I do much love writing about Andrew Cuomo. He's so deliciously hyperbolic. His pompous pronunciamentos are doubly hilarious because he really is serious in declaiming them. Then there is the sonorous Shakespearean delivery - well!
His latest is a royal rebuke of provincial Congressmen Chris Collins and our own Tom Reed here in the footless reaches of the real America which yet abides in the People's Principality of NY (C). He calls them traitors; all that is good preserve me from blasphemy, he does. They are latter day Benedict Arnolds, too, by his high lights. An accusation of treason merits serious consideration, I'd say, rather than childish vindictiveness, before it is responsibly levelled. Benedict Arnold was a very significant figure in the history of NY and for many good things he did as well as his tragic dissent. But I doubt that Prince Andrew knows much about the history of "his"state. He is too busy creating history and planning for his ascension to the Crown itself.
Ostensibly the Congressmen were denounced for having advanced the passage of a federal budget including the discontinuance of federal tax deductions for state and local taxes. But the House version was crafted in a manner which also makes Democrat party obstruction of it far more difficult in the Senate. It is only common sense to say, given the frantic and bigoted legislative record of Democrats since the intolerably democratic establishment of President Trump, that content is irrelevant and origin is all that matters to Democrat representatives; Republicans sometimes actually muster the insolence involved in recognizing and countering this certainty. That is one of the Prince's real concerns I think. The other is that the inability to benefit from state taxes on one's federal return will focus much unwanted consequent attention on the excessive state taxes required by His Righteousness in accomplishing the transfer of wealth from the productive to the willfully unproductive which is his fondest dream. "Let them stew" he would sniff when reminded that such deductions place an unfair federal burden, when profligate tax and spend leftists reign, on states without confiscatory state taxes and with no say in NY or CA or NJ tax law.
God speed him in his quest for the Democrat nomination. That means he will be forced to converse (well, sorta) with the country for a very long time indeed and will give us much opportunity to see him at his rib tickling best; it may also relieve New York of his onerous authority and his insufferable sanctimoniousness in policy making.. I think he has about as much chance of actually being elected as Kim Jong Un has of becoming an honorary U.S. citizen but it will be so much fun to see him slavering after it in high theatrical mode. He ought to study the condescending and disingenuous address Shakespeare's lordly Coriolanus made to the Roman mob he despised because that's the way our Prince will look upon the task of "relating" to everyone between Binghamton and Bakersfield. Just imagine the rolling eyes, the disingenuous smile and the imperious tones wowing audiences in the "flyover country" to which he ventures, even in NY, only on compulsion and with nauseous misgivings. Run, Andy, run. I can't wait to hear our President Trump say to you "Andrew, you're full of hot air and you're in love with yourself." But then, that's obvious to common sense real Americans. Jack
Saturday, October 28, 2017
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Roy Moore
Here are what I think to be the salient facts about Judge Moore, who is the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from Alabama; he is opposed by Democrat Doug Jones in a special election to be held December 12. He was elected Chief Judge of the Alabama Supreme Court in 2001 but was removed from that office by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary in November of 2003 for refusing to remove a monument to the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building, despite an order from a federal court that it be done. He was again elected Chief Justice in 2013 but was suspended in May, 2016 for directing Alabama probate judges to continue enforcing that state's ban on same sex marriage, despite a U.S.Supreme Court decision which had the effect of legalizing it throughout the U.S. He appealed, lost and resigned in April 2017. He was one of the founders and was President of the Foundation for Moral Law, the purpose of which is to affirm the sovereignty of God in law making. In a CNN interview, as edited, he stated that in 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court, in making a decision striking down a Texas statute against Sodomy, usurped the legislative function. He was quoted in that interview "homosexual conduct should be illegal". He has a credible reputation as one who believes Christianity to have always been essential to American democracy in that it is the moral requirement for the affirmation of individual rights. He is an outspoken supporter of President Trump and is widely expected, if elected, to be a leader in mobilizing true GOP support for our President.
