments, ever higher deductibles (currently $6000), and less coverage.

Thanks directly to Obamacare, I can now barely afford my "affordable care."

Today I found out that my insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona, will no longer sell individual insurance plans in Maricopa County after this December. Maricopa County contains the Phoenix metropolitan area of over four million people.

 United Healthcare is also dropping out of Arizona.

Yet, thanks to Obamacare, two major companies can no longer afford to sell insurance in my city.

So, thank you Barack Obama. Thank you Nancy Pelosi. Thank you Harry Reid. Under your direction and vast wisdom, you have succeeded in breaking the health insurance market for me and for millions of citizens in Arizona.

But hey, at least our illegal immigrants can still get free health care.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Sunday Sermon

What's Terrorism Got to Do With It?

Taking a look back over the past couple of weeks of terrorist attacks in the US, you'd think that the news media would show a little more aggressive reporting over 37 wounded and five dead.

But no.

Eight stabbed in a mall in St. Paul? Hey, at least the Muslim Somali refugee didn't use a gun. Then there'd be outcries for gun bans.

But no.

The Muslim immigrant from Turkey who is believed to have killed four women and a man at a Macy's in Seattle used a rifle. Well, at least it wasn't an evil "automatic" assault rifle. That might have prompted a few anti-gun outcries.

And what can you say about an inept Muslim bomber with ties to Afghanistan, who blew up a Manhattan area, wounding 29 people? Again, no one died, so the news media treated the whole incident like a traffic accident.

It looks like the entire news media have succumbed to the ignorance spread by their high priest, President Obama. The president's attitude toward terrorism in the US seems to rest on denial. If hard pressed, Obama will admit that terrorism exists, but will deny that anything can be done to stop such killings in the US.

Islamist Terrorism

What do these three incidents in the past weeks show us?

The perps were all Muslim.

Islam Is Not a Race

Leftists keep accusing the people in the US considered to be a "basket of deplorables," of race baiting when naming Islamist Terrorism. Can we sit back for a moment to point out, once again, that Islam is not a race?

Islam is a religion. Its mixture with government has produced precisely the danger that leftists are afraid of. Yet, instead of blaming Muslims, they blame Christians.

Progressive dogma makes absolutely no sense.

Charlotte Lives Matter

Instead of focusing on real dangers and real problems, the news media have focused on attacking the one institution that helps keep the US separated from military dictatorships, namely our police forces.

Hatred of police forces isn't new. We can trace clashes with the police back a hundred years and more. The one common denominator for blaming the police is socialism. We can trace conflicts with the police by labor unions, 1960s radicals, and currently by social justice warriors who blame the police any time a black man is shot or arrested.

I was in LA during the riots after the trial acquitted the four police who beat Rodney King. Even then, the news media was out to "prove" the brutality of the police by condemning those four officers for beating up a defenseless black man.

The fact that Rodney King had tried to evade the police with a high-speed chase, was drunk and high on PCP, was tasered twice, and still resisted arrest, didn't seem to make it into the news at the time. To the media, beating Rodney King was an act of racism, not a justified take-down of a drug-crazed criminal.

Edmund Burke on Evil Men

Edmund Burke, the Irish statesman who lived during the time of the American Revolutionary War wrote in a letter:
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
This famous phrase wasn't the only thing he wrote in that letter, however. How about this one:
Whilst men are linked together, they easily and speedily communicate the alarm of any evil design. They are enabled to fathom it with common counsel, and to oppose it with united strength.
And this:
When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
We now live in a world full of evil. Good ideas and good people are ridiculed and suppressed in favor of a socialist narrative that pits us against each other like gladiators in a circus. We perform for the amusement of an elite class who pays lip service to one group or another in the hopes that no one will notice their rise to absolute power.

Good people everywhere must "associate," as Burke puts it, so that evil may not prevail against the good. Or, as Ben Franklin put it:
We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Random Thoughts


With the Islamist terrorist attacks this past week (i.e., random violence perpetrated by persons who may or may not be male Muslims), the news media once again has proven that, as a whole, they are incompetent at reporting anything but ideological dreck.

The media writes off a black police officer shooting an armed black man as a heinous act of police brutality and racism waged against peaceful African Americans. The Twitterfeed zombies spread the most outlandish lies about the incident. Riots and looting take place over several nights which destroys property and threatens lives.

Here's a question: When will Americans (including blacks) begin to realize just how damaging social justice politics is to the health of the people of the US?

Our country was founded on the principle that "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of [protecting the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government." We need a call to arms in the US. There is no institution that poses a greater risk to our life and liberty than the ignorant socialist government that we currently have.

While we're at it, let's throw out the current system of education. Our public schools haven't succeeded in doing anything more for the rising generations of students than to turn them into useless and ignorant tools of the government.

What the heck's up with Hillary's eye?

