"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

Friday, July 31, 2020

Examples on newspeak


Rioters are protesters. Smoke canisters are tear gas. Supporting Trump is racism. But the most serious and egregious of all comes from leftists such as Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), who this past Wednesday introduced a measure dubbed the Abortion is Health Care Everywhere Act of 2020. According to Schakowsky, “Safe, legal, and accessible abortion” IS “comprehensive reproductive health care.” Furthermore, “safe, legal, and accessible abortion” IS “a human right.”

This newspeak is echoed by Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), chair of the Abortion Rights and Access Taskforce of the Pro-Choice Caucus, who stated that “abortion care is health care and health care is a fundamental human right.” She went on to maintain that the failure to pay for abortions around the world with the hard-earned money of American taxpayers is the failure to “dismantle racist policies that perpetuate inequities and exacerbate health disparities for Black and brown people here in the United States and around the globe.”

To sum up, the newspeak of these contemporary leftists tells us that if we oppose using tax money to pay for abortions in Burkina Faso, we are racists who are bent on depriving people of their human right to health care. I wonder how many people actually believe that!

Friday, June 19, 2020

Gaslighting America


In simple terms, gaslighting is manipulating a person into questioning his or her sanity by asserting that something is true when it is patently untrue. It comes from a movie called Gaslight where Charles Boyer drives his wife, Ingrid Bergman, crazy by continually telling her what is untrue is true. It's right out of the Joseph Goebbels school of communication arts. The prophet Isaiah described it as calling evil good and good evil. It is usually perpetrated by insecure husbands who are trying to keep their wives in a state of dependency. It is a cruel, sick, perverse thing to do to a fellow human being.

Today I feel as though our entire nation has been gaslighted by the Left for the past 50 years, and we have reached the tipping point where well over half of our citizens are certifiably insane, including six members of the United States Supreme Court.

Meaningless words


As we know, the terms "man" and "woman" no longer have anything to do with genetics or physiology. They are now "social constructs" and can be applied to any human being or all human beings. We are all both men and women, and on any given day we can select whichever one we wish to use to identify us. The result is that these terms have lost all meaning, so they may as well be jettisoned. But they won't be, because they continue to serve a political purpose.

It occurred to me this morning that a new variant of this phenomenon is now fully emerging from the dark shadowy crevices of the Leftist mind. Perhaps it began with Rachel Dolezal, the white women (excuse me, the white person) who self-identified as a black person. But I credit Joe Biden with bringing it into full expression when he asserted that any black person who does not support him "ain't black!" What this means is, not everyone with "black skin" is black, just as not everyone with "white skin" is white. For example, Ben Carson, who certainly does not support Biden, is not black. And Tim Scott, who also does not support Biden, is not black. So taking this to the next logical step, can we say that being black has nothing to do with genetics or physiology but is purely a social construct? This effectively renders the terms "black" and "white," as applied to human racial groups, meaningless. But they won't disappear as they should, because they serve a political purpose.

What then can we say about Black Lives Matter? I think we can say that not all black lives really matter. For example, as BLM marched in protest of the murder of George Floyd, a couple of young black thugs murdered David Dorn in cold blood. But did BLM march in protest of his murder? Clearly, either some black lives don't matter as much as others, or maybe David Dorn wasn't really black; therefore, his life didn't really matter.

The fact is: David Dorn was a 77-year-old retired policeman who was killed trying to protect a friend's business, while George Floyd was a drug-filled felon who was killed after, to some degree, resisting arrest. To me, the contrast between the public responses to the deaths of these two men tells us everything we need to know about Black Lives Matter.


Saturday, June 13, 2020

My demand for consistency


One of the things I admire about Leftists is their ability to hold two contradictory ideas in equilibrium without feeling any particular need to resolve them. For example, they can simultaneously oppose the legalized killing of murderers and support the legalized killing on innocent pre-born children. In the midst of the latest goings-on, we again see this amazing talent being displayed. Apparently Leftists see no contradiction between tearing down a statue of Robert E. Lee because he was a "traitor" and establishing their own independent nation within the borders of the United States (i.e. CHAZ). As I contemplate this, I begin to see that life would be so much easier if I wasn't so preoccupied with demanding consistency within my own thoughts and values.     

Friday, March 6, 2020

Context of Schumer's remarks


Chuck Schumer's threats against Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were right in line with the fundamental purpose of the event at which he was speaking, which was to promote violence against the innocent. 

Wednesday, February 26, 2020

Bernie's deception


Joseph Betz, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Villanova University, explains Bernie Sander's view of socialism: “Socialists like Bernie believe that every human has, by nature, the right to food, clothing, shelter, a job with a living wage, vacations, medical care, security in sickness and retirement and education. And each and every human has the justified claim to that amount of each of these which allows the full development of that person’s potentialities.” And who exactly does “every human” make that claim upon? The greater society in which they live? But what if everyone is claiming their right to a vacation or retirement, leaving the greater society without the means to provide such largess? Where does the money come from to cover the costs of these rights? Neither Bernie nor Professor Betz explain this side of the equation. Neither do they explain why “every human” does not include those who have not yet exited the womb?

The professor goes on to say, “A communist is also a socialist but is an autocratic socialist rather than a democratic one.” He then explains that we do not need to be concerned that Bernie’s brand of socialism would give us an autocrat like Stalin, explaining, “Yes, the USSR guaranteed everyone a job, an apartment, free medical care and good education. But the guarantor was a dictator like Josef Stalin, who ran roughshod over the democratic freedoms of religion, speech, the press, assembly, dissent and protections from arbitrary arrest, imprisonment and death.”

