Thursday, December 13, 2018

The long view of societal disruption

While most of us comfortably tell ourselves that the Socialist Party movement and identity politics that are inflaming our country are just minor antics of the fringe, there has been a long term and steady, slow but effective, decades-long push toward vilifying conservative thought and removing traditional values such as God and family from their esteemed positions.

As only one example from the numerous assorted progressive groups, how many of you out there know about the following quotes from the radical feminist contingent:

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.”  --radical feminist leader Sheila Cronan

“Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women… We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men… All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft.” --from “The Declaration of Feminism,” November 1971

“Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.” --Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, “The Daily Illini,” April 25, 1981

“The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist.” --National NOW Times, Jan.1988

“Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole #@*! patriarch!” --Gloria Steinem, radical feminist leader, editor of ‘MS’ magazine

“Let’s forget about the mythical Jesus and look for encouragement, solace and inspiration from real women… Two thousand years of patriarchal rule under the shadow of the cross ought to be enough to turn women toward the feminist ‘salvation’ of this world.” --Annie Laurie Gaylor, “Feminist Salvation,” “The Humanist”, July/August 1988, p.37

“In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.” --Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school’s Center for Research on Women

“By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God.” --Gloria Steinem

“I consider the Chinese government’s policy among the most intelligent in the world.” --Molly Yard, feminist activist and NOW's eighth president, when she was asked about China’s policy of compulsory abortion after the first child

“The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it.” --Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in “Women and the New Rage,” p.67

The same Margaret Sanger, by the way, who is a personal hero of Hillary Clinton.


Do all women agree with these quotes? Of course not. In terms of some of them, very few women agree. Most of these comments are from the extreme Left, and they (as yet) do not fully describe our reality.

The true danger lies in the effect of desensitization. The reason why our political and social landscape is so drastically different from the first half of the twentieth century isn't because we're evolving naturally, but because within every society, there will be those who, as the Edgar Allan Poe essay suggests, inexplicably seek to deconstruct the foundations of society by provocative actions or words, simply because they want to see it all burn.

This isn't conspiracy theory, it's a human element forever present all throughout history. Even someone as marginalized as Theodore Kaczynski was able to accurately capture the Left's identity politics and victim zeitgeist in his short story, "Ship Of Fools," although Kaczynski's focus was on the dangers of technology, not just the manifestations of societal disruption.

Which place do you wish to live? One where any angry group can, via legal threats and social media mob pressure, generate legislation that you are forced to obey in violation of your constitutional rights or moral compass? Or would you rather live in a truly democratic republic where the majority's will is respected in the interest of succeeding as a unified whole?

"Silence is equal to consent" is anathema to the #MeToo creed, but it still rings true regarding those who decline to fight the wave of political absurdities that one day may drown us all.

Wednesday, December 12, 2018

Tom Green just doesn't get it

Tom Green just can't help himself. Like the hapless, would-be Lothario who has spinach stuck on his front teeth and just can't seem to remove it, Green endlessly chases a video around the Internet and demands to have it taken down.

Poor Tom Green, he's witnessing the manifestation of parental warnings for decades: be careful, because digital is forever.

The incident in question is initially described here, and then followed up here, and now of course, with this blog entry. In a nutshell, Jesse James Dupree did his chainsaw shtick on Green's wooden desk, and Green couldn't hold back his mean streak in response.

Here is the latest location for Green and his Damage Control Task Force to censor:

This one unfortunately doesn't show the entire video, and also leaves out the commercial break return where Tom breaks Dupree's CD in a childish attempt to belittle Dupree's accomplishments.

Saturday, December 8, 2018

First Reformed succeeds where Mother! completely failed

Once again, just like in "Mother!", some of the critics who are paid to review movies didn't quite get the gist. However, where "First Reformed" is definitely not like Mother!, is in its ultimately uplifting transcendent message. Mother! missed that boat in favor of self-indulgent humanity-bashing.

The top negative and positive viewer reviews on Amazon for First Reformed also fell short. The negative ones talked about the movie being boring with a terrible ending, and the positive reviews talked about how the movie was so "relevant" and "important" regarding current issues, those being climate change, pollution, and other man-based ravages of the planet.

First Reformed is actually a dark and brooding slow burn that at the last moment reveals the power of love. Far from boring, the writing contains profundity within nearly every scene. The cinematography and direction, in particular, were perfect for the subject matter. The acting was also commendable for the task of such a monumental statement about spiritual crisis.

This film was ultimately about how only love can save the world, which everyone who has ever read the Bible from cover to cover can confirm. If you watch to the end (no spoilers here, I promise) you will notice something Toller does that is a last minute epiphany regarding the horribly misguided and wrongheaded path he had taken.

Despair can come in many different forms, and clearly Toller was a tortured soul from the moment his son died, and in his desperate search for meaning, he mistakenly took on an evil quest that was contrary to his own personal beliefs.

First Reformed is aptly named. Toller's grace arrived not by making a radical statement, but in taking an outstretched hand... and that is always the first step toward redemption. Even the song being sung during the final scene underscores this message.

There are many hints in the film that my interpretation is appropriate, such as the young pregnant widow named Mary, the friend named Esther who attempts to foil the tragedy of Toller's self-neglect, and the child that the biological father thought was going to be a daughter turned out to be a son instead. I get the feeling after one viewing that there were a lot more allegories involved than I happened to notice.

In a limited sense, Toller is comparable to Job, as his apparent suffering and outcome is similar in what he lost compared to what he gained. This was God once again working in mysterious ways, and the glory of the transition is easy to miss if one gets too wrapped up in the dark and controversial aspects of the story.

Some choleric environmentalists may prefer to interpret this movie as a testimony to mankind's destruction of the planet, but in fact that detail is merely a convenient plot device. There are more important things in life than deciding to believe that the world will be in shambles by the year 2050.

Thursday, December 6, 2018

The silence of the humble

The older I get, the more of life I witness, the more experience I gather, one common theme seems to repeat over and over:

I am not good.

I've had many conversations with others about 'big picture' or 'deep' subjects. I've read many books on these subjects. I've watched many YouTube videos made by various people with various positions on these subjects.

What does that say about me? If it were mere curiosity, it would manifest itself in personal wisdom that I may or may not share with others. But instead, too many times I have found myself in a spirit of contention based on what I felt was my correct perception about what God wants or God approves of, etc.

Even in concerted attempts to exercise humility, I have found myself making personal judgments and interpretations regarding the mysteries of God. A pastor I listened to recently reminded me of one of my favorite passages, in a way that hit home:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."--Isaiah 55:8-9

Even the most sincere attempts to understand the mind of God are not going to be reliable. God is at a level of understanding that, despite how bruising it is to the human ego, is so far beyond us that when we make assumptions about what true justice is, or fairness, or some such concept, we're like toddlers dealing with calculus.

This isn't to say that we can't understand the basic principles. That's likely the purpose of the Ten Commandments. A short, direct list from God that gives us what we need to know in order to live in a way that pleases our Creator.

I can think of no one, including Richard Dawkins et al, who can honestly claim that any of the Ten Commandments could result in anything negative for humanity. They may disagree with the concept for multiple reasons, but the actual commandments themselves would produce nothing more than positive results if practiced consistently.

But back to the point.

There's a reason why at the end of Ecclesiastes  the following admonishment is made:

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." --Ecclesiastes 12:13.

We can all belabor the deep subjects with all sorts of personal interpretation. But at the end of the day, what does any of my personal philosophy matter if I'm yelling at my wife or my son?

As I said, I am not good. I'm not entirely evil either, of course, but most human beings realize that life does not rest in a binary slot.

Sure, I've done many good things, in public and in secret. But these things alone do not completely define me, as they don't define others. We'd all like to think we're doing great spiritually, or at least that our characters are strong and virtuous. But the ugly truth is, we all have difficulty being that person we know we should be.

In conclusion of this somewhat ambiguous essay, let me say this:

I understand why the wisest people I know tend to talk the least.

