Monday, August 25, 2014

Schemes Within Schemes



When your own government obstructs justice, when it secretes and destroys evidence of wrong
doing, when it lies and has it's henchmen lie, that is when you are no longer living free. The Obama administration is riddled with scandals, lies, and obstruction, but that is what I have come to expect from the left. They have no honor. They have no integrity. They have a political philosophy that is rife with contradictions and a moral system that is purely situational. How could you expect anything different?
                               
Just recently it was revealed that the IRS has had Lois Lerner's emails the whole time. The government backs up all data systems as part of it's Continuation of Government (COG) programs, as revealed by a Justice Department attorney to Judicial Watch. So the whole charade with John Koskinen, The IRS Commissioner,  was nothing more than Kabuki theater. Koskinen's testimony before Congress was nothing more than ritualized lies told with the intent to derail the investigation and to mislead the public about the hostile actions taken by the IRS against citizens of the Republic for political reasons. This is not the first such scandal either.

The EPA has been stacking the deck against businesses in the West. They rule before a business plan unfolds or requests are made for a determination. The IRS targets the political enemies of the Democrats at the behest of Congressmen like Elijah Cummings, who, not surprisingly, can find no ill in their actions. Then there is Benghazi where the American Ambassador was murdered along with three other Americans in the Libyan sands and nobody even knows why the government just cast them adrift. There is the VA scandal where veterans who served this nation honorably were left to die while waiting for medical care, but those who killed them received fat bonus checks for their perfidy. Then there is the Justice Department whose bungling got two Border Patrol Agents and hundreds of civilians killed due to their gun running to drug lords. And there is more on the horizon. A lot more.

One could argue that these are merely isolated incidents in a very large government, but the cover-ups suggest otherwise. I remember the meeting held by the National Endowment for the Arts back in the days when Obama first took power. They spoke of using tax payer money for propaganda in support of Obamacare. They spoke of using code words to hide their true intentions from the American public. That meeting took place at the behest of the White House. An underling took the fall for one Ms. Valerie Jarrett and fell upon her sword so that Ms. Jarrett wouldn't have to. Ms. Jarrett is a slum lord from Chicago that has orchestrated Obama's meteoric rise in politics, she got the First Lady her plum job at a Chicago hospital. And she even has her own Secret Service protective detail. She is the one who bragged about doing the due diligence on Communist Van Jones. She is the President's closest advisor and she is accountable to nobody. What does she know about all of this?

Cover ups don't happen out of the blue. There is coordination. There is a plan. There is somebody who is directing the others. Who is that person? That is the question that the media is terrified to answer. That is why they go along, to get along. Best not to rock the boat when you are as dirty as your masters. Had this been a Republican administration, we would now have answers to many of our questions. The news would have hounded the administration until they came clean, they would have tirelessly dug through records and worked contacts, they would have dug until they hit daylight. But with Obama and his cronies? Nada. They remain strangely silent. Silent, that is, with the exception of Fox News and we all know what they think of them.

The lies and the spin and the political indoctrination of the left have all conspired to set up an alternate reality for about half of the voters. No longer do the facts stand on their own, the facts now have an independent meaning depending on your political orientation. Words no longer mean the same thing to people because a word may have different meanings to different people. While we may be speaking English, your English and mine may be two very different languages. As Confucius once said, how can you solve a problem when you cannot even communicate? And that's right where they want us.

We are not idle because we desire to be, we are idle because we must be. The failure to agree forces us to be idle. If we cannot decide upon a course of action, we stand still. This stasis is by design, I believe. If the electorate can be neutralized then the government and it's organs have no need to fear the public because the public is at war with themselves. The strategy is not new, it was called panem et circenses back in the days of Rome. It's intent was to occupy the mob so that the people couldn't interfere with government. In today's sense, instead of the people being occupied with bread and games they are occupied with fighting amongst themselves. If you are struggling with someone or something, where is the majority of your attention focused? It is focused on that which troubles you. We have seen these strategies before.