If I could, I would gladly vote for Judge Moore. If he is elected, I will celebrate much as I did last Nov. 8th.
For one thing, his foundation has supported the Colorado bakers who refused to obey a liberal inquisition's order to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple despite the resulting violation of their religious beliefs. They were subjected to draconian legal sanctions but the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to judge their case. I have no doubt that Roy Moore's Foundation for Moral Law will lend the bakers legally powerful support. The bakers have been terribly wronged by the totalitarian persecution to which they have been subjected and Judge Moore stands for justice for them.
The U.S. is a Christian nation to the very core. In virtually every small town I've ever seen, the two most substantial buildings are the school and the church(es). That is very good news for our other religions because modern Christianity expresses and enacts profound respect for other faiths . That is because over the last 2000 years Christianity has learned from its mistakes; it underwent a painful self examination during the Reformation, the Counter Reformation and the European Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries, which redirected it to the love and forebearance of its founder. To deny its primacy in American thought and reflection is "politically correct" sophistry and is understandably advanced by those who seek to destroy our culture as a prerequisite to its replacement with a regime inspired by notions formed from whole cloth by presumptuous radicals. I think Judge Moore subscribes to this view and in doing so, demonstrates his essential Americanism. The Founding fathers never intended separation of politics, government and the Christian faith. Might as well remove Newton and Einstein from the science of physics.
The rule of law, a mainstay of Western civilization from the Romans on, MUST be honored or lawful order is forfeit and chaos is nigh in our culture. Judge Moore resisted it in 2003 and paid the price. In 2013 he did so again. Thoreau, in Civil Disobedience, an essay for which the 1960s' style radicals who now have such a fell effect on our politics have expressed admiration, nonetheless therein admonished principled rebels to accept the lawful consequences of their actions. Judge Moore has suffered the consequences of his resistance and leftists, with their demonstrated disdain for our cultural history and their cavalier dismissal of painstakingly settled and natural law, lack the moral and intellectual authority to attack him. Pro communist terrorists were "guilty as hell and free as a bird" when they traitorously undermined our fight against the world Marxist depravity which presumptuously denied that for which men like Judge Moore have unshakeable faith.
Lets assume that the CNN interview was fairly edited and accurately quoted. Really, that's generous. His doubts about the propriety of the Supreme Court decision which outlawed the Texas sodomy statute yet reiterated many, many warnings about the drawbacks of allowing a nine member tribunal to write national law every bit as mandatory as that passed by hundreds of state and national legislators. Yes, I'm sure that Judge Moore recognizes Marbury vs Madison as settled law but his demonstrated reservations about the misuse of judicial review are honorable.
I imagine Judge Moore, in having made his quoted statement on homosexuality, to have been saying this to the interviewer: "You asked me if I think homosexuality should be illegal; I said 'homosexual conduct should be illegal'. In the context of evaluating the Supreme Court decision and despite your blatant effort to advance my comments beyond what I intend by demanding a yes or no answer, I say Texas law should be decided by Texans, embodying their beliefs, instead of by detached intellectuals in Washington. If it were, I would think it probable that the Texas statute would stand." If this is what Alabamians believed he was saying, then his reelection as Chief Judge was a very plausible indication of his fitness to represent his state, yes?
I rejoice to think of the possibility of Roy Moore in the Senate. His efforts and his very presence should go far toward affording our very sensible and public minded anti elitist President the support he needs. The spineless RINO faction in Congress must be shown the door - its day is done - and Roy Moore has the sand in his craw to lead the charge. I love his unapologetic faith in the common sense real America and his resolve to advance its (if you will) "terrible swift sword" against those Republicans who are afraid to use the historic chance they have been given to destroy the scourge of American Marxism.
I am not afraid at all of an incipient theocracy led by a prospective Senator Roy Moore. The very present threat presented by the radical leftist faction, motivated by absolutism which puts the medieval Papacy to hob and which has empowered two and almost three Presidents already, is a far more onerous and immediate prospect. We know what to expect from any Democrat Party Senator - subjection to New Yawka Charles Schumer. "Senator Moore": a much to be hoped for consummation. Jack
If I could, I would gladly vote for Judge Moore. If he is elected, I will celebrate much as I did last Nov. 8th.