The wife and I happened across a Spirit Halloween store (yes, in September). We witnessed several people bring their babies into the store and watched the poor little guys freak out over the horrific masks and images that represent Halloween these days. We saw the parents laughing at their own children.

What kind of parent would do that to a child? And does that help explain why so many children have grown up to be Hillary supporters? They're all suffering PTSD from having parents who would scare their own children to death and think it's funny.

Friday, September 16, 2016

Got Those Teaching Blues


Now that I'm in full swing into the new school year, it's much more difficult to find extra time to give a rat's patootie about politics. Except, that while working as an educator, I am surrounded by those whose ideas about education and about the government's role in our everyday lives has become so unhinged with reality that the door to reality has broken free, been snatched away by a tornado (full of sharks), and has landed in Oz.

Not even working a majority of the time in the private sector has helped as the school is constantly bombarded by federal and state regulations that prevent the very thing that we're trying to do - educate our children.

In response to the state bureaucracy, our private school has had to restructure to give into petty demands and dictatorial commands. The bureaucracy, of course, is run by people who have never taught in a classroom and is managed by ignorant and leftist ideologues.

These folks are so ignorant of reality and so certain of their abilities that they simply cannot conceive of an educational system that doesn't kowtow to their accepted dogmas.

These dogmas have seeped into every aspect of public education, from K-12 to universities, and are now being forced into the private sector.

Finding out about these state dicta, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

As a side note, I've been reading an excellent book by Jerry Doyle, of Babylon 5 fame, entitled Have You Seen My Country Lately? Mr. Doyle has put a good amount of research into teaching about the leftist takeover of our country since the 1960s and what he calls economic fascism. Take a look at it. It's worth the read.

It's even better as an audio book, read by Doyle himself.

In the meantime, I work and work and spin my wheels and rarely get to spend some time writing this blog.

Sunday, August 28, 2016

Some Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Heathen dance at the beginning of school.
School has begun again and I find myself in a maelstrom of activity, making me think once again of Macbeth's lament, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Not that school is nothing. It's just the sound and fury at the start that makes me wish for quieter days.

I started my new job in charge of yet another K-12 school with the high hopes that we can save some of the present generation from the ignorance broadcast through the public school system.

The college where I teach (now part time) also fired up its fall semester, so it has been a busy few weeks.

I also spend my days recruiting students for a program that allows folks who, for whatever reason, haven't had the chance to finish college. The program sets them on a pathway toward gaining a college education and degree.

The other day, a sixty-thousand dollar BMW X5 passed me while I was driving to work. It sported a bumper sticker that said, "Bernie - We the People - Not We the Rich." I can not imagine the mentality of people who can drive a car worth three times as much as mine, who think that other people are rich, not them. (I also cannot fathom what mental gymnastics people have to go through in order to think that the government will "take care of them." But that problem has been around for a long time.)

Long live the socialist state with its BMW X5's! Now, where's mine?

Hillary's designer came from North Korea.
Like many of you, I saw the photos of Hillary sporting her latest over-priced outfit that looks like a North Korean prison guard uniform (or an oven mitt, I can't decide), and I came to the obvious questions once again.

If Hillary were a man, would the press actually support her as a candidate for president of the US? If she were a Republican, would she have even made it off the starting blocks toward nomination?

Of course, the answer is no. But these lapses in fashion judgment bring these questions to the forefront.

The wife and I went to see the latest live screening of Rifftrax spoofing one of the best old sci-fi movies of all time. (By best, I actually mean worst.) We watched Mothra with amazement and more than a little giggling.

There's something about bad sci-fi movies that speak to my soul. Perhaps it's the deep plots or the fine characterization. Perhaps it's just the wonton destruction. Whatever the reason, we laughed a lot and enjoyed ourselves.


Come to think of it, we enjoyed this movie a lot more than the summer fare of new movies.

Saturday, August 27, 2016

Heroin Overdoses Increase in Ohio: The Siren's Song That is Destroying Lives

In my last blog (link), I talked about the epidemic of heroin abuse and argued that closing the borders with Mexico is not merely a matter of the Progressive ideal to have illegal immigrants overrun the US. Closing the borders is a matter of security against the rampant epidemic of heroin abuse.

As a case in point, this week in Ohio and three other states, there have been a rash of heroin overdoses - more than 225 in the past week.

From one news source:
"It's unlike anything we've seen before," said Hamilton County Commissioner Dennis Deters, who called the outbreak a public health emergency (source).
Many of the overdoses are caused by the heroin being laced with fentanyl - a prescription painkiller - or with carfentanil - a pain killer used on large animals. Both drugs are manufactured in China and are being brought into the US over the border from Mexico, as well as from Canada.

Meanwhile, the progressive plunge into the abyss of nihilism fosters a culture that aids the spread of this epidemic. President Obama welcomes the immigration of illegals as long as they increase the ranks of the socialists. He and the news media ignore the dangers of allowing unrestrained immigration across the borders.