Thursday, November 15, 2018

The Ad Hominem Platform

It's no longer enough to do what's best economically and protectively for the citizens of a country. Now in the new age of thin-skinned fear mongering, one must also whisper sweet little nothings so none of the toddlers who are old enough to vote will make a poo poo in their politically correct diapers.

Rewind to the day before Donald J. Trump announced his bid for president of the United States. What was the public assessment of Trump?

Certainly there were people who didn't like him, for either being a brash billionaire real estate developer, or being a man who married more than once, or even for being the star of a show that featured rude tag lines like "You're fired!"

But in general, people didn't find him reprehensible. He was just another personality that you could take or leave.

After his announcement however, there was a decidedly polarized view of the man, and the divided assessment grew more and more contentious as time passed.

On the one side, you have the Trump supporters, or "deplorables" as Hillary Clinton infamously described them. These are people who believe in stronger military, stronger police departments across the nation, stronger borders and immigration policies, improved economic status in terms of GDP and low unemployment, and stronger foreign policy that doesn't make us look weak to the rest of the world.

In essence, those who support Trump understand that in the real world, the best way to remain safe and peaceful is through a show of strength, because when there are dangerous rulers, dangerous political movements in the global landscape, or just plain dangerous individuals on the street, those entities will not be stopped by polished speaking, pacifist language, hand shakes and gentle therapy.

On the other side, you have those who hate Trump. These are the people who hungrily consume the media's incessant narrative of Trump as evil. They are the ones who think that even though the country is doing better economically, including minorities who are enjoying record employment numbers, that means nothing at all because they believe Trump is a racist.

They are the ones who think Trump is evil for building a protective wall. They think Trump is evil for calling MS-13 gang members animals, due to the heinously violent acts they commit against innocent citizens.

They are the ones who often can't even name what Trump has done to actually hurt America since taking office, but they just know in their hearts that Trump is evil and needs to be impeached, or in some cases, beheaded... all because they think Trump is the Anti-Christ for combative tweets.

They are the ones who shout about Trump's influence on the incivility problem this country is knee-deep in, and at the same time casually utter disgusting expletives to describe him to like-minded cronies.

They are the ones who believe it is better to hate someone based on fear-mongering media coverage than to take a moment and truly consider all the facts. They are the ones who insist there's no such thing as a mob, only protesters who righteously incite and commit aggression in the name of... well, I don't think anyone's really sure what it's in the name of, other than a nebulous desire to deconstruct our country for some bizarre vision of a future Utopia where everything is free and those damn rich people better pay for it.

They are the progressive acolytes of the Ad Hominem platform.

Tuesday, November 13, 2018

The Convenient Multiverse

A video from PragerU by an astrophysicist:

The Multiverse Theory takes advantage of the same convenient logic that Evolution by Natural Selection does: given enough time, anything is possible. Except in this case, instead of time, we are presented with infinite universes to address the impossible odds that had to be overcome to produce the life we know here on Earth.

I have always found it unsettling that a theory with no physical evidence could be so popular and accepted by the scientific community. The convenience it affords those seeking any explanation sans God is obvious. Those same scientists might claim that Intelligent Design is poppycock, but in truth ID is no more or less valid than any other interpretation of the evidence, and that includes Darwin's.

In my opinion, be it correct or not, the glaring dearth of transitional fossils after 159 years should be cause for reasonable skepticism if scientists truly relied on falsification procedures to establish scientific truth. To this, the evolutionary biologists respond by pointing out that it's only been 159 years (!) and that there are plenty of examples of transitional fossils. What they leave out is how Darwin himself elucidated that based on his theory of incremental changes, there would have to be a panoply of fossils that demonstrated limbs growing or disappearing, for example. If Darwin were alive today and saw the conspicuous absence of most of these fossils, he would likely withdraw his theory, and pronounce it sufficiently falsified by lack of physical evidence.

But the Darwinian narrative has gone on so long and is so firmly entrenched that I suspect it will take much longer than 40 years (the length of time necessary to accept the Big Bang) to finally abandon the theory. Although many scientists love to deny it, most people recognize that Darwin's theory, and now also the Multiverse theory, give powerful fuel to the engine of atheism. Richard Dawkins himself admitted it in his now famous quote, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Origin of life research has not been able to sufficiently prove an evolutionary explanation for life, and it's been many decades since Miller and Urey's experiments. I find it fascinating that evolutionary biologists will loudly insist that evolution by natural selection says nothing about the beginning of life on this planet, as though the same theory that allegedly explains the billions (perhaps trillions) of biological structures and processes we know of today is somehow magically allowed to take a pass on proof of how the first cell came about.

Either all life in the universe is a result of mindless, random chance events, or it is not. People need to get real.

Saturday, November 10, 2018

Ignoring the Media

I hadn't had cable TV for years before I met my wife, and she didn't either. Then we got married, have been married for almost ten years, and we still don't have cable.

But due to all the political sensationalism in our country, I decided to start watching the news via YouTube. It didn't matter which network I watched, there was always plenty going on to make me angry.

I'm a conservative, so I'd prefer to watch Fox, because I didn't trust CNN. Then I found out that CNN's ratings go way down when they don't report negative things about Trump and his constituency. That highly suggests that CNN feels compelled to run with all these defamatory stories because there's a significant population of people in the USA who want to believe Trump is an evil racist. Sort of the kind of pandering that Jerry Springer does for his viewers.

That realization made me less inclined to fear the Leftist destruction-of-western-civilization directive that may be true in certain small circles, but it's a directive that certainly doesn't reflect the ethos of the average democrat in the USA. Whether democrat, republican, libertarian or independent doesn't matter; only mentally unstable people scream at others in public, destroy property and threaten or harm those who disagree.

So now what? I was getting pissed and indignant all the time, exactly like the people who were vilifying the president. I had no desire to take to the streets and harass others at dinner or at their homes, but then again, neither do most of the liberals out there who just want to live in a country where their president isn't so bellicose.

Because of the way knowledge of these controversies only serves to make my view of the world darker than it actually is, I'm now going to stop watching the news again. That's it. I've had enough. It just isn't worth the emotional aggravation, and if I continue to consume this political dreck, my quality of life, like everyone else's who consumes it, will continue to fall.

Yes, I'm a Trump fan, but there are qualifiers that haters refuse to acknowledge. For example, I like Trump because he is a strong leader who is making the world respect the USA again. He's a strong leader who wants to protect the citizens of this country first and foremost, at our border and within our borders, by rebuilding the military that had been previously de-funded until it languished. He's a shrewd businessman who has managed to bring companies back to our soil, lower unemployment to record levels for people of all skin colors, and revitalize small business and the middle class with tax cuts.

I'd rather he wasn't so disagreeable, but I think casting him as evil is a desperate attempt to take one's attention off the fact that despite his apparently weak public relations skills, he has managed to break down political barriers between North and South Korea, and reduce ISIS controlled geography by ninety-eight percent in the space of four months, as opposed to the "generational struggle" we had allegedly been facing. Those are quite significant accomplishments, even for someone who can be a jerk sometimes.

In either two or six years, he will be gone from office. What will people do with all their anger then? Being angry is sort of like a drug, you can't just go cold turkey when you've been used to raging for years. People of all political stripes need to reconsider what value they think they're getting out of hating others who think differently, and automatically scrutinizing every sentence spoken or written in a judgmental manner.

Just ignore the media, and perhaps they'll start behaving responsibly again.

Friday, November 9, 2018

Finally, a very real inroad for Linux desktop domination

I may have just witnessed the straw that eventually breaks the Windows and OS X monopoly back.

I've long thought that if some big entrepreneur like Ted Turner or Elon Musk were to promote Linux, then the Linux revolution would finally extend to the desktop home user market, in effect insuring eventual OS legacy status for MS and Apple.

Today I opened up the free special section of the Minneapolis StarTribune that they send out as junk mail, and right before I tossed it as usual, something caught my eye.

It was an article about something going on locally that I had never heard of. The article was long, and packed with promise for the future. To make your consumption of the article speedier, I found this video online that references the article and expands on it:

What would happen if this idea catches on in other schools, churches, et al? It would mean that at a grass roots level, which is the best way to side-step MS and Apple marketing propaganda, the population of the United States could eventually be effectively exposed to Linux in a lasting and permanent way.