The Cloward and Piven strategy was designed to force America into bankruptcy by increasing the size of the welfare roles so that the American government could go broke. Right now, about half of America is receiving government assistance, and that figure is increasing. Drop by drop, we are becoming a socialist nation and there isn't a damned thing that we can do about it right now. As Marxists and Maoists stroll the halls of power in Washington D.C., what do you think that they are going to leave the American people? Will it be freedom? Not judging by the current lies and obstruction of justice by the government. Will it be happiness? Not for conservatives or anyone the Democrats deem to be political enemies if the IRS is any indication. Will it be free and available healthcare?

Well, free is a relative term. Because if by "free" you mean health insurance that costs you more than you were paying before and the fact that you can no longer access the best hospitals and providers and have to wait six months to even see a physician if you are lucky, then no, it won't be free. Oh, and that fifteen million uninsured that everybody was whining about being left behind before Obamacare? Yeah, they are left behind after Obamacare. You may be asking yourself, what was the point? Don't bother, the point was to socialize medicine. Don't you just love the Cloward and Piven strategy? Good times.

If you are looking for a point at which the U.S. may cross the Rubicon and move toward the end of the Union, don't bother. We have already crossed it. Like Caesar, the left had a dream you see, and they crossed it for you because what would you know about living your own life anyway? You are just a dumb plebian. They will give you your life and tell you how to live it as they live with style like a good patrician should. Parens patriae don't you know? That is why they believe that they can tell you what to eat, how much of it you should have, and how to raise your children. Because, you know, you are a dullard.

As I see it, this is going to break one of two ways. Either we are going to do something about it or we are just going to go meekly into that brave new leftist Utopia that they have planned for us. One way requires action and the assertion of the individual. The other only requires acquiescence and obedience.

Which will you decide?

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Idiocracy



Recently, the Attorney General had this to say about the beheading of journalist James Foley:

"Those who would perpetrate such acts need to understand something -- this Justice Department, this Department of Defense, this nation, we have long memories and our reach is very wide. We will not forget what happened, and people will be held accountable, one way or the other." Eric Holder, Attorney General

Held accountable, Mr. Holder? Did you seriously just say that? God help us if Putin decides to invade Alaska, Mr. Holder will open up a criminal investigation against him for it. He may even use RICO to nail him. I hope that we have enough FBI to take on the Russian Spetsnaz. Are the adults even aware of what these children are doing in Washington D.C.?

Aside from looking like he just got a fresh pair of balls for his birthday, the threats of holding someone accountable is laughable. Do you men accountable in the same way that you held the IRS accountable for the destruction of evidence? What about the way that you meant accountability regarding the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry? How about the way that you held the Black Panthers accountable for voter intimidation? Or the way that your office ignores civil rights crimes perpetrated by blacks on whites? You are full of it, sir.

As an AG, Eric Holder has been far less than stellar in his performance of his duties. He is pretty good at stonewalling, I'll give him that. But the obstruction of justice is not his job, at least not in the office that he currently holds, but as consigliore to Obama and Valerie Jarrett, that's a different story. But aside from abusing the law for fun and profit, he's worthless. Now this clown is issuing threats to terrorists overseas like he's the President of the United States. Don't look now, but I think that the left is buying their own PR.

When I hear about crap like this, I have to remember that we put these jackasses into office, otherwise I'd blow a gasket. We deserve Eric Holder and we deserve his crap. We put his boss into the White House, so this is on us. I am almost scared to wonder who will be the next foul up to occupy that office given the electorate's recent track record. Who knows, maybe Brittany Spears will one day be singing the State of the Union address before Congress. I hope she has fireworks at that performance, otherwise it might be a dull affair. If the current crew is any indication, we are already on the road to the Idiocracy (if you haven't seen the movie, do yourself a favor and get).

At least there are still some adults left in D.C., like Iraq War veteran Duncan Hunter. He said, "This is more nonsense. What's most aggravating is that either in Foley's situation, or the other Americans in captivity, the Defense Department is being forced to take a backseat to the FBI and DOJ." Unfortunately for the hostages, the feckless left holds all the cards. - h/t Fox News for the story

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Violence



We have been told so often that violence is not the answer, that many now believe that it can solve nothing. That is a lie. There is nothing inherently wrong or evil in violence. The use of violence does not mark the user as either good or evil based merely upon its use. What determines if the use of violence was good or ill comes from the context of its use and it is there that we find our answer.