Congress continues to refuse to take responsibility and action to stem the power of the executive branch. Their members are too busy campaigning for reelection. They have very nearly abdicated all power to Obama.

The courts have been filled with ideologues who see nothing wrong with taking sides in the ideological battle, despite what the Constitution actually says or means.

Meanwhile, my lovely, young student languishes in a county jail for possession. She has fallen victim to the siren's song of heroin. While the song is pleasant to listen to at first, it doesn't take long for it to turn into a deadly and fearsome screech that destroys the lives of those who fall prey to its allure.

Our current national policy is 180 degrees wrong. We are paying the price with an epidemic that destroys and kills wherever it reaches.

Sunday, August 21, 2016

Heroin and Closing the Borders: It's Not Just an Immigration Problem

This past week, I received some sad news about a previous student and dear friend of mine. Her grandmother called to tell me that she had been arrested for possession of heroin and for auto theft.

I had worked a long time with this student, who needed extra help to graduate school. She is smart, funny, beautiful, and has caring grandparents helping to raise her.

Unfortunately, soon after she left me as a teacher, she fell in with a group of teenaged thugs, including a deceitful and evil boyfriend who introduced her into a world filled with drugs, alcohol, sex, and all the "pleasures" that life has to offer. In a matter of a few months, my student's life had turned into a drug-induced hell.

And now this beautiful young woman is in jail, facing prison and a future life of continued pain and suffering.

While I cannot condone her poor choices that led her into the depths of a depraved life, I can point out that we, as a people, have fallen into a cesspool that accepts all sorts of destructive behavior as a moral imperative. Progressives preach dogmas that devalue human life on a scale that makes past pogroms and holocausts look like children's games.

Drug smuggling into the US is not only rising, it is rising exponentially. Heroin (and other dangerous drugs) are now brought into the US at record levels. Between 2000 and 2008, drug enforcement agencies seized about 500 kg of heroin each year. In 2013, more than 2100 kg was seized - four times as much (source). Heroin related deaths more than tripled between 2010 and 2014, with 10,574 heroin deaths in 2014 (source).

Heroin is highly addictive and highly destructive. All heroin in the US is smuggled in from foreign producers (source). Most of the smuggled heroin comes across the border with Mexico. The White House website notes, "Latin America evolved as the primary supplier of heroin to the United States, with Mexican heroin most prevalent west of the Mississippi and Colombian heroin most prevalent east of it (source)."

It's no secret that vast amounts of heroin are smuggled into the US through the Mexican border. However, in today's progressive culture that promotes politically correct dogmas, the fact that President Obama's nearly open border policies have promoted the heroin traffic is ignored as an inconvenient truth.

We have a heroin epidemic in the US and President Obama actively promotes policies that allow the epidemic to continue.

From the White House website: "The responsibility for curbing heroin production and trafficking lies primarily with the source countries."

In other words, President Obama's policy to stem the heroin traffic is to rely on Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, Mexico, and Colombia to curb production. His policy is "to help strengthen law enforcement in heroin source countries."

As we have seen from President Obama's Mideast and other foreign policies, he has a weak and ineffectual stand against the spread of terrorism, as well as the spread of heroin.

Closing the border with Mexico is not merely a matter of allowing thousands of illegal immigrants into the US. It is not a matter of "compassion" as the bleeding-heart liberal media would like us to believe.

It is a matter of survival.

Ten thousand people died in 2014 because Obama refuses to close the border with Mexico. While the numbers for 2015 aren't published yet, we can project another increase in heroin deaths for that year.

Meanwhile, my student, addicted to heroin, is not dead but in jail. She faces a life of misery having succumbed once to destructive and seductive forces which remove her ability to choose.

I am meeting with her in a few hours to lend love and support. Let's hope and pray that she doesn't become another statistic to President Obama's heroin epidemic.

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

A Parable about Air Traffic Controllers, or How Liberals Fly Without the Rules

I have a friend who is a retired air traffic controller. He worked many years, standing in a control tower, reading radar screens, and directing air traffic in order to keep hundreds of jets and planes from crashing into each other. The pilots of the aircraft trusted him to make good decisions. In fact, they trusted him with their lives as he guided them away from danger and toward a safe landing.

To help him in his job, he followed a set of rules to keep all of the aircraft safe. Foremost, he had to follow the rules to keep the aircraft separated at a safe distance, taking into account both vertical and horizontal dangers. Some dangers weren't visible, like wake turbulence and wingtip vortices, which could destabilize or flip other aircraft. Occasionally, conflict between two aircraft would occur when they got too close to each other. The rules provided a buffer zone around each aircraft to prevent immediate disaster, and the rules helped the air traffic controller guide the two aircraft back into safe distances.

Modern conservatism bases its rules on the Constitution and the original ideals of the Founding Fathers. They understood as well as anyone, the dangers of government, as well as the dangers of individuals who don't follow the rules. Some dangers are immediate and obvious. Some are not visible.