Who could deny the power of a non-profit that provides free computers to people who can't afford them, and loaded with Linux? It's not a big stretch of the imagination that eventually people who can afford their own computers will do the math once they've been exposed to the Linux OS on other people's machines.

The Asian Penguins have their own YouTube channel and this is the featured video:

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

Legal Marijuana Now party?

I voted today.

I noticed on the ballot, and then as I've been watching returns, that there is a "Legal Marijuana Now" party.

It sort of reminds me of the "OWL" party from years ago. OWL stood for "Off With Logic, On With Lunacy," and was a fun joke complete with goofy candidate nick names, ala contemporary Roller Derby.

So I'm thinking, sure... I realize there is a constituency out there who would like nothing better than to be able to go out and legally buy weed at a tattoo parlor, head shop, liquor store, or perhaps even a Target. A small, younger constituency, but it exists nevertheless.

I've heard all the arguments I care to listen to regarding how medical statistics are suspect if they question the long term safety of marijuana use. I've heard the tenuous comparisons to alcohol and its abuse, which never seem to take into account the more serious behavioral or mental problems possessed by those who also may happen to drink too much.

Don't get me wrong. I'm the typical American, in that I think as long as you're not doing something to someone against his or her will, and if you're an adult and it's in the privacy of your own home or other non-public place, I say have at it. I think people should be free to smoke themselves into lethargic oblivion if that's how they wish to treat their bodies and minds while they "live in their parents' basement."

But a political party? Come on. Getting to smoke or ingest all the marijuana you want with no fear of legal reprisal is not the only issue being handled by the people running for public office.

Do the candidates and supporters of the Legal Marijuana Now party truly believe that those running on a platform for recreational pot legalization have any qualifications for public service other than opening a window to air out the stench?

I think perhaps a portion of our country has forgotten that there is more at stake at the polls than personal gratification. Things like the future of our country and survival of western culture are a couple that come to mind.

A simple warning to the Left

I was looking around YouTube tonight, and happened upon Bannon's documentary called "Trump At War." Not sure how I never knew of its existence until last night, the night before the 2018 midterms. You can see the video here:

As I watched it, I grew sick to my stomach. I watched Trump supporters being beaten, windows being smashed in, flags being burned, police being attacked with bottles, rocks and bricks. "No Trump, no wall, no U.S.A. at all." Don Lemon and others, shame on you for your spiteful venom.

Then as I continued to watch, I grew angry. How is it that there were wonderful things accomplished at home and abroad by Trump and his administration that I didn't even know about? What kind of twisted media alliance would withhold that sort of inspiring and hopeful information just to maintain their corrosive narrative?

I completely understand the effect of two persons looking at the same glass of water, and one seeing it half full, the other seeing it half empty. Two people looking at the optical illusion of the young girl/old woman and seeing only one or the other. I get that different world views can produce different philosophies and conclusions based on the same evidence. Those are aspects of being human.

What I can't understand is why so many people can have such intense hatred for a man who has been intentionally improving life in this country for every man, woman and child regardless of skin color. The worst thing that Trump has done as president is say or tweet things on occasion that some people find offensive. He hasn't done a single thing that has harmed anyone or anyone's freedom if they are a law-abiding citizen of the United States. So much for the ridiculous Hitler references, as Hitler was physically harming people long before he took absolute power in Germany.

Do the people acting out against Trump and his supporters truly believe that their actions are justified? If so, this country indeed has serious problems, and if these people don't stop their violent and slanderous activities, I don't think they will garner much sympathy from the public at large when they eventually come face to face with harsh reality.

Back in 2015, before Trump even got to the bottom of the escalator, the media began their relentless efforts to destroy him, and a sickening truth is that a significant amount of people wanted to buy into the mainstream media's smear campaign.

A message for the Leftists who have been behaving so badly:

The conservative and Christian ethics of those you are attacking are why there hasn't been any violent backlash. If you don't like Trump, that's fine. If you want to elect candidates other than Trump, go ahead. But if you don't stop this disgusting, immoral and evil campaign to destroy Trump and instill fear in his supporters, you will eventually reap a whirlwind from those outside of Trump's influence who don't care about civility.

Wake up, shed your ingratitude, and start loving and respecting the country that provides you the freedom to work, live and thrive. If you persist in your hatred and violence, you will meet an unfortunate circumstance. God is watching, and it isn't the conservatives that you hate who are tempting fate, it is you.

Monday, November 5, 2018

A simple test to see if Trump and his supporters are racist

I've witnessed mainstream reporters and other guest pundits calling President Trump evil on CNN and MSNBC. Not hinting at, or using hyperbole, but literally calling Trump evil, a pathological liar, a white supremacist, hater of immigrants, etc.

And even more disturbing, I've seen not only Hillary Clinton call Trump supporters "deplorables," but many others have used this term as well. The claim is that since Trump-haters think Trump is a racist, then he must be leading a bunch of racist sheep as well. Everything related to Trump must just be one huge orgy of racism.

Disappointingly, even our former president Barack Obama has publicly referred to Trump, Trump's administration, and Trump's supporters as racist.

I realize not everyone left of center believes everything they hear on CNN and MSNBC. I don't believe everyone who votes democrat is seething with irrational rage. That would be ridiculous. However, I find it very strange that more people don't stand up and call out the two major networks (and the New York Times, et al) on their relentlessly negative, and in many cases venomous, narrative concerning President Trump.

So, I've come up with a simple test for truth that anyone can do, and it takes very little effort.

All you have to do for this test of truth is simply pull up any of the Trump rallies that have been covered by the networks and uploaded to YouTube over the last several weeks.

Skip to the section where Trump talks about all the great things he has accomplished for America as our president so far.

Now look for the part where Trump cites the record-breaking low unemployment for Blacks, Hispanics and Asians.

Now take a look at the audience (or at least the tiny part of it the media cameras allow you see). You will notice that there are minorities present, but the greatest majority of the crowd are white people.

So here's the question you should ask before you continue believing the narrative the Left is selling you about racism, white supremacy, Trump and his supporters:

Why are all these allegedly deplorable, racist white supremacists loudly cheering for the record-breaking employment numbers for minorities?

Thursday, November 1, 2018

The DNC's latest pre-election trick

So I received something in the mail today, and lo and behold, it's from an unbiased-sounding organization called "Center for Voter Information."

Before I opened it, I got a slight twinge from a two year old memory of a bad taste in my mouth left by another allegedly unbiased organization that thought it clever to publicly shame voters to others in their districts by showing who did or didn't vote in the previous election.

Surprise, surprise! This allegedly unbiased source of "Voter Information" lists three contrasts in two local candidates on either side of the political fence. But how interesting! Apparently in all three issues, the Republican candidate just happens to be supporting positions that apparently are detrimental to the welfare of voters.

The one page letter attempts to engender my trust by pointing out that "We have done our best to represent each candidate in a fair and reasonable way." The letter also states "The Center for Voter Information is a nonprofit organization that is not endorsing any candidate in this race."

But a simple search on the Internet reveals that the Center for Voter Information is listed with NTEE (National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities) status of R24 (Women's Rights).

While I'm all for women's rights in the sense that they should have pay commensurate with their labor and skill level, and that they should be treated equally under the law, and that as a man I should respect and protect them, let's ask a relevant question:

How does an organization that is classified as a Women's Rights nonprofit end up providing everyone with allegedly relevant "Voter Information" that's not connected to Women's Rights issues?

Next, another search reveals that the signee of the letter, Lionel Dripps, just happens to have held the following professional positions:

Managing Director for Program and Digital at The Voter Participation Center
Located in Washington D.C.
April 2017 to present

Vice President of The Pivot Group
November 2015 to present

What is The Pivot Group? Well, it just happens to be a professional organization whose sole purpose is to win campaigns:

Executive Director of the Democratic Senate Campaign Fund
October 2011 to January 2013
Located in Denver, Colorado

Regional Director of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin
2011-2011 less than a year
Located in Green Bay, Wisconsin
Ran the Nancy Nusbaum (Democrat) campaign

Deputy Campaign Manager for Cynthia Neff (Democrat)
March 2009 to November 2009
Located in Charlottesville, Virginia

Lead Organizer for the Virginia Democratic Coordinated Campaign
June 2008 to November 2008

Field Organizer for the Virginia Democratic Coordinated Campaign
May 2007 to August 2007

A gander at that list provides a decidedly biased political affiliation.