Long ago, we would try to discern if the use of violence was justified or not. But that was before the brain dead use of zero tolerance. For example if a fight erupted at school, the school officials would make an effort to determine who was the aggressor. The one defending would be absolved of guilt and the aggressor would be punished. Today, no matter how much one is beat upon, no matter the insults or questions regarding one's parentage, if you even try to resist you are wrong. Even if it costs you your life.

From children tossed out of school for eating a pop tart into the shape of a gun to using your fingers in the same fashion, both are equally guilty as if they had armed themselves with a genuine firearm and unloaded on their classmates. Both are turned over to the police, both are chastised and sent home with the stain of violence marking them just as certainly as the scarlet A marked an adulterer in Nathaniel Hawthorne's book. Of course, the intent here is to turn them into sheep. Dull, quiet, and obedient.

But that is not man. We are who we were made to be: the apex predator. The deadliest foe on the planet. Dominant and prideful, filled with confidence. But that proved far too bloody and destructive to society. So we created laws to govern the interactions of men. The tide of chaos was stemmed and man became civilized. Order arose out of chaos and anarchy. But that order had to be maintained by violence in order to blunt our predatory instincts.

The use of violence is referenced when we see the gun on the hip of the uniformed police officer. His authority is represented by his badge. His uniform signals him as an enforcer. He is nothing short of an agent of state authority. The Courts use force as well. Is not incarceration an example of the use of force? Do not armed guards secure the prisons and the court rooms? If violence were truly unnecessary, why would law enforcers need to be armed? Because violence is still required to bridle the spirit of man.

The second amendment insures that all men can have access to arms. It ensures that the citizen will live free because no one man will be able to subdue him by force without resistance. This is the point that is missed so often by those who wring their hands and moan about violence. They blame the act and not the perpetrator. Because to assign blame one must examine the case and the merits of the force used. Too much trouble, better to use the brain dead approach and just denounce the use of force in general. Easier, quicker, and it has the advantage of not requiring any thought.

It does not matter that violence was necessary. It does not matter if there were good reasons for using force. It only matters that violence was used. Violence is not to be eschewed from a Christian perspective either. Many try to use the ten commandments as an example that no one should use violence. But was it not Christ Himself that tossed the money lenders out on their collective asses? Did He not use force to underscore His point? God even sanctioned the use of force when he told Joshua to destroy Jericho and then brought down its walls so that he could. Why?

Because violence is sometimes necessary? Yes, but there are moral reasons for the use of violence. John Stuart Mill said of pacifism, "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." Mill was speaking from a Utilitarian ethical perspective.

From an individual perspective, if one believes that the individual has a right to prevent harm or death to himself or others, as our laws clearly do, then one must subscribe to the rightness of the second amendment which provides the means to do so. While one can assert that guns cause gun violence, the evidence to the contrary is indisputable. After removing arms from the citizens of Australia, the Aussies studied violent crime. It did not drop as they had expected. Rather, it substantially increased. The only difference was that now, Aussies could no longer effectively defend themselves and became the victims of predators because the government had removed their teeth. Thus the Australian government surmised that gun control has no influence on violent crime. A pity that they did not reverse course after making that discovery.

The reason that gun control has no impact on violent crime is because the firearm is a symptom and not the cause of violence. Violent crime originates in the will of the individual. Whether the firearm can be obtained legally or not is of no consequence. Just as human nature can be submerged in order to achieve a specific goal or objective, the desire to do violence can also be submerged. But if submerged long enough, it will override human control and emerge with a vengeance. This is basic psychology, where does gun control legislation enter in to the calculation?

It is only when the state does not trust the individual that it seeks to disarm the public. Every time a public has been disarmed, tyranny has followed. Every time. Just as there is a balance between good and evil, there is a political balance as well. If the state is the only one who can use force and there is no counter, then tyranny will follow because it is in man's nature to dominate his fellow man. Only the opposition to the state by the force of arms prevents this.

As evidence of this opposition, I give you George Washington, "[T]he hour is fast approaching, on which the Honor and Success of this army, and the safety of our bleeding Country depend. Remember officers and Soldiers, that you are Freemen, fighting for the blessings of Liberty -- that slavery will be your portion, and that of your posterity, if you do not acquit yourselves like men." Though there are many today who would decry such a sentiment. Never mind that those who would do so live under the very freedom that the blood spilt by these men provided it. Even the Almighty is not immune to this tampering with the nature of reality.