Conservatives are the air traffic controllers of our day, desperately trying to enforce the rules to keep America from crashing and falling. Just as the air traffic controller believes the rules should apply to all aircraft to keep them all safe, conservatives believe the rules of the Constitution should apply to all Americans. Conservatives understand that to ignore the rules is to invite disaster.

Modern liberalism, on the other hand, bases its rules on political expediency and bankrupt socialist doctrine. Liberals believe in a "living" Constitution that can change according to the latest progressive dogmas. Liberals are like airplane pilots who ignore the control tower, thinking that every new idea is good. They fly in any direction, at any speed, and at any altitude, secure in the knowledge that they know better than some old-fashioned, outdated rules.

Occasionally,  a few pilots crash and burn, but liberals merely blame the air traffic controller for not keeping them safe. Then, they are off in another random direction, secure in their own wisdom that they are not the root cause of all the mid-air collisions.

Meanwhile, conservatives point to the rules and warn of dangers to come. Instead of heeding the warnings, liberals find new and ever shrill means to denigrate those left in the control tower.

"You don't want me to be free," they exclaim.

"You're in danger," the conservatives answer.

"You're taking away our rights," liberals shout back.

"You're destroying the rules that protect all of us," warn the conservatives.

"The rules are old-fashioned," they respond. "Start living in the 21st Century!"

"You're going to crash!" warn the conservatives.

"You're just a bunch of angry, white, bigoted, racist, misogynistic, homophobes!" they shout, as they steer their aircraft straight into the side of a mountain.

***

Should we, as modern conservatives, just give up the fight and leave the world to liberalism? At this point, the fiery crashes seem inevitable. I've often thought to just give up and let the world burn. Yet, there is something inside me that sees that the Constitution is still worth defending, that those good, old rules still offer the best hope to all individuals. I, for one, will continue to be a voice of warning.

Monday, August 15, 2016

Quoting Myself - Today's Problem with Education Compared with Plato's Allegory of the Cave

Today's educational models have fallen into a Catch 22 system. We've emphasized standards and assessments to the point where the entirety of K-12 education can be written into a 30 page exam, focused on only the narrowest of details. When student performance on the assessments runs flat, or decreases, more emphasis is placed on passing the exams. Around and around the system spins until no real learning happens.

The focus of education narrows down to a pinprick of Plato's shadows. When students look up from their studies in school, they only see a tiny speck of the shadow on the wall. Not only are students never allowed to see the source of the light, they are never shown the rest of the shadows. They are chained against the far wall and prevented from even seeing the whole picture projected in front of them.

--Euripides

Sunday, August 7, 2016

Tailgating Car Crash Illustrates Differences Between Liberals and Conservatives


This video appeared in our local Fox News network. It showed a woman (and her cat) tailgating a red pickup. A mattress sticking out in the highway caused the woman to swerve, overreacting to highway speeds, whereupon she lost control of her car, hit the truck on the right, then flipped her car over.

The driver (and the cat) were OK.

What interested me about this video were the hundreds of people's comments debating the cause of the crash. There were two major factions of interpretation.

On the one hand, a lot of people argued that the crash was the fault of the pickup truck driver, who didn't let the woman pass (while he was trying to pass the slower truck on the right). Many accused the pickup driver of deliberately slowing down. Many thought he broke the law by not moving over into the "slow lane." They spewed ad hominem attacks against the pickup driver, calling him stupid and spiteful.

Another group of people argued that the woman who tailgated the pickup was to blame for her own misfortune. She had clearly broken the law and had the misfortune to discover why tailgating is a bad idea.

Here are some observations: The red pickup was in the left-hand lane, driving at highway speed, slowly overtaking the truck on the right. The car drove up to the back of the pickup, then applied brakes in order to avoid hitting the pickup. The car maintained a very close distance, that you can see in this video, for several minutes, all the while applying the brakes. The pickup never applied the brakes and didn't seem to slow down. Rather, the truck on the right seemed to gain speed so the pickup driver couldn't pass so quickly. The pickup driver saw the mattress in the road and gently swerved out of its way. The car driver, saw the mattress at the last minute, overcorrected and lost control of her car.

Two items of note. 1) There is no law in Arizona designating a fast lane or a slow lane. 2) Tailgating is an illegal form of aggressive driving in Arizona.

Here's what I noticed. The two factions of interpretations in the comments section seemed to split along the lines of political ideology. Progressives tended to blame the driver of the pickup. Conservatives tended to blame the car driver for her own crash and for breaking the law.

This is a perfect illustration of a major difference between the two factions that inhabit our country. Progressives blame everyone but the obvious person when misfortune happens. Even if every decision progressives make is 180 degrees wrong, they will blame the person in front of them for getting in the way. When the inevitable crash happens, it's then the fault of the guy who got in the way.