I wouldn't be surprised if The Pivot Group were also the brainiacs from two years ago who thought they should print neighbors' names and their voting records for all to see, in effect violating individuals' privacy and prompting angry voters who did the research to vote against the Democratic Party shills who dreamed up such a bad idea.

Marxism: The Politics of Envy

I just finished reading the famous (or infamous, if you will) work of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, published in 1848 (a mere eleven years before a similarly impactful work by Charles Darwin), originally entitled "Manifesto of the Communist Party." These days it's simply known as "The Communist Manifesto," perhaps because that title sounds more like idealism than partisan politics? Who knows.

You can find it yourself here:

I was led to believe by someone recently that Karl Marx wasn't such a bad guy, that it was Lenin and Stalin who took Marx's good ideas and used them to their own evil ends.

However, upon reading the work myself, I found what I had expected, in terms of the vilification of the "ruling class," based on what many contemporary public speakers have long elucidated regarding the adoption of Marxist ideas in the corruption of Western Culture by the Left.

From paragraph to paragraph, the work is a nearly non-stop barrage of manipulative imagery designed to anger the reader and make him or her believe that there is no justice in the world as long as some have more wealth than others. These are the politics of envy, and have absolutely nothing to do with the real-life factors surrounding workers getting proper compensation in a free market economy.

I'll be the first in line to observe that it does appear unfair that many CEO's, for example, have salaries so immense that they seem hard to justify as compared to the lowest tier workers for the same company. But I'll also be the first to point out that Bill Gates, for example, doesn't owe me a penny just because I bought Windows Whatever and paid what I thought to be too high a price. How Gates amassed his wealth is certainly up for debate, but I refuse to agree with the concept of forcing him to give me some of it, even if he is one day successfully identified as a criminal for his past business practices.

While I'm spiritually inclined to side with the underdog, there is a difference between seeking justice and fairness for all, and instilling hatred for those who actually create wealth, jobs and power in a free society protected by a Constitution such as ours. Power that, for a country, equates to safety if it is a democratic republic, and not a totalitarian regime.

To top it all off, the cherry on Marx's and Engel's pernicious sundae was to be found within the final paragraph:

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."

That particular ethos is exactly why decades of Leftist propaganda on our college campuses have resulted in the academic support of, and collegiate involvement in, aggressive protests against a seemingly infinite collection of imaginary manifestations of oppression that the vast majority of Americans, regardless of color, sexual orientation or payscale, don't actually experience in their day to day lives.

How is it, that in terms of violent resistance, Karl Marx is seen as an altruistic visionary who is the champion of the downtrodden proletariat, and Ted Kaczynski is relegated to murderous madman status? They embody opposite ideologies, yet believe the same violent means are justified by their disparate ends. And while it is true that Kaczynski is considered a madman for injuring and killing people, and not for his political ideologies, it is also true that Marx's ideologies did give Lenin and Stalin the framework from which they could murder millions.

Does that give Marx himself murderous madman status? No. But it does reveal the fact that it is historically demonstrable to take Marxist ideas to a malignant extreme.

Before it's too late, such needlessly aggressive behavior must be strenuously rejected by all who wish to maintain freedom for ourselves and our progeny. We are at a genuine crossroad in our history, and tomorrow's freedom is guaranteed to no one, especially while some try to physically force their dreams of a Thought Police Utopia on a country full of individuals who are not currently slaves to the collective.

Thursday, October 25, 2018

The Liberal Media is responsible for the descent into thuggery

Today, an opinion piece by Jennifer Rubin appeared in the Washington Post. The Post itself officially describes her as an "Opinion writer reporting from a center-right perspective." My wife has a subscription to the Post and I happened to see the opinion piece in question on her Kindle.

The title of her op ed is "Trump is responsible for the descent into thuggery." Before I even start dissecting her text, one may easily observe that such a summation is hardly right of center, and would be more appropriate coming from the Left itself.

I fully acknowledge that Rubin's article is an opinion piece, which the Post clearly indicates below the title. So I'm not calling her out for having an opinion, just for making statements that are demonstrably inaccurate and therefore nullify her opinion on the subject.

Rubin calls out Trump on his rally in Wisconsin when he denounced those who carelessly compare political opponents to historical villains or who mob people in public places or destroy public property. She zeroes in on his reference to mobs, and cherry-picks her own examples of "mobs" as the women who gathered outside the Supreme Court and held signs while shouting ridiculous slogans. She conveniently doesn't mention the Leftist Antifa mobs who consistently shout blatantly false and inflammatory slogans such as "Cops and Klan go hand in hand" and "Trump is worse than Hitler," claim racism in completely non-racial situations, wear masks to hide their identities, ironically scream against fascism on university campuses to try and prevent the right of someone to publicly speak when they don't agree with the speaker, throw bottles, chase people out of restaurants, send videos of people literally being beheaded to family members of the new Supreme Court Justice, break cameras and cell phones that are being used to record their shenanigans, threaten bodily harm to those who they don't agree with, express emotional sentiments that include the death by beheading of the leader of our country, etc. etc. etc.

Does Rubin actually believe that this Socialist group think that has festered on our college campuses, and has gone from recreational drug-induced dissent stoked by Leftist academics to full-blown aggressive public action by historically uninformed, deliberately ignorant robotic chanters is not truly mob behavior?

Rubin also says, "...comparing Trump to thuggish autocrats is simple honesty." So, the sometimes undiplomatic tweets and statements that Trump generates somehow translates to thuggish autocracy? In the interest of fair exposition of rhetoric, let's look at the definitions for both of those words:

Thug: a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer.

          1) an absolute ruler, especially a monarch who holds and exercises the powers of government as by inherent right, not subject to restrictions.
          2) a person invested with or claiming to exercise absolute authority.
          3) a person who behaves in an authoritarian manner; a domineering person.
First, let's look at Rubin's use of "thuggish." A ruffian is a tough, lawless person, roughneck or bully. Well, I don't know how tough Trump is, but I'm fairly certain his record indicates someone who abides the law. As far as bully status, that depends on how you filter his commentary. For some, every single word coming out of his mouth or his tweets must automatically be interpreted as corrosive invective that poisons the American imagination. For others, his rhetoric is simply reactionary and at worst could have been reworded or even avoided in some cases, but in no way permanently relegates him to dictator or inciter status.

Next, "autocrat." Of the three definitions provided by, clearly president Trump does not, and in fact, cannot embody either of the first two for obvious reasons. The third definition could certainly be ascribed to him, but of course, how one chooses to view that sort of behavior in a leader usually is dictated by one's perception of one's position in relation to that leader. If you fear someone or hate them, then an authoritarian can seem threatening. If you instead see them as decisive and strong, as Trump's allegedly "deplorable" constituents perceive him, then being an autocrat is just necessary to get things done in an otherwise sticky morass of political logjams.

Rubin seems to take issue with Trump's current theme of blaming the mostly liberal mainstream media for inciting and promoting negative attitudes and behavior. However, one need only tune in to CNN for a few hours, then tune in to Fox, to see the disparate tones that both produce. Trump's whole message is the inexplicably controversial "Make America Great Again." Everything he has accomplished as president in his first two years is to literally make America a more prosperous and safer place for all Americans, regardless of race. How this message gets misconstrued as racism, bigotry, homophobia, and all the rest of it, is beyond me. But that is the undeniably clear message from most of the visual and print media in this country.

I challenge anyone to watch two hours of CNN without hearing about racism in our country. One could observe that this happens because there is so much racism running rampant. But as Candace Owens has publicly commented, her life (and the lives of almost all Americans living within our borders) is pretty great until she turns on CNN. Why is that? Owens has also astutely asked if she's the only person who assesses the state of the country she lives in by her own experiences, instead of accepting the possibly skewed narrative being proffered on mainstream media.