For one thing, his foundation has supported the Colorado bakers who refused to obey a liberal inquisition's order to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple despite the resulting violation of their religious beliefs. They were subjected to draconian legal sanctions but the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to judge their case. I have no doubt that Roy Moore's Foundation for Moral Law will lend the bakers legally powerful support. The bakers have been terribly wronged by the totalitarian persecution to which they have been subjected and Judge Moore stands for justice for them.
The U.S. is a Christian nation to the very core. In virtually every small town I've ever seen, the two most substantial buildings are the school and the church(es). That is very good news for our other religions because modern Christianity expresses and enacts profound respect for other faiths . That is because over the last 2000 years Christianity has learned from its mistakes; it underwent a painful self examination during the Reformation, the Counter Reformation and the European Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries, which redirected it to the love and forebearance of its founder. To deny its primacy in American thought and reflection is "politically correct" sophistry and is understandably advanced by those who seek to destroy our culture as a prerequisite to its replacement with a regime inspired by notions formed from whole cloth by presumptuous radicals. I think Judge Moore subscribes to this view and in doing so, demonstrates his essential Americanism. The Founding fathers never intended separation of politics, government and the Christian faith. Might as well remove Newton and Einstein from the science of physics.
The rule of law, a mainstay of Western civilization from the Romans on, MUST be honored or lawful order is forfeit and chaos is nigh in our culture. Judge Moore resisted it in 2003 and paid the price. In 2013 he did so again. Thoreau, in Civil Disobedience, an essay for which the 1960s' style radicals who now have such a fell effect on our politics have expressed admiration, nonetheless therein admonished principled rebels to accept the lawful consequences of their actions. Judge Moore has suffered the consequences of his resistance and leftists, with their demonstrated disdain for our cultural history and their cavalier dismissal of painstakingly settled and natural law, lack the moral and intellectual authority to attack him. Pro communist terrorists were "guilty as hell and free as a bird" when they traitorously undermined our fight against the world Marxist depravity which presumptuously denied that for which men like Judge Moore have unshakeable faith.
Lets assume that the CNN interview was fairly edited and accurately quoted. Really, that's generous. His doubts about the propriety of the Supreme Court decision which outlawed the Texas sodomy statute yet reiterated many, many warnings about the drawbacks of allowing a nine member tribunal to write national law every bit as mandatory as that passed by hundreds of state and national legislators. Yes, I'm sure that Judge Moore recognizes Marbury vs Madison as settled law but his demonstrated reservations about the misuse of judicial review are honorable.
I imagine Judge Moore, in having made his quoted statement on homosexuality, to have been saying this to the interviewer: "You asked me if I think homosexuality should be illegal; I said 'homosexual conduct should be illegal'. In the context of evaluating the Supreme Court decision and despite your blatant effort to advance my comments beyond what I intend by demanding a yes or no answer, I say Texas law should be decided by Texans, embodying their beliefs, instead of by detached intellectuals in Washington. If it were, I would think it probable that the Texas statute would stand." If this is what Alabamians believed he was saying, then his reelection as Chief Judge was a very plausible indication of his fitness to represent his state, yes?
I rejoice to think of the possibility of Roy Moore in the Senate. His efforts and his very presence should go far toward affording our very sensible and public minded anti elitist President the support he needs. The spineless RINO faction in Congress must be shown the door - its day is done - and Roy Moore has the sand in his craw to lead the charge. I love his unapologetic faith in the common sense real America and his resolve to advance its (if you will) "terrible swift sword" against those Republicans who are afraid to use the historic chance they have been given to destroy the scourge of American Marxism.