Conservatives look at the evidence, look at the law, then conclude that poor ideas and practices caused the crash. They note that the woman driver did indeed break the law then suffered the consequences. They understand that all actions have consequences. While we can control our actions, we cannot control the consequences. They also note that any other interpretation of the crash seems foolish and off point.

The two factions of our country see the world in vastly different ways. As the commentary from this car crash illustrated, the ideological divide seeps into the interpretation of the very world around us.

It is also obvious to some, that the ability of progressives to accurately assess the world around them is quite a skewed vision of reality.

Friday, July 29, 2016

Let's Get Down to the Business of Hurting America: Hillary's Proposed Tax Increases

In case you didn't notice (or are part of the roughly 45% of Americans who didn't pay income taxes last year), the tax rates have been steadily creeping up under the Obama regime.

It's no use blaming the Republicans. Socialist government spending has infected both parties, yet Obama and Hillary actively campaign to create an even broader socialist republic.

Hillary Clinton has proposed even more tax increases than Obama if she is allowed to reign over rule lead serve the American people. I took a look at the list of proposed tax increases, and the suggested tax increases. Nearly every one will raise my taxes.

Chances are, they'll negatively affect your life as well.

I'm not a rich guy. I run a small school. I still teach university classes. Teaching doesn't pay much.

I also have invested (meaning tied up) money in land. Since the recession of 2008, land sales have stagnated, and I've sold very little land. Occasionally, I do sell some and make additional income to supplement my exorbitant lifestyle.

Yet thanks to Obama and the Nancy Pelosi Congress of six years ago, I now pay more taxes than ever on less money.

Back to Hillary. Here are the tax increases she proposes:

Income Tax
Hillary wants to increase income tax by lowering the amount of money we can take on deductions. This will effect those of us who itemize deductions. I rely on itemized deductions to significantly lower my tax burden. (And it is a burden.) I have a house with a mortgage, significant health care bills, and donate roughly 10% of my income to charities. Lowering the deduction amount means that I'll pay more taxes, losing a higher percentage of my income to a corrupt government that wants to "spread the wealth" by paying bureaucrats to run government agencies.

Business Tax
The school I run also happens to be a business. Not only do I get the privilege of having my income taxed, but money that the business makes, that would go to pay my salary and teacher salaries, will be reduced. All of us will lose income.

Fairness Tax
The term "fairness" is a progressive code word meaning "suck money from evil rich people." This tax could affect me if, for instance, I was able to sell some of my land. Instead of using the money for future investments or retirement, Hillary's Brave New World order would suck out a portion of that money, leaving me with only enough to allow me the privilege of working to make ends meet.

Capital Gains Tax
Most progressives and Democrats treat the lower capital gains taxes as a rich person's tax dodge. Simply put, capital gains is an increase in money that was already taxed and then used for investments. Again, if I were able to sell some land, the current capital gains tax would be 25% straight off the top. I suspect the "fairness" tax would take the rest.

And Hillary wants to raise the capital gains rate.

Selling my land may not even be worth the trouble if Hillary has her way, which means that under Hillary's America, many in my situation would no longer be investing dollars.

(For those socialists who may be reading this, wealth in the US is created through investments. Wealth is how we Americans pay income taxes to support the 45% who don't pay income taxes.)

Tax on Stock Trades
This tax would affect everyone who has a retirement account or who invests in the stock market. Basically, every time a stock is traded (bought or sold) the US government would require a tax on the transaction. Yes, many of us have a 401(K) which would be affected, producing a lower return on investment and decreasing retirement income. Such a tax would put a drag on any stock investment which would burden the market and discourage investment.

Hillary has proposed these tax increases to help pay the staggering $20 trillion debt and the half-billion to trillion deficit the country is running.

Yet these proposals only serve to hurt the economy further, sending us into the spiral of socialist stagnation.

Is this really the direction we Americans want to take?

Monday, July 25, 2016

Are Conservatives Stupid?


Progressives, especially those in academia, often accuse conservatives of being stupid. (See, for example, this compilation of studies as a case in point.)

These studies and statistics ostensibly offer proof that, merely because conservatives reject progressive policies, they are mentally inferior to liberals. Some, like the statistics about the spread of information in the news, assume that because conservatives haven't heard about the latest in progressive dogma, that somehow proves a lack of intelligence.

An interesting alternative case was this study asking the question: "Are conservatives really simple-minded?" Anyone can immediately see that the "scientific" question is imbued with two logical fallacies: the fallacy of a loaded question and an ad hominem fallacy. The study, however, does evaluate the question whether progressives are more capable with complexity than conservatives.

The study starts off by noting that the concept of complexity is domain-specific, meaning that minds can think complexly in one area while thinking simply in others. This is an obvious limitation of the human brain. Our brains are finite and we must pick and choose those things that we want to spend our time thinking about.

In every study where progressives purportedly prove complexity, the questions asked, and the data collected, have focused on issues that are of particular importance to progressives. In the study I've cited, however, the researchers found, much to their surprise, that conservatives have no substantial differences from progressives in processing complex thoughts.