At one point Rubin writes, "Trump seems not to understand that criticism of his policies and rhetoric is not the same as a president demonizing opponents, race-baiting and threatening democratic institutions. In his book, news accounts exposing his corruption, ineptitude and cruelty are on par with his insisting that neo-Nazi marches include some 'fine people.' "

Where to begin... First off, claiming that the liberal media only engage in "criticism of policies and rhetoric" is inaccurate by any measure. Trump has been compared to Hitler by the media, among many other untenable accusations, and the mainstream media do very little or nothing in terms of adjusting this sort of defamatory invective. Secondly, Rubin goes on to say that Trump is race-baiting and threatening democratic institutions. I would challenge Rubin to produce even one verbal statement, or tweet, that is literally racist and not just subjectively an alleged "wink" at white supremacy. There are zero, for those of you not paying very close attention. And as far as threatening democratic institutions, one would assume Rubin is speaking of the press. If that is the case, most independent critical thinkers know the difference between calling the media out for too much negativity and slanderous reporting, and actually shutting down the entire press, which Trump has never suggested nor promoted. Trump's whole point, which is clearly articulated and understood, is that the American people can't trust any single organization that claims to be unbiased by continually slanting in the same political direction, and often with blatant lies sold as probable possibilities regarding his mental state or character.

Also, a quick jaunt over to an article posted by The Atlantic, called "Trump Defends White-Nationalist Protesters: 'Some Very Fine People on Both Sides'", will allow the reader to clearly see that Trump's words are being selectively interpreted. The article itself isn't even Trump-friendly. But a thoughtful reader can see that the quotes from the president are not racist or in support of white supremacy at all. The job of the media is supposed to be reporting, not interpreting, which should be left to the reader. That kind of blurry line is exactly why Trump is using the term "fake news" to refer to the media outlets that practice such creative license.

Rubin also writes, "...Trump's level of vitriol and overt racism is unmatched by political opponents or past presidents." Perhaps in Rubin's leftist imagination that's apparently replete with victim ideologies, but not in the real world, where adults can recover from insult as quickly as blowing their noses. Rubin is a bit too advanced in years to buy into that sort of 20-something, identity-politics anti-establishment philosophy, so it is disappointing that she would actually pen something so irresponsible.

Rubin claims that when Trump warned of the lack of wisdom Holder demonstrated by encouraging mob behavior with his "we kick them" statement, Trump was "threatening" Holder. But a more objective analysis of Trump's warning to Holder to be careful what he wishes for, and that Holder was making a dangerous statement, will lead the reader to the obvious conclusion that Trump was calling Holder out for being irresponsible and that Holder was inciting potential violence with his poor choice of words. Again, this is the journalist interpreting statements instead of just quoting them.

The list of insults "lobbed at CNN" is long because again, if a conservative attempts to watch it for any length of time, they are inevitably confronted with anti-Trump diatribe that is not only based in half-truths and fancy, but clearly does not respect the leader of our country, nor promotes the unity for which they claim to yearn. In terms of political ideology, CNN is indeed an enemy of the people, and no further commentary is necessary to bolster that statement.

Rubin writes, "For Trump, this blame-shifting is just another day in office - one more national crisis for which he has not demonstrated the moral authority or even the seriousness to take a day off the campaign trail."

Well, another win for Subjectivity. The blame-shifting can alternatively be observed to occur at CNN, The New York Times and the LA Times, as they attribute nearly every major issue they have with our American culture to Trump's allegedly dictatorial influence. And Trump's rallies are the one place supporters can go in relative safety and hear the president they voted for speak about the issues they care about. Sure, the rallies are in anticipation of the coming midterms, that goes without saying. But negative liberal media coverage in the 21st century steamrollers on unabated, 24 hours a day, and for someone in his uniquely persecuted position as president, it's in the national interest for Trump to connect face to face with his constituents and remind them that he has their back, despite endless claims to the contrary by the "fake news."

Next, let's look at some conveniently baldfaced lies that Rubin has casually passed off as tacit fact:

"...a president and one party have adopted thuggishness, threats, bigotry and admiration for violence as mainstays of their rhetoric."
One party? Actually that's true, but it's the militant arm of the democratic party that are committing violence, not the republicans. There are sufficient videos available on YouTube, from lay persons at the events, that bear this truth out.

"It's not both sides that have taken to encouraging violence; it's the Republican Party."
This, as demonstrated by the previous paragraph, is a 180 degree opposite of the truth.

"It's not both parties that treat the media as a threat to the United States; it's only the Republicans."
Since when does it take a bipartisan agreement to recognize that the media clearly have a hatred of the president? If Fox news were doing anything other than exposing the hypocrisy of the Left, that statement might have a modicum of truth, but in reality, it has none.

"It's not both sides of the aisle that call to lock up their opponents; only Trump does that."
Well, the last time I checked, when a criminal is discovered, they are tried and either exonerated or sentenced. Hillary Clinton is a known criminal based on email transactions and Clinton Foundation scandals, but chicanery and political slithering have shielded her from prosecution.


In the conclusion of her article, Rubin writes, "We can do better than Trump and his flock of political sheep."

As usual, in an effort to make a point, and to further paint Trump as the agent provocateur of all the unrest in our public square, Rubin just can't resist the desire to insult Trump's supporters.

And that, dear reader, is the oddly self-unrecognized character flaw that all on the Left seem to possess: an inability to understand where the lines are actually drawn in society.

Monday, September 10, 2018

It's Liberals and Conservatives vs. the Left

Dennis Prager provided an excellent explanation of the very important differences between the Left and Liberals here:

People typically think the current polarization is a result of Liberals vs. Conservatives. This isn't the truth at all. Both Liberals and Conservatives want many of the same things, though they may disagree on the way they are achieved.

Liberals and Conservatives both support free enterprise and the capitalist system.

Liberals and Conservatives are both patriotic and want to protect America and its borders.

Liberals and Conservatives both strongly support free speech.

Liberals and Conservatives both celebrate the wonderful historical contributions of Western Civilization.

The Left does none of those things, in fact it is concerned with the business of destroying those particular institutions via lies and subversive societal manipulation.

Liberal values do not push the individual toward atheism and Marxism. That is the Left. The Left uses lies and propaganda to achieve their nefarious goals. That's why, despite all the economic improvements to the country, including more jobs for minorities, the Leftist American media's non-stop barrage on our senses is just one long character assassination of our president.

 This passage does the best job of describing the Left:

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."  John 8:44

Sunday, September 9, 2018

Mother! by Aronofsky: a twisted re-telling of the Bible

I noticed that Mother! was available on Amazon Prime and decided my curiosity was greater than my experience. By that, I mean I still watched it despite being very disappointed regarding Aronofsky's previous movie "Noah." Noah was wrecked by Aronofsky's strange decision to throw a bunch of odd non-Biblical details in the story, which made the movie pointless to watch (and so I didn't). Religion is one of those subjects that, if you decide to artistically interpret it, you'd best stay faithful to the genuine gist or you will repel the audience you sought to attract.

With Mother!, I can't criticize Aronofsky for wanting to metaphorically reproduce the story of creation as outlined in the Bible. It's interesting how most reviewers spun art house interpretations of the movie, completely missing the mark in what it was really about. I suppose this is not all that surprising, considering the lack of actual knowledge about the Bible in 21st century America.

All the players were there: God, Mother Earth (which is NOT a part of the Bible, by the way - that's Aronofsky pushing his misanthropic agenda), Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, creation of the Bible, the Garden of Eden, the temptation and fall of Adam and Eve... and all the fallen denizens of the earth in their evil ignominy.

This could have been a brilliant, abridged interpretation of Genesis to Revelation, but instead, it became a platform for Aronofsky to shame modern civilization regarding its alleged destruction of our planet. What a waste.