God has been called unconditional love for so long, that He is now considered to be nothing, but love. Referring to my Jericho example above, that is clearly a false assertion. My God is also a God of vengeance and righteous anger. A God who avenges His people. But He is also a God of love and peace. While the Almighty prefers peace and harmony, He is not above using force to avenge wrongs. Something that modern Christians are uncomfortable discussing. This is the position that we now find violence in. Even from an evolutionary perspective, violence is expected.

An individual unwilling to defend himself is weak from an evolutionary perspective. He would not long survive in man's natural state. Therefore, his genes would be removed early. To a large extent, laws limit the influence of evolution in the breeding of the species and weaker individuals rise to predominance where once they would have been eliminated by nature. This has led to the weak leading the people and attempting to subvert millions of years of evolution. It may be nice if we were all wired to be meek, but that is certainly not the case with man. We are the apex predator, remember?

We have honed our predatory skills over millions of years. Do you really think that 8,000 years of civilization can erase that? Without aggression, what is a predator? In a word, prey. If there are members of our race that mean us harm, then violence is necessary to defend one's family and one's self from harm. In short, it is a necessity. This is a truth that even Gene Roddenberry admitted in Star Trek. He envisioned a future devoid of famine, want, and political strife. But even that cornucopian future did not eliminate the need for violence because sometimes, violence is the answer.

It is certainly preferable to find non-violent solutions wherever possible, but there are times when violence must be met with violence. Robert E. Lee once said "It is well that war is so terrible, or we would grow too fond of it.” A bittersweet sentiment that alludes to the lure of violence and it's devastation when used. Two sides of the same coin. But that sentiment speaks more of character than pugnacity. For it is in the character that we judge the use of violence.

What was the threat or provocation? What were the emotions experienced by the individual? In short, we try to place ourselves into the position of the one who used force to determine if it was a justified action or not. If the use was justified, we excuse it. If not, we condemn and punish. By condemning all violence one must also condemn the right to defend one's self and family. I can imagine nothing so horrible as to be forced to stand idly by and watch one's children be victimized by an assailant. The cruelty of that position is diabolical in nature. But it is the same cruelty that we allow to be inflicted on school children as we demand that they take a beating without raising a hand. It is madness.

We used to live in a world where honor and character were celebrated and encouraged and violence was accepted as a normal response to abnormal circumstances. We need to return to that world or we are all lost.

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics



When the topic of Israel comes up, there are many who bristle for the plight of the poor Palestinian. Israel stole his land, Israel is an apartheid state, Israel is murdering them, Israel blah, blah, blah. When you force anti-Semitism to go underground, it does not disappear. It hardens. But what happens to hate that is combined with something that is protected? It breeds, and that is what has happened to the hatred borne in the heart of the Palestinian Muslims.

The left despises Christianity and Judaism, but fawns over Islam because the Muslim will kill them if they don't. They have many examples of people being harassed and killed like Theo Van Gogh, Hirsi Ayaan Ali, and Salman Rushdie to illustrate this point. Christians and Jews won't kill you for insulting Christ or the Torah. So they take the trade off because they love their own skin more than their "principles," and they give Muslims a pass on whatever it is that they hate. But where their hatred coincides, that is truly an awesome thing.

The left has long harbored hatred in it's heart. Like so many other false accusations that it is justly famous for making, they claim that it is only the right wingers who hate. But that is a lie. They hate blacks, they hate right wingers, they hate black women who don't know their place, like Stacy Dash, and most of all they hate Jews. From Helen Thomas to Penelope Cruz, the left has long hated the Jews. People like them have used the Jews as scapegoats for generations. "Don't look at the evil that I am doing, look at the dirty Jew," they say.

Never mind that the Jew is a person just like us. Never mind that they think and feel just like us. Never mind that everything about them is just like us. It is just that they worship
God in a different way. For that alone, they are hated. Doesn't make a lot of sense, right? But when did sense make a lick of difference to the left? Their entire political ideology is one contradiction after another. Their morality is totally situational, therefore they have no moral compass. So reason has absolutely no hold on them because it denies their faith in what they believe and belief is the foundation of all of their politics.