Surprise of surprises! The study does note that conservatives aren't as complex in progressive areas of thought - which simply means that conservatives don't spend time thinking of the same things progressives think about. For example, progressives will think about the complexity of civil rights, including all sorts of groups as protected classes. Conservatives, on the other hand, are "simple" thinkers on civil rights, rejecting the inclusion of so many groups as silly or unnecessary.

The study goes on to admit that out of all those researchers who worked on this particular complexity study, not a single one of them "was conservative by any measure." This comes as no surprise to me, or to anyone familiar with the left-leaning university system. What does surprise me is that the author admitted that all the complexity study research that came from his group was biased. That is a huge admission.

So what do we know about left-leaning research? That it is left leaning. Such research says more about the biases of the left than it will ever do in identifying complexity, or in its ability to correctly assess conservatives' brains.

One explanation about why progressives tend toward complex thought in many situations may stem from the fact that those on the left have no moral foundation by which to judge the complexity of an issue. For example, if a child first attempts to pour water into a cup, it may take the child a great deal of complex thought and time to get the water into the cup. An adult, who has performed this action thousands of times needs no such complexity to get the water into the cup.

Is the child superior because it uses more of its brain at the time to fill the cup? Of course not. Do we judge the adult to be inferior for simplifying the process, where filling a cup is accomplished without thought? Not at all.

Such an analogy is akin to why progressives find conservative thought simplistic, and why they misjudge conservative thought time and again. To every moral question (and there are a lot of them) progressives must approach the problem anew, every time.

As an example, a conservative may look at a moral issue such as same sex marriage and dismiss it as a trivial concern, since the moral base is vastly different from the progressive moral base. Any new group classification related to same sex marriage is automatically invalid: trans-marriage, plural marriage, and so on.

A progressive, on the other hand, must take each case of class identification as a new, complex thing, and then classify it accordingly. Hence the questions: "Do we consider transgender on par with homosexuality? Yes? Then it is a protected class and the 'system' against trans-marriage is wrong."

Yet is that complexity morally superior? Not at all. In fact, complexity for its own sake is often wrong. There is no room in it for moral absolutes. There is no room for inductive learning.

There is no basis to condemn conservatism based on such biased intellectual models. Since they come from the academic left, they show nothing more than their own bias and wishful thinking about those on the right.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

History Not in History Books: Winston Churchill During World War II


I've been reading an obscure account about World War II and came across this gem about Winston Churchill. You won't find this in any school textbooks:
Well anyway, along comes Churchill, and all the women and children cheer him wildly as his car drives along the road. Then he tells his driver to stop. The driver stops, Churchill gets out, stands to the side of the car and begins relieving himself. He had an honor guard and everything else, and he ordered the whole thing to stop. At the same time, he flashes the "V for Victory" sign. And all the women and children? It doesn't faze them in the least. Well, that was the great Winston Churchill. If you can do a thing like that in full sight, you're an unusual man. (Source)
There's a lesson to be learned about politics from this story. I'm not sure what it is, but I'm certain there's a lesson in there somewhere.

Saturday, July 16, 2016

Some Thoughts on Islamist Terrorism and Truck Drivers in Nice, Once Again

Once again, terrorism on a mass scale has struck France. This time, a crazed Tunisian turned French national drove a truck through a crowd in Nice as the people celebrated Bastille Day.

Once again, the news media are slobbering all over themselves to prove that the driver, named Mohamed, wasn't really a Muslim (he drank alcohol and never attended the mosque!), that he was a loner (he became depressed when his wife left him!), or that the truck was responsible (CNN headline "Truck Terror").

Once again, French President Hollande has vowed to show "real force," whatever that means.

Once again, US President Obama lectured the world on religious tolerance.

And once again the world is diminished because Islamist terrorism has been allowed to grow and prosper all over the world.

The progressive elites who control the narrative fail to identify and to understand the nature of terrorism. Even after years of Islamic terrorist acts, reaching back into the 1970s, most members of the press, as well as most governments, treat terrorism as a unified group of people with central leadership.

This is not the case. Terrorism is a religious and political ideology.

Terrorism is a means to spread the ideals of Islamism - the call to create an Islamic state. Terrorism is an appeal to the basest emotions, directed at young Muslim men. Terrorism presents the promise of Allah's salvation to those who are "strong" enough to commit mass murder. Terrorism is an idea that spreads through the minds of Muslims, corrupting them, shaping them, and convincing them that evil is good and good is evil. Terrorism is strengthened whenever it is allowed to grow unchecked and unnamed.

While certain groups (such as ISIS) gained notoriety by spreading terrorism, they spread an ideal, rather than taking territory. These groups are not unified. They are not centralized. They are not beholden to a top-down government. They have no hierarchical structure. If one Muslim terrorist rises to notoriety by spreading lies and deceit, then is killed, the Hydra of terrorism will grow three new heads in his place.