I am not afraid at all of an incipient theocracy led by a prospective Senator Roy Moore. The very present threat presented by the radical leftist faction, motivated by absolutism which puts the medieval Papacy to hob and which has empowered two and almost three Presidents already, is a far more onerous and immediate prospect. We know what to expect from any Democrat Party Senator - subjection to New Yawka Charles Schumer. "Senator Moore": a much to be hoped for consummation. Jack
Monday, October 16, 2017
Anti-American "anti-Confederates"
Well I just got back from the annual Battle of Cedar Creek, VA reenactment. I'm a private in the 42d PA "Bucktails ".
We had been notified of a written physical threat to those in attendance. Alot of us think that that actually increased reenactor numbers. We had a very impressive battle on Saturday, with manyspectators but shortly after we returned to our camps (on the original field of that decisive but little known clash) we were told that a viable bomb had been discovered in "Sutler Row" (rows of tents for vendors offering a wide variety of items of interest to reenactors and spectators alike.) Law enforcement took over, skillfully examining and countering this and a reported second bomb snuck into a wood pile in the Confederate camp. By Sunday morning law enforcement had done its unending job characteristically well and it was possible to reenact another battle as intended.
I have predicted that the American left , if convinced that its lawful and conventional efforts to take our country are futile, will resort to terrorism. The defeat of its darling in 2016, the development of President Trump into a formidable national leader and their dread of repulse in 2018 and 2020 has the left in a rare old mess.
They are fueled by emotion. Yes, there are very clear headed, serious planners among them who are yet devoted to the gradual destruction of America and its replacement with a "just" totalitarian entity. But the bulk of their cadre and their flock has displayed frantic juvenile hatred in their insane but fully to be expected onslaught on the very person of our duly elected President. That their "feelings", stung to the quick by the empowering of one who has no illusions about them and no fear of them, have turned to panic, is apparent in their fevered dreams of a Sanders , Harris or Warren dictatorship and in their resort to "the guerrilla" by the unstable so often to be found among them. That was at work at Cedar Creek, I think.
This incident is characteristic of the ignorant bigotry of many who deny anything positive in the exertions of those who fought through unimaginable hardship for their country in the South. Southerners have subsequently proven to be among the most truly loyal of Americans.
This current effort to discredit the memory of the Confederacy will fail; its leaders sneer at the real America which acknowledges shame for our historical misdeeds but affirms that, on balance and with very painful self correction (600,000 American wartime deaths between 1861 and 1865), this country strives for justice. The left's disdain for this and their determination to demand of America a submission to their perfectionist dreams they demand of no other country, defines and condemns their cause.
Their current vicious effort to expunge the memory of the Confederacy is an all too obvious prelude to an attack on our nation's historical and cultural fundamentals as an integral part of their campaign to destroy America and replace it with Marxist hell. Anti Confederate? Nah, they are just anti America. Jack
We had been notified of a written physical threat to those in attendance. Alot of us think that that actually increased reenactor numbers. We had a very impressive battle on Saturday, with manyspectators but shortly after we returned to our camps (on the original field of that decisive but little known clash) we were told that a viable bomb had been discovered in "Sutler Row" (rows of tents for vendors offering a wide variety of items of interest to reenactors and spectators alike.) Law enforcement took over, skillfully examining and countering this and a reported second bomb snuck into a wood pile in the Confederate camp. By Sunday morning law enforcement had done its unending job characteristically well and it was possible to reenact another battle as intended.
I have predicted that the American left , if convinced that its lawful and conventional efforts to take our country are futile, will resort to terrorism. The defeat of its darling in 2016, the development of President Trump into a formidable national leader and their dread of repulse in 2018 and 2020 has the left in a rare old mess.
They are fueled by emotion. Yes, there are very clear headed, serious planners among them who are yet devoted to the gradual destruction of America and its replacement with a "just" totalitarian entity. But the bulk of their cadre and their flock has displayed frantic juvenile hatred in their insane but fully to be expected onslaught on the very person of our duly elected President. That their "feelings", stung to the quick by the empowering of one who has no illusions about them and no fear of them, have turned to panic, is apparent in their fevered dreams of a Sanders , Harris or Warren dictatorship and in their resort to "the guerrilla" by the unstable so often to be found among them. That was at work at Cedar Creek, I think.