Returning to Bernie, Professor Betz asserts that it’s good that Bernie is a socialist, but the fact that he’s a “democratic socialist makes him even better.” This, he explains, is because “he would provide for disadvantaged people’s wants by working with them and their opposites, giving all of them the freedom to dissent, modify, even reject his means to his ends for them. A communist, in contrast, like Fidel Castro in Cuba, might provide jobs and education and medical care to an admirable degree. But the citizens who enjoy these benefits do so at the cost of losing their freedom to dissent or organize or seek an alternative government.”

These statements raise some serious questions. First, the professor says that Bernie would “give” the people the freedom to dissent, modify, or even reject his means to his ends for them. But what a man gives he can also take away. The professor seems to naively believe that an avowed socialist leader would complacently stand aside while the people he rules tear down his socialist utopia and replace it with a capitalist, free-market society. When in history have we ever seen such a compliant socialist leader?

Or in a more limited sense, what if the people decided merely to strip their society of the right to a job with a living wage and a justifiable amount of vacation time? Would any socialist leader be ok with that? Or what if his treasury simply did not have the funds to pay for medical care or retirement living for every human being under his rule? What if the funds were depleted due to a military necessity? Let’s face it, if Venezuela had to go to war today, the already impoverished population would face mass starvation. At any given moment there are only so many dollars.

What Professor Betz seems to be unaware of is that only an autocratic government can give everyone the bare necessities, and only a constitutional republic can protect everyone’s self-evident God-given rights. You can’t have it both ways. If we are free, we must take responsibility for providing for ourselves and pursuing our happiness as we are able. If we want to be provided for and have our happiness served up to us on a silver platter, we cannot be free, notwithstanding the hollow promises of Senator Bernie Sanders.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/joseph-betz-bernie-sanders-and-his-democratic-socialist-vision-for-america-have-my-support

Sunday, October 27, 2019

Monday, October 21, 2019

Truth...finally


Hillary Clinton — the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long — finally came out from behind the curtain yesterday, accusing me of being a Russian asset, asserting I was being “groomed” by Russian interests. 

Thus saith Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. Finally a Democrat who tells the truth!

Monday, September 30, 2019

What an idiot


Why has Michael Bloomberg become an apologist for the Communist Party of China? Could he possible believe the things he is saying? For example: “The Communist Party wants to stay in power in China and they listen to the public. When the public says ‘I can’t breathe the air,’ Xi Jinping is not a dictator, he has to satisfy his constituents or he’s not going to survive.”

He was then asked, “He’s not a dictator?” to which he responded, “No, he has a constituency to answer to.” The interviewer counted with, “He doesn’t have a vote. He doesn’t have a democracy. He’s not held accountable by voters. Is the check on him just a revolution?” to which Bloomberg answered, “You’re not going to have a revolution. No government survives without the will of the majority of its people, okay?” Bloomberg then suggested that if the US would lead on climate change, the Chinese people “can go to the government and say, ‘if America can do it, why can’t we do it?'”

The interviewer pressed Bloomberg on the idea that the CPC is responsive to the people of China, saying, “the idea that the Chinese government is responsive to sort of a Democratic expression of fresh air, clean air … ” Bloomberg then interrupted saying, “Oh, come on, of course they are.” The interviewer then said, “I’m looking at the people in Hong Kong who are protesting…” when Bloomberg, ignoring the crackdown on the protesters, said, “Go back and read the press, the days when you have big pollution in Beijing and they’re doing something about it.”

So Michael Bloomberg actually believes that Xi Jinping is not a dictator and is answerable to the people of China. And that the only reason his regime stays in power is because it is the will of the majority (not because he controls the media and military). I suppose the Kim Jong Un regime stays in power because of the will of the majority too. Apparently Bloomberg also believes that moving factories away from the cities will decrease carbon emissions. That sure makes sense! The truth is, carbon emissions are increasing in China and decreasing in the US.

Thursday, September 19, 2019

Tactics exposed


By pushing to hard and too fast, the left has now exposed their two primary tactics (for all who have eyes to see). The first is the Hitlerian model: If you tell a lie often enough, eventually people will believe it." The unspoken corollary is that they will not believe it because of any evidentiary support; they will believe it only because they have heard it so often. The left uses this tactic when the accusation cannot be disproved. Examples are: "Trump's a racist," "Trump's a white supremacist," and "The death of the Republican Party is near." Over the past three months I have heard these assertions numerous times in the mainstream media.

The left uses the second tactic when they wish to create a negative impression of a person, but there are facts that could potentially disprove or discredit the specific assertion. This is where they make an outlandish, unsupportable allegation, and the next day, in the midst of the blow back, apologize. This tactic has the effect of getting the wild accusation into the news for all to hear, but allows the accuser to exonerate himself by means of his "heart-felt apology." Examples are: Larry O’Donnell, “Trump had Russian billionaires as co-signers.” “Oops, sorry. Shouldn’t have said that.” Kim Campbell, “I hope the hurricane hits Mar-a-Lago” “Oops, sorry. Was just joking. Shouldn’t have said that.” And the latest and most egregious example of this tactic: the New York Times' attempt to once again smear Justice Brett Kavanaugh: "Oops, sorry. Yes, we did leave out many of the pertinent facts." Clearly the NYT is no longer a reporter of the news but a driver of the leftist agenda.

Because of their frequency and the number of their practitioners, there is no longer any doubt that these dishonest, deceitful, and disingenuous tactics are being deliberately employed in an attempt to poison the minds of the American public prior to the next election.