This is where governments and media get it wrong. They insist on misrepresenting terrorism as a solidified movement. (They also insist that it has nothing to do with Islam.) Yet, by its very nature, terrorism attracts the disgruntled, the loners, the insane, the bullies, the sadists. It glorifies the evil that would kill innocents. The evil comes in many forms, but it always connects with the roots of Islam.

That is why terrorism strikes in the Mideast. It strikes in Asia. It strikes in Russia. It strikes in France and Belgium and the United States.

The solution to get rid of the infestation of terrorism is not to bomb random buildings in Syria. The solution is not to send drones against suspected terrorists in Pakistan. The solution is not to ban guns or even trucks. The solution is not to just live with terrorism.

The solution to defeating terrorism is to defeat the ideology that promotes it.

Admittedly, destroying bad ideas is difficult, made more so when most people in the world are kept in ignorance through the deceit and lies of those who hold power. The world suffers under the burden of those who preach ignorance.

To paraphrase: "Beware ignorance for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased."

Evil ideals can only be fought by utterly destroying them. Sometimes that means going to war. More often, it means that good people must unite to stand up for the truth, to stand up for the right, to stand up for the good. It takes courage to stand up for what is right.

And perhaps that is the real danger of ignorance; it destroys courage and the will to stand against evil.

Friday, July 15, 2016

Hunting Bark Scorpions: A Completely Non-Political Post

Living in the Arizona desert, I get used to the fact that nearly every plant and every bug has some kind of spike, bite, or stinger.

The worst of the lot, in my view, is the bark scorpion. They are arachnids indigenous to Arizona and New Mexico. They especially thrive in the Sonoran Desert, where there is sufficient water. (Yes, even scorpions need water. At the very least, they need juicy bugs that need water.)

Bark scorpion stings are quite painful. I've been stung a couple of times. Other than the throbbing pain, I don't seem to suffer any ill effects. Some folks (like my across-the-street neighbor) can have an allergic reaction which can cause breathing problems, dizziness, a racing heart, and painful stiffening of the joints.

These critters love the cinder block wall surrounding my back yard. (They thrive on the random bugs and the plentiful water.) They are nocturnal predators. During the day, they hide just about anywhere they can find to get out of the hot Arizona sun. Mostly, they crawl into the cinder block fence and sit around (either playing pinochle, or more probably planning my demise) until the sun goes down.

Bark scorpions are highly resistant to chemical pesticides, so are difficult to control. Some folks have success spreading diatomaceous earth around the base of their walls and fences.

The only thing I've found to keep the scorpions at bay is to hunt them down at night using a black light. Bark scorpions fluoresce under a black light, glowing a brilliant green. Seriously. Usually they are incredibly difficult to detect, being masters of camouflage and with the ability to flatten themselves into the tightest spaces. (Hence, they can easily crawl under the seals at the bottom of the door.) Under the beam of a black light, they glow from dozens of feet away.

I go out scorpion hunting several nights a week during the summer. I take along my trusty "Slipper of Mighty Slaying" (an old rubber-soled slipper repurposed as a champion scorpion squisher). I also take along a putty knife, dedicated to the task of cutting scorpions to bits when they crawl into tight cracks or crevices.

I find scorpion hunting oddly relaxing. I can take out my testosterone-induced aggression against a foe that would otherwise sneak into my bed and sting me, or at least eat crackers. (Scorpions have no sense of honor.) It's far better to keep the predators at bay, far away from the edges of my home.

If you come out to visit, be sure to join me in the hunt. It's an inexpensive but satisfying hobby.

Thursday, July 14, 2016

The Aim of Progressivism

Modern progressivism in the US is a divisive ideology. It seeks to divide the country into groups to keep them at war with each other: blacks against whites, men against women, straights against gays. Its philosophy is inherently founded on intolerance and its ability to switch off the rational mind to accept the irrational.

I am reminded of the following quote, written in 1925, by an obscure artist turned politician:

Leadership itself requires not only will but also ability, and a greater importance must be attached to will and energy than to intelligence as such, and most valuable of all is a combination of ability, determination, and perseverance. The future of a movement is conditioned by the fanaticism yes, the intolerance, with which its adherents uphold it as the sole correct movement, and push it past other formations of a similar sort.

While progressives keep demanding that their goals are tolerance and equality, their protests, their press conferences, their rhetoric, their lawlessness, and their fanaticism, all point to an ideal contrary to its stated goals. They hide their intent behind a fa├žade of lies and deceit.

I'm not saying that progressivism is fascist. (In fact, it is socialist.) I am saying that we should be wary of any movement that stifles freedom of religion, free speech, and the right to bear arms. I am saying that progressivism promotes its will, attempting to switch off the rational mind, in order to promote intolerance and rage.

Our country cannot long survive those who destroy liberty in order to promote equality.