This incident is characteristic of the ignorant bigotry of many who deny anything positive in the exertions of those who fought through unimaginable hardship for their country in the South. Southerners have subsequently proven to be among the most truly loyal of Americans.
This current effort to discredit the memory of the Confederacy will fail; its leaders sneer at the real America which acknowledges shame for our historical misdeeds but affirms that, on balance and with very painful self correction (600,000 American wartime deaths between 1861 and 1865), this country strives for justice. The left's disdain for this and their determination to demand of America a submission to their perfectionist dreams they demand of no other country, defines and condemns their cause.
Their current vicious effort to expunge the memory of the Confederacy is an all too obvious prelude to an attack on our nation's historical and cultural fundamentals as an integral part of their campaign to destroy America and replace it with Marxist hell. Anti Confederate? Nah, they are just anti America. Jack
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
You leftists!
You are always making things more difficult!
It used to be easy to counter any accusation of moral turpitude you leveled at anyone and I mean anyone. All one had to say in reply was "William Clinton". That said it all didn't it? Perjury, forcible rape, draft dodging, inveterate lying, unrepentant marital infidelity, loathing for the armed forces and police, selling influence and information to which only one who has conned his way into high office has access, denying an American citizen her rightful and meaningful day in court while serving as the nation's top law enforcement officer, pardoning friends and, hand in hand with his consort, disgracing our White House beyond measure; all such offenses are understandably associated with that name and certainly not with any opposition to them on his part. And by crackie, you stood by him, now that's a fact!. Yeah it used to be simple.
Now you lefties have made it twice as complicated. Now we have to cite two names! "Why what a preposterous thought it is that we knew ANYTHING about Harvey's antics when we schmoozed with him, facilitated his access to his prey and sought his bounty, because if we had, our unimpeachably high principles would have sent us reeling from his presence in horror equal ( well, maybe not quite) to that we feel each day we wake to the realization that Donald Trump was somehow elected. In proof thereof we submit our abandonment of him in this hour of ever more tawdry revelation of his misdeeds. Oh please B'rer Bear don' throw us in that there briar patch."
By any means possible; the end excuses the means and in no way predicts how we will rule - that's the ticket for you leftists isn't it. Thank God we have a President who sees you for what you so obviously are and is not above putting a thumb in your eye. I won't stoop to describing what that thumb, as administered by those old time hasslers, actually had on it, but its symbolic of your lack of humanity and maturity.Jack
It used to be easy to counter any accusation of moral turpitude you leveled at anyone and I mean anyone. All one had to say in reply was "William Clinton". That said it all didn't it? Perjury, forcible rape, draft dodging, inveterate lying, unrepentant marital infidelity, loathing for the armed forces and police, selling influence and information to which only one who has conned his way into high office has access, denying an American citizen her rightful and meaningful day in court while serving as the nation's top law enforcement officer, pardoning friends and, hand in hand with his consort, disgracing our White House beyond measure; all such offenses are understandably associated with that name and certainly not with any opposition to them on his part. And by crackie, you stood by him, now that's a fact!. Yeah it used to be simple.
Now you lefties have made it twice as complicated. Now we have to cite two names! "Why what a preposterous thought it is that we knew ANYTHING about Harvey's antics when we schmoozed with him, facilitated his access to his prey and sought his bounty, because if we had, our unimpeachably high principles would have sent us reeling from his presence in horror equal ( well, maybe not quite) to that we feel each day we wake to the realization that Donald Trump was somehow elected. In proof thereof we submit our abandonment of him in this hour of ever more tawdry revelation of his misdeeds. Oh please B'rer Bear don' throw us in that there briar patch."