It also takes the Christian gospel and twists it into a bizarre suggestion that God is a dullard who is oblivious to obviation and whimsically facilitates the sins of Man to run rampant, as though God's sole concern is that everybody gives Him high-fives while the world burns around them. The inspiring, true-life love story between God and Mankind is completely absent, as the mythical Gaia is the bride in this film, and Man is nothing more than an incorrigibly destructive party crasher. Christ never reaches anyone's mind, heart or soul in this movie, but is instead a helpless infant prop that provides a disgusting and disturbing version of the heartbreaking and humbling reality of what Jesus actually did for us on the cross.

Collectively, we human beings know only the tiniest fraction of the truth about God, but those who venture to commune with Him understand that the little we do know is of infinitely more value than a subversive vision of darkness, despair and sophistry.

Friday, September 7, 2018

Washington Post Throws In With Heinous NYT Leftist Propaganda

On the same day the anonymous and allegedly high-placed White House official had his or her treasonous slander published by none other than the New York Times, the Washington Post published their own take on the event, entitled "‘The sleeper cells have awoken’: Trump and aides shaken by ‘resistance’ op-ed". The Post's article was not centrist and free from political agenda, it was demonstrably Left.

I will not exhaustively deconstruct every paragraph, as I did with the anonymous op-ed. Instead, I will list the specifically worded sentences that attempt to lend even more legitimacy to the NYT propaganda. The power of words should not ever be underestimated.

As usual, I will first post the original sentence in italics, and explain its motivations in regular text.

My reproduction of this copyrighted material falls under Fair Use, as my interpretation is as fair and reasonable as the original text, does not in any way impair the inherent value of the text to those for whom it was written, and generates no profits for me as my blog is free and the Washington Post article is already freely available on the Washington Post web site:


Trump and aides shaken by ‘resistance’ op-ed

This subtext of the article's title already shows signs of how the Post has decided to cast the situation, by the use of the word "shaken."

President Trump and his aides reacted with indignation...

Of course they did. This would the expected response from anyone who is falsely maligned.

...launched a frantic hunt...

The use of the word "frantic" is a characterizing adjective which deliberately plays into the claims of unrestrained histrionics asserted by the original anonymous op-ed, claims which are unsubstantiated by people who actually work with President Trump. The phrase would have been more responsibly written as "...launched a hunt...".

...feeding the president’s paranoia...

This is an arbitrary characterization of Trump that deliberately calls to mind former President Nixon, who was commonly referred to as paranoid after his resignation in the shadow of impending impeachment. It also insultingly attributes a quality to Trump that has not been substantiated in any quarter, business nor political; only in the malicious imaginations of the progressive Left.

Trump reacted to the column with “volcanic” anger and was “absolutely livid”...

Notice how the quotations are used, as though these were official descriptions of Trump's reaction when they are unidentified third party characterizations instead, and furthermore both quoted descriptions again bolster the Left's ploy to make the President appear out of control to the general public.

The official writes...

The proper, responsible way to begin this sentence should be "The alleged official writes..." The Post's subtle difference leads the reader a little bit more in the direction that the writer was indeed who the NYT claimed he or she was, that being allegedly a high-ranking official of Trump's White House, as opposed to a clever propagandist.

...sent tremors through the West Wing and launched a frantic guessing game.

According to the people who actually work for the White House, there were no "tremors," just irritation and indignation at the smearing of the President's reputation and mental acuity. In the same sentence, the Post paints concerned ruminations about who would be so treasonous as a "frantic guessing game," which would deliberately lead the reader to conclude that not only were Trump's people freaking out, but they were also not to be taken seriously, as a "guessing game" sounds more like a grade school activity than the actual serious process such an internal investigation would be. Ferreting out traitors is vital to preventing instability in any government. That's why treason is a serious offense punishable by imprisonment or death.

Startled aides canceled meetings and huddled behind closed doors...

The words "startled" and "huddled" are deliberately used to paint Trump's people as being feeble and genuinely afraid of the op-ed, which couldn't be further from the truth, judging by the official responses freely available on all standard media. At most, Trump's people are angry and very interested in either exposing the Leftist propagandist who fabricated the op-ed, or finding the mole in their organization and bringing him or her to a proper sentence for the crime of defamation that was clearly committed.

The phrase “The sleeper cells have awoken” circulated on text messages among aides and outside allies.

This is more support to the idea that even those who work for and with President Trump are prone to gossip freely that his primacy is in actual danger, as opposed to the fabricated danger imagined by the Left. No one's name is cited, therefore the reference is valuable only as a tool of propaganda, not a factual reference.

“It’s like the horror movies when everyone realizes the call is coming from inside the house,” said one former White House official in close contact with former co-workers.

Notice the source here is cleverly characterized as someone in the know, when one may more astutely observe that the source's "former" status demonstrates the value of the statement as being at best questionable.

...stark and anonymous warning...

Yes, the op-ed was stark in its audacity, but to cast it as a "warning" is an attempt to further legitimize its claims. The truth is there is nothing to warn the American people about, in terms of how the President conducts himself or executes his duties in his position. If there were, the results of a nearly three year concerted investigation would unearth something other than alleged campaign fund mismanagement.

...books like Woodward’s that rely on candid accounts of anonymous admin­istration officials.

"Candid accounts of anonymous administration officials" is merely another way of saying "claims by conveniently unnamed persons that are assumed to be important people for the sake of publishing slander behind a wall of legal protection."

...Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told reporters. He added, “That’s why I think all of us encourage the good people around the president to stay.”

Offering us a quote from someone who is politically unsympathetic to Trump is of no value, other than to again attempt to legitimize the original op-ed's assertions.

The president went on to brag about his popularity,...

A responsible, non-biased way to construct that sentence would have been: "The president went on to cite his popularity..." Using the word "brag" again plays to the hatred for Trump from the progressive Left, and their characterization of him as an arrogant dictator.

...although nearly all public polls show that more Americans disapprove of his job performance than approve of it.

Anyone who deals with statistics knows that you can interpret them any way you wish. There isn't a single poll in existence that shows results for every voting age person in the U.S. other than the U.S. census. There are many political polls, performed by many organizations, and of course some will be pro-Trump, and some will be anti-Trump. The Post has decided to lean toward anti-Trump sources for their poll citations, as demonstrated by their statement that leads the reader to believe that most of the country that voted Trump into office now thinks their decision was a mistake. If this were true, few people would show up at Trump's rallies; and that is clearly false.

The president later tweeted a single word alleging a possible crime: “TREASON?”

Interesting how only now does the word "alleged" find its way into the article, and for the particular purpose of minimizing Trump's statement that the original op-ed was possibly an act of treason.

...private talks with advisers and friends...

If they were private talks with advisers and friends, how did the Post conveniently acquire them? See next entry.

...according to people familiar with the president’s thinking.

Again, of course conveniently, no names cited. It's as though the Post has somehow forgotten that hearsay is worthless for anyone with journalistic integrity. We're supposed to consume these scraps of gossip as though they have any relevance to the facts of the events in question.

...reignited Trump’s frustration with last week’s remembrances of McCain...

This clearly paints Trump as someone who has very little regard for the dignity of the deceased. Other than the presumption by the progressive Left, there's no genuine evidence that Trump disrespects those who have passed away as a matter of course.

The president was already feeling especially vulnerable — and a deep “sense of paranoia,” in the words of one confidant...

Not only is Trump being ascribed an emotional state ("vulnerable") that no one who knows him has ever even come close to suggesting, but once again, the word "paranoia" is used to continue comparing him to Richard Nixon. " the words of one confidant..." is yet another unnamed citation that therefore amounts to no more than unsubstantiated hearsay and gossip. The Post is supposed to be a respected institution of journalistic integrity, or at least that's how they present themselves despite these transparent attempts to pass gossip as responsibly reported fact.

...and he had begun peppering staffers with questions...

"Peppering" is another characterization designed to make Trump appear Draconian and despotic. A more responsible way to write the sentence would be "...and he had begun asking staffers..."

Trump already felt that he had a dwindling circle of people whom he could trust, a senior administration official said.

Who is the "senior administration official"? Why does the Post think it's okay to publish these allegations with no names attached? Why would any rational reader simply accept these statements as true without an identifiable source?

According to one Trump friend, he fretted after Wednesday’s op-ed that he could trust only his children.