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Modern Students: A Quote from Allan Bloom


As the spring semester comes to a close and I finish grading the myriad final projects for my class, I am reminded of a quote from the late Allan Bloom. This comes from his outstanding book The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students.

Today’s select students know so much less, are so much more cut off from the tradition, are so much slacker intellectually, that they make their predecessors look like prodigies of culture. The soil is ever thinner, and I doubt whether it can now sustain the taller growths.
Written in 1987, the commentary is even sadder today than it was nearly 30 years ago.

Friday, July 8, 2016

Why Does the Left Hate the Police?


With the recent tragic events in Dallas, the anti-police left have now had a taste of just how harmful their anti-police rhetoric has become. They don't recognize that as the source of the murder of five police officers, with six more injured. (Of course, to them, guns are to blame.) (Either that, or the Dallas police deserved what they got.)

The anti-police rhetoric pervades the media. President Obama spreads it. The attorney general spreads it. The leftist media spread it.

It's no wonder that some deluded git would believe it and open fire on the police.

The media now harp on gun control and the racial divide in the country. Progressives pretend to be outraged, then push for gun control. Republicans pretend to be outraged, then push to blame Democrats. Conservatives shake their heads, point to the rhetoric, and say, "What did you expect would happen?"

Few are asking the important questions:

  1. Why do progressives blame whites for everything?
  2. Why do progressives build up racial tension in the US?
  3. Why do progressives hate the police?

By answering the first question, we can get an answer to the other two. So why do progressives blame whites for everything?

The answer to this question stems from the basic progressive dogma that the United States was founded on the back of slavery, oppression, and white-male dominance. Ignoring the incredible advances in thought, equality, politics, science, and technology brought about by Western civilization, the Renaissance, classical liberalism, and the founding of the United States, progressives believe the unprovable doctrine that such advances could only have been made through the oppression of others.

Besides being silly, this concept is dangerous because it denies the very foundation of progressivism. In other words, progressives denigrate the very system that created them. They denounce the very philosophies that allow them the freedom to exist and to think as they do.

Then, turning against their own foundation, they praise and adopt philosophies that stem from those who hated classical liberalism and the free market - Marx, Rousseau, Engels, Owens, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao.

Where does racial conflict come in to all of this? In the US during the 1950s, the ideals of democracy and equality finally caught up with a majority of the population, enough to start the Civil Rights movement to incorporate blacks into the American ideals of equal protection. During the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement moved into full swing, and Republicans in Congress changed the laws to create a more just system.

During the 1970s, the same forces created the Women's Rights Movement, which succeeded in requiring women to compete in the work force.

During the late 60s and early 70s, the Democrat Party, realizing that it had been left politically behind, changed from being the worker's party, to the progressive party.

By 2000, most of the gains of the 60s and 70s had been realized, but the US now had a new crop of progressive politicians and school administrators who had successfully infiltrated and redesigned education in the US to promote their ideals of class warfare, racial warfare, and multiculturalism.

With no targets to foment the socialist imperative of class warfare and polarization, progressives tried (and succeeded) in redefining the Civil Rights Movement to include homosexuals. While that issue was indeed polarizing, the Gay Rights Movement forced the courts to accept same sex marriage, and the fight became essentially moot.

Yet, progressives desperately need polarization in order to thrive. Class warfare is at the core of the revolution. When there are no real classes, when the Civil Rights Movement essentially won, progressives turned their attention back to the Great Racial Divide.

Whites were blamed for all inequality and poverty and oppression.

Which leads us to question three: Why do progressives hate the police.

Hating the police is a throwback from the 1960s, where the police forces came to represent "The Man," namely those in power who could only oppress others. Yet, there is something more going on in 2016 than blaming the police for being "The Man."

The next step in progressive logic is to force its ideology, its very thoughts, onto an unwilling population. While progressives have made great strides in bamboozling the masses that progressivism, and Obama are the salvation of humankind, there will always be a segment of the population who are not bamboozled, who are not ignorant, and who see through the lies and deceit of the progressive agenda.

What better way to destabilize the country, to bring "errant" conservatives into line, than to erode the institutions that protect individuals from harm?

The police forces consist of private citizens, are local, and cannot easily be controlled by a strong federal government intent on making fundamental changes to how the US operates.

Years ago, when I was in grade school, a police officer visited our class to talk about being a police officer. (I think it was career week.) He said something I've never forgotten, and which I maintain is true.

He said, "The police are the people who stand in the way of tyranny. Think about it. If there were not a private and separate police force, the government would have to use the military in order to enforce the law. Governments which have direct police powers always abuse those powers."

And that is the answer to our question. Progressives want to erode our police system because, at the heart of their ideology, is the belief that they should use the full force of the government to enforce the progressive ideology of social justice. Along with eroding the police forces of the US, progressives have promoted paramilitary forces in the NSA.

Yet, if progressives succeed in breaking the police forces, will there indeed be social justice, or will that all crumble to dust, along with everyone's protections of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?