By any means possible; the end excuses the means and in no way predicts how we will rule - that's the ticket for you leftists isn't it. Thank God we have a President who sees you for what you so obviously are and is not above putting a thumb in your eye. I won't stoop to describing what that thumb, as administered by those old time hasslers, actually had on it, but its symbolic of your lack of humanity and maturity.Jack
A Primer on Vietnam
Since the Vietnam War is now popular history, thanks to the always reliable PBS, I intend this for those who do not know much about it and for those who might consider the possibility that they were mistaken in those days - all eleven of them.
The South East Asian nation of Vietnam split into North Vietnam and South Vietnam in 1954. Four hundred thousand people fled their homes in the North. Somewhat fewer went North. The North was ruled by people called Communists and they decided to take those four hundred thousand people back from the South along with the whole danged country.
Now the people in the South did not want that to happen. They had heard bad things about the Communists; that is because Communists routinely do very, very bad things to people they don't like. And there are lots of people they don't like because those Communists are rather hard to get along with and people don't like being treated that way.
You see, some Russian Communists had the idea in 1917 that it would be nice if everybody was the same; that way everyone would have everything they need and everyone would be happy. It sure sounded like a nice idea, so they tried it there and, well, it didn't work out so well because the Communists starved everyone who disobeyed their orders to be happy. Then the same thing happened to millions of people in China, North Korea, Albania, Poland and many other countries. So the South Vietnamese fought the North Vietnamese to keep that from happening to them.
About ten years before that America had fought Germans and Japanese who also did lots of bad things and we learned that its best to fight people like that before they get too strong. Along about the time Communists had starved maybe as much one hundred million people they didn't like, America decided it was time to stop the Communists from doing that anymore. After all, the Communists might have decided to do it to us. We don't have to worry about that anymore and for sure we can't have any Communists in the U.S. (yes?). But back then - since South Vietnam was the place they were trying to take over at the time, American leaders decided to stop them there so that they couldn't do any more bad things, like starving people or putting garbage bags over their heads. Of course if we had stopped them there many more Vietnamese would be alive today.
In 1964 American leaders decided to fight very hard in South Vietnam to keep Communists from always looking for new places to starve. But fighting requires armies which have to want to fight. But many of the young men in 1965 did not want to fight. You see, they had not had to look for work when they were 14 years old like their parents had to and they had not been around during that last big war and didn't believe anything bad could or should happen to them. So they went to college instead and learned from very wise people who thought Communists were good. They thought that because Communists said they wanted to do good. Some of the young men got very mad at the country which had given them good lives - that was called being sensitive and "relevant". They did not want to fight for it because they wanted to live long lives and marry college women. They were very intelligent and gifted, you see. And they were right! After all, we might never have had Billy J. Clinton for our President if they had all done their duty.
So they yelled at our leaders and spit on the many young men who decided to do what their country asked. That made the men who fought very sad. It made the North Vietnamese Communists very glad. They became even happier when a pretty American movie star encouraged them to kill Americans. So they won and starved many thousands more people. But just to be kind they let alot of them get in boats and cruise around and sun bathe before they starved..
That's pretty well the way it was; at least it appears that way to people with common sense.Jack
The South East Asian nation of Vietnam split into North Vietnam and South Vietnam in 1954. Four hundred thousand people fled their homes in the North. Somewhat fewer went North. The North was ruled by people called Communists and they decided to take those four hundred thousand people back from the South along with the whole danged country.
Now the people in the South did not want that to happen. They had heard bad things about the Communists; that is because Communists routinely do very, very bad things to people they don't like. And there are lots of people they don't like because those Communists are rather hard to get along with and people don't like being treated that way.
You see, some Russian Communists had the idea in 1917 that it would be nice if everybody was the same; that way everyone would have everything they need and everyone would be happy. It sure sounded like a nice idea, so they tried it there and, well, it didn't work out so well because the Communists starved everyone who disobeyed their orders to be happy. Then the same thing happened to millions of people in China, North Korea, Albania, Poland and many other countries. So the South Vietnamese fought the North Vietnamese to keep that from happening to them.