Again, where is the name to turn this gossip into enlightening fact?

...her boss’s rage...

A more responsible, less manipulative statement would be: "...her boss's anger..." The word "rage" is used, again, to further legitimize the casting of Trump as out of control.

...aides and confidants scrambled to identify the anonymous official, windmilling in all directions;...

"Scrambled" and "windmilling" again further paint Trump and his cabinet as a bunch of hysterical ding-a-lings who frenzy over every bump in the road. A balanced and less biased way of writing the sentence would be "...aides and confidants worked to identify the anonymous official, considering many options;...". The words the Post is publishing are obviously serving the politics of the Left, which dictate a demonstrably false narrative of a bumbling, out of control and incompetent leader.

One aide, for example, suggested a staffer seeking glory and secretly hoping to get caught, while another mused that the official was likely a low-level staffer in a peripheral agency. Others wondered aloud...

Additional examples of worthless hearsay, again sans cited source names. This is not serious nor responsible journalism; this is clearly propaganda.

A spokeswoman for the Times said she was unable to provide any additional clarity on how the newspaper defines a senior administration official.

Another disclaimer from the NYT, to add alongside the one they provided at the top of the original op-ed. The CYA backpedaling has already begun.

Brinkley, the historian, said the most analogous example of disloyalty and advisers disregarding the president’s wishes was in Richard Nixon’s final year as president. He explained that Nixon would “bark crazy orders” to aides that they intentionally disregarded.

And now the non-existent connection from Trump to Nixon is not merely hinted at with words like "paranoia," it is simply stated by a specifically selected historian who supports the Left's narrative perfectly by stating that "...Nixon would "bark crazy orders" to aides that they intentionally disregarded."

“You’d have to go back to Hans Christian Andersen, ‘The Emperor Has No Clothes,’ to see this syndrome where the president’s reality happens to be so different from his own senior advisers,” Brinkley said.

And Brinkley's opinion is valuable to the facts in what way? The only reason Brinkley's opinions are included in the Post's article is because they feed the progressive Left spin that the Post deliberately published.

New York Times Anonymous Op-Ed Nothing More Than Transparent Propaganda

Some editorial journalists have already observed that the anonymous op-ed in the New York Times regarding President Trump, published on January 5th, 2018, is possibly, if not likely, a fabricated piece of propaganda.
My wife brought the article to my attention, and as I read it, almost every paragraph stood out to me as a clever, but still obvious, attempt to destroy confidence in the President, while not affecting any changes, such as an impeachment that would indicate actual wrongdoing. Wrongdoing I might add, that has not been discovered despite three years of concerted effort by progressive provocateurs and failed investigations by our own respected law enforcement agencies.

The transparent methodologies present in the writing may not be as obvious to everyone, so I will explain, paragraph by paragraph, exactly what the writer is attempting to accomplish. With each paragraph, the original op-ed's text is in italics, and my explanation follows in plain text.

My reproduction of this copyrighted material falls under Fair Use, as my interpretation is as fair and reasonable as the original text, does not in any way impair the inherent value of the text to those for whom it was written, and generates no profits for me as my blog is free and the New York Times article is already freely available on the New York Times web site:


I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

This bold statement would be much more impressive if a name were attached to it. As the entire article is anonymous, it could have been written by anyone with access to YouTube and other social media. To assume the source is genuine without proof is the reader's first mistake.

The Times is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.

In this paragraph, we are treated to a convenient disclaimer that the New York Times believes will exonerate them when the truth is eventually revealed. Notice the characterization "important perspective" is used to further sell the alleged gravity of the contents. "Important perspective" is not typically assigned to any op-ed, as the reader normally decides whether or not the subject matter is important or relevant.

President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

This is indeed correct, thanks to the unceasing pernicious attacks on his character and mental faculties via the mainstream press that are consumed obsessively by the progressive Left.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

Notice how the three enumerated concerns are widely recognized complaints and negative prognostications of the Left. As the writer is allegedly an important figure in Trump's hand-picked administration, the likelihood that such an individual, specifically chosen for his or her conservative posture, would spotlight these is improbable at best.

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

First, a non-existent problem is fabricated by stating "The dilemma." Then the statement immediately following implies the very incompetence that the Left has been chanting about from day one of Trump's bid to run for president; another unlikely characterization of Trump by one of his own cabinet. The insidious nature of the entire article is in the last statement, which openly asserts there is a contingency of Trump's own cabinet that are working to subvert his allegedly questionable decision-making propensities. This paragraph sets the manufactured tone that the rest of the article draws from.

I would know. I am one of them.

Again, this would carry much more gravity with a name attached. For those cheering for the witch hunt, no identification is necessary.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

This paragraph attempts to ensure the reader that the writer's (and alleged co-conspirators') intentions are pure and chock-full of integrity, thus setting the reader up to more likely accept the negative assessments that follow. To properly sell the article, the reader must be convinced that the writer is a trusted cabinet member, and no one with a progressive agenda would be tolerated by Trump.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

This paragraph supports the previous, and further supports the earlier passing attempt to paint President Trump as (unintentionally) incompetent. It should be mentioned here that in fact, at this point in his presidency, Trump has made many positive changes in our country, and has not actually done anything more detrimental to it than offending some Twitter subscribers.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

More support of earlier statements; another example to convince the reader that there is an inner circle of freedom fighters who will protect John and Mary American from an allegedly incompetent president, thus attempting to strip from Trump the credit for any and all positive changes he accomplishes from this moment forward.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

This is an ad hominem attack, and one with no substantiation other than that the writer typed the statement on the page. Most readers are intelligent enough to recognize high-school-level rumors when they encounter them. There are people lining up as I write this to vouch for the president's character, and the truth in the real world is you can't buy that amount of loyalty in terms of sheer numbers.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

No examples of this are provided, not even one. This statement thus falls into the same category of several previous statements, that being an unsubstantiated claim by an anonymous source. Furthermore, Trump has demonstrably done the opposite of what is claimed here: supported the First Amendment by not legally censoring his venomous critics, jump-started our country's economy in record time, and has never once acted against any existing policy that ensures our individual freedoms, nor instituted policies that would do as such. Check his actual record.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Notice how Trump's statement about the disingenuous nature of the U.S. press is reduced to a "notion," as opposed to the direct charge it actually was. Then, this emasculated version of Trump's statement is included along with progressive opinions regarding Trump's well-publicized intention of making trade better for the U.S. than previous administrations, and also a fabricated non-sequitur for good measure, regarding his political loyalties to our country.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

This obligatory paragraph again allows the reader to continue suspending disbelief, as no one is completely evil, and it would have been even less believable if no positive nods were included by an actual cabinet member. It also throws a bone to those who don't trust the press, as an ingratiating measure.

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

Had this actually been a senior official, and not a constituent of the progressive Left, he or she would still be reduced to disgruntled employee, not elevated to champion of the allegedly downtrodden people. And once again, the clear statement is made that President Trump is not responsible for the positive changes enacted during his presidency. No, instead, these gallant heroes who will conveniently remain nameless are allegedly improving our country while Trump allegedly bungles everything with unrestrained histrionics.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

In the real world, not everyone will agree with everything their leader decides, be it the White House or a widget factory. This is merely more hearsay gossip that, true or not, has nothing to do with whether or not Trump is a good president. But again, this kind of high-school-level libel is nothing more than pandering to those who yearn for Trump's downfall.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

This is more gossip to make it appear that insiders are personally taken aback to the point they worry about our country's future. From an objective standpoint, it is opinion only and carries no weight in terms of what actually affects the American people. The characterization itself appears to illustrate a stereotypical dictator whose emotions supersede reason, and by that measure, is unstable and dangerous. No one in Trump's circle would assess him as such, unless they were fired and made accusations after the fact. Is Trump hard on his 'employees'? Yes. And he gets results. Steve Jobs is purported to have been horrible to employees at times. This was certainly offensive, but it had nothing to do with his effectiveness as a leader at Apple. People have made entire movies in admiration of Jobs. What does the leader of the free world get? Vilification from the Left.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

Yet more gossip. As I recall, there was a previous president celebrated by the Left, one of whose nicknames was "Flip Flop." Changing one's mind is probably the entire reason why a president has a cabinet and a congress to help him make changes, as opposed to a dictator, whose every whim automatically becomes law. Our system is such that Trump or any other president couldn't be "anti-democratic," even if he or she wanted to be.