I once had a conversation with a young lady who was a proponent of Obamacare. I told her of all the ill consequences of the past attempt to have the government take over insurance and how that ended in disaster for the American people. She just said "we have to try," totally ignoring what I had said. Like a comet on a fixed trajectory, she couldn't move if her life depended on it. Never mind that the government does nothing so well as wasting the taxpayer's dollars and time. That is the power of belief.

When Obama went to the Congress and demanded billions more to spend on illegal children, he didn't need to ask them for one dime. All he had to do was to cut government waste by 10% and he would have had more than 10 billion dollars immediately. The actual figure from a true 10% cut would likely be much, much larger than a mere 10 billion. The Federal government sends 100 billion plus a year to fraudsters that it doesn't bother to get off of it's dead ass to get back. Remember TARP and shovel ready jobs? Same deal. God only knows where the tens of billions of dollars went in that debacle. Even the accountants can't find it because the data was falsified to make the President look good. How else do you think that fake Congressional district numbers got in the spending reports? My point is, that a leftist has never met a lie he didn't like.

Christ said that ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. What he didn't tell you was that you cannot simply walk up to a man and tell him the truth. He won't believe it. He must find it for himself through his own need for it. Without that effort, he will be bound forever by the lie. There was once a woman who railed against bad parents. She had nothing, but invectives for them and couldn't understand how anyone could treat a poor child badly. After all, they didn't ask to be born. That same woman, allowed her own infant to die of starvation with a bag of it's own feces tied about it's waist because she couldn't be bothered to stop playing Dungeon's and Dragon's online. The truth was right in front of her, but she couldn't see it because she allowed herself to be blinded to it and education makes no difference in the process.

Take Paola Manduca for example. She is a highly educated physician who has made something of a name for herself for lying about Israel. In one of her rants she said:

"In the present offensive of Israeli forces against Lebanon and Gaza “new weapons” are being used. New and strange symptoms are reported amongst the wounded and the dead. . . . Many of these descriptions suggest the possibility that the new weapons used include “direct energy” weapons, and chemical and/or biological agents, in a sort of macabre experiment of future warfare, where there is no respect for anything." - ht Nat'l Review "The Poisoned Lancet"

A blatant lie, right up there with blood libel. It isn't that genetically tailored bioweapons are impossible. In fact, genetically tailoring a bioweapons is completely doable. The Arabs looked in to it you see, and found that you actually could design a bioweapon targeted to killing only a certain segment of the population. Unfortunately, the Arab and the Jew were too genetically similar to bother with designing one. If they did, they would kill themselves as well. One would think that it would have opened their eyes to the truth, but one would be wrong.

Doctor Paola Manduca ignored the fact that it was the Arab who did this and not the Jews, and takes it one step further and says that the Jew have already done it and released it upon the Palestinian population. How do we know that she is a liar? Because of the research that the Arabs have already done. If the Arab cannot design a bioweapon to target the Jew because he will catch himself in that conflagration, the Jew cannot do it because of the same reason. A fact that the British medical journal Lancet is unaware of as well. If in fact they still publish peer reviewed articles and not just opinion pieces like the rest of the British press.

If the weapon were chemical, there would be changes to the tissue consistent with same. A fact that she would know given her education in biochemistry. Unless they don't teach that in Europe. The same is true for directed energy weapons. I know for a fact that they still teach physics in Italy. So if she was in fact educated in the West, she has the ability to determine if directed energy, chemical, and biological weapons were used. So she knows that she is lying. The Lancet would also know if she were lying. Her fellow physicians know that she is lying. So how is it that everybody knows that Doctor Manduca is lying, if they have the education to understand the Lancet, yet nobody calls her on being a liar? How does the Lancet publish a liar? I guess they aren't a peer reviewed journal anymore. Either that, or they are leftists through and through. In which case, everything is right with the world and the contradictions be damned.

John Voight and Jackie Mason can try to correct and castigate their peers if they like, but they are wasting their time. The left will not hear them. The left cannot hear them. All that the left can hear is the sound of their own voices. Full of volume and fury, but ultimately signifying nothing. Like Doctor Paola Manduca who signed a letter pointing the finger of accusation at Israel for defending her citizens. The next time that someone does so, I suggest that you consider the source.

You certainly will not argue them out of it. That is an impossibility.