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

Again, the illusion is cast that the president is poised to ruin all sorts of aspects of our country, but because of a hidden group of honorable patriots, the day has been saved for all Americans, despite the allegedly oafish antics of our president.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.

Yet another thinly veiled invective that is a transparently Leftist characterization. Now child status is added to the growing list of insults leveled at our president in this article of literally unknown origin. A senior official truly concerned about our country, without a progressive agenda, would never stoop to these kinds of snide remarks. The snide remark is cleverly followed by yet another assurance that our country is safe and sound, but allegedly no thanks to President Trump. This plays directly into the irrational fears openly expressed by the progressive Left, who are afraid their entitled status will shrink instead of grow as time passes under Trump's conservative administration.

The result is a two-track presidency.
Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

Finally, examples of the writer's accusations. But instead of correctly painting the president as someone who is keeping friendly terms with potentially dangerous world powers, the writer instead raises ambiguous complaints of "little genuine appreciation" for allies, with no effective examples. This is a classic trick of propaganda: generate a non-existent connection between facts and opinions.

Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

The writer attempts to attribute humanitarian directives to anyone other than Trump, as though the president plays golf all day and pays no attention to decisions made about other important entities in our world by his own officials.

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

In this paragraph, the writer assumes a moral high ground, and from that perch casts Trump as someone who would rather not punish wrongdoers. Nothing could be further from the truth, as Trump's constituents already understand. That Trump is hard on crime is a well-known aspect of his platform and administration, and the attempt to paint him otherwise is a waste of time to anyone paying attention. To use Russia in two examples so far, is directly playing to the progressive cheerleaders for the FBI witch hunt instituted as a result of Clinton losing the election.

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

Opinion, unsubstantiated by open observable facts, and cryptic enough to confuse readers with less political acumen. Therefore it plays to the reader as an authentic statement from a genuine "senior official."

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.

This paragraph is damage control for skeptics. Surely, several high-placed people in the White House who are genuinely concerned for the welfare of the country would not hesitate to begin proceedings for impeachment if indeed there were truly a cause for alarm. The truth of the matter is there is no cause for alarm, and their pretext for this obvious contradiction of action is the writer's excuse that doing so would "precipitate a constitutional crisis." This is an empty rationalization because no constitutional crisis occurred during Nixon's impending impeachment before he resigned, and none would occur now. Once again, the writer paints the imaginary hidden group as noble, hopefully engendering the admiration and trust of the reader.

The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

This is extremely transparent propaganda, which again plays directly into the publicly expressed accusations of the progressive Left. It additionally paints all Americans as victims, thus feeding the classic fears of victimology, a recognized impairment of Leftist ideology. It also paints Trump as perpetrator, when a contradictory truth of his term so far is his fierce loyalty to those who have been harmed, and a strong-willed determination to prevent future harm to all Americans, home and abroad. Furthermore, the second sentence assigns responsibility to President Trump for the incivility of our society, who was sworn in long after decades of Leftist agendas converted a loud portion of our nation's population into a collection of yelling, cussing, narcissistic and judgmental jerks.

Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.

This paragraph contains some obligatory terms for the Left, such as "tribalism" and "shared values." No genuine conservative would conflate national pride with tribalism; that is a pejorative term the Left uses to make conscientious Americans ashamed of being Americans. "Shared values" becomes meaningless in Left vs Right comparisons, because there are too many core values that diverge between those two majority factions. In terms of Trump's loyal constituents, there is no misunderstanding regarding his values, and the reason they voted for him is because they share those conservative values, not the family-corrosive values of the Left.

We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

Lodestar: another term, as others earlier in the text, designed to produce an effect of authenticity. Other journalists have already pointed out that the use of this word could be to intentionally point toward a specific individual who has used it publicly. Again, remember: this editorial could have been written by anyone with decent writing skills, a progressive agenda, and access to YouTube.

There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.

This paragraph is the lynch pin of the entire article. The rule of seven is utilized, in a marketing sense, i.e. yet another reminder that despite a president who is allegedly incompetent, childish, out of control and capricious, there are undisclosed persons who are quietly saving the country from ruin. Then, predictably, the writer finishes by taking the president's own platform of uniting the country and turns it against him by implying that the very unification he has been determined to accomplish will only be achieved by individuals working together despite him.

The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration.

That we, as readers, are expected to just accept this assertion as fact without a name is ludicrous. As in any polarizing issue, minds are already made up, thus this well-timed op-ed merely bolsters the already vehement hatred of our conservative president. That hatred is grounded in nothing more than the foiling of the Left's desire to deconstruct our free and wealthy country and reshape it into their vaunted, egalitarian-outcome utopia that famously ignores the corrupt proclivities of human beings in their natural state, as witnessed time and again in recorded history.

Friday, August 10, 2018

"Humanism and Its Aspirations" just another hijack

It came to my attention recently that there is a third "Humanist Manifesto" under the title "Humanism and Its Aspirations." I found it published here:

It was created by the American Humanist Association, an organization with the subtext "GOOD WITHOUT A GOD" displayed below its name, and it was drafted in 2003. The reproduction of its text in this essay is for critical debate only, and I make no claims whatsoever to its original composition.

I read the document, and it occurred to me that just as specific words in our lexicon have been re-purposed to champion particular political agendas, the Humanist Manifesto of 2003 demonstrates how the standard humanist values have been hijacked from Christian tenets.

To better demonstrate this observation, the following is a sentence-by-sentence comparison of Humanism to Christianity. The goal here is to make it evident that the American Humanist Association has indeed 'borrowed' concepts and values from holy documents whose origin are in direct conflict with their core belief.

An additional purpose in this comparison format is to demonstrate that many of the concepts being presented as particular to humanism are in fact merely intrinsic to any human being who wishes to contribute to the good of the world, regardless of belief system or lack of it.

What makes the presentation of a document of this nature insidious, is that it implies by its existence that it is in direct opposition to the aspirations of those who believe in God. Ironically, when it speaks of humane concepts as though they are exclusive to Humanists, it is actually referencing Christian principles as set forth two thousand years ago in documents gathered which eventually formed the New Testament.

Humanist Manifesto text is in script, Christian comparison in regular text. Any bold text was my alteration for the purpose of pointing out key disparities.


Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

Christianity is a philosophy of life that affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully.

The lifestance of Christianity—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully.

[Humanism] evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.

[Christianity] was given to us by God and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.

This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe.

The sentence is a statement of intent exclusive to Humanism, therefore no comparison will be made.

It is in this sense that [Humanists] affirm the following:

[Christians] affirm the following:

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.

Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies.

Christians find that science is the best method for determining scientific knowledge as well as for solving science-related problems and developing beneficial technologies.

[Humanists] also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

[Christians] also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of Intelligent Design.

Humanists recognize nature as self-existing.

Christians recognize nature as self-existing.

[Humanists] accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be.

[Christians] accept our life as all and enough, while recognizing that there is more to the universe we experience than we perceive with the five senses, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be.

[Humanists] welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

[Christians] welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.

Ethical values are derived from God and are tested by experience.

Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond.

Christians ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond.

[Humanists] are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.

[Christians] are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.

Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.

Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.

[Humanists] aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death.

[Christians] aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and transformation of death.

Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

Christians rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the existence of God to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.

Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence.

Christians long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence.

The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages [Humanists] to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages [Christians] to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community.

God-inspired individuals have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community.

[Humanists] seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

[Christians] seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views.

Christians are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views.

[Humanists] work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

[Christians] work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open-minded society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

Thus engaged in the flow of life, [Humanists] aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals.

Thus engaged in the flow of life, [Christians] aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals.

The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.

The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.



As you may plainly see, attempting to make either world view appear morally superior is merely unsubstantiated propaganda.