About ten years before that America had fought Germans and Japanese who also did lots of bad things and we learned that its best to fight people like that before they get too strong. Along about the time Communists had starved maybe as much one hundred million people they didn't like, America decided it was time to stop the Communists from doing that anymore. After all, the Communists might have decided to do it to us. We don't have to worry about that anymore and for sure we can't have any Communists in the U.S. (yes?). But back then - since South Vietnam was the place they were trying to take over at the time, American leaders decided to stop them there so that they couldn't do any more bad things, like starving people or putting garbage bags over their heads. Of course if we had stopped them there many more Vietnamese would be alive today.
In 1964 American leaders decided to fight very hard in South Vietnam to keep Communists from always looking for new places to starve. But fighting requires armies which have to want to fight. But many of the young men in 1965 did not want to fight. You see, they had not had to look for work when they were 14 years old like their parents had to and they had not been around during that last big war and didn't believe anything bad could or should happen to them. So they went to college instead and learned from very wise people who thought Communists were good. They thought that because Communists said they wanted to do good. Some of the young men got very mad at the country which had given them good lives - that was called being sensitive and "relevant". They did not want to fight for it because they wanted to live long lives and marry college women. They were very intelligent and gifted, you see. And they were right! After all, we might never have had Billy J. Clinton for our President if they had all done their duty.
So they yelled at our leaders and spit on the many young men who decided to do what their country asked. That made the men who fought very sad. It made the North Vietnamese Communists very glad. They became even happier when a pretty American movie star encouraged them to kill Americans. So they won and starved many thousands more people. But just to be kind they let alot of them get in boats and cruise around and sun bathe before they starved..
That's pretty well the way it was; at least it appears that way to people with common sense.Jack
Friday, October 6, 2017
"Gun Control" II
Over the last day, an effort to nationally ban the "bump stocks" which apparently enabled the automatic fire by the amoral Las Vegas monster obvious to anyone who knows about guns, has gained much support. I'd certainly agree with strict regulation denying these devices to all but the disabled for whom they may well have been originally designed and one other threatened population but I'm a member of the common sense majority in the real America and a loyal NRA guy.
Alas though, I'm shocked, shocked I say, that anyone on the American left would advance such a measure. We know how adamantly opposed leftists are to any proposal from those with the temerity to unforgiveably do as much as hint at anything which has even a ghostly chance of "offending" any of the "protected classes" the left cherishes and patronizes and matronizes too. Why, radicals are the people who would ban Christmas because it might trouble animists. The left should be loath to offend the disabled. For shame, leftists, that you would advocate anything which denies any politically approved group all opportunities to live lives strictly and measurably equal in every technical, material, emotional , legal and experiential way! The other group for whom you display your breezy disregard is one for which you have no respect anyway. That is rural southerners for whom an ever increasing invasion by vicious wild pigs is creating ever more lethal possibilities in the woods. You would say, "well, just stay out of the woods" and that's to be expected from ignorant, culturally elite snobs. But reality is that many people in that area (and by the way, the hogs are heading for the Eastern suburbs) must have automatic weapons for protection against multitudinous herds of these creatures, which do not always go down with one hit. But then, you laud artists who use taxpayer's money to create crucifixes immersed in urine and images of Santa's elves having sex; you casually scorn the religious values which inform the lives of most of the common sense majority, so I suppose you'd be loath to identify with rural people anywhere.And we know you have no problem vilifying Christians, especially Catholics; you are "selective" after all, in your condemnation of "discrimination".
Look, I have a proposal to remedy this situation. K.I.S.S. to be sure. Some radicals ( and ,yes, many people of good will, against whom my sarcasm is not directed) suggest ( and that word has a more forceful meaning to those of totalitarian convictions) that we look for factors common to all mass shooters, such as, maybe, use of certain prescription drugs. Despite the "inconvenience" this might cause the millions, including many in law enforcement, who responsibly use such rigorously screened remedies, "if it saves one life its worth it!" Pish tosh - I have a far simpler thought. Since we know for sure that all mass shooters must have trigger fingers, why the solution is obvious. Pass a Federal law requiring all adult Americans to undergo, at government expense, amputation of the first two joints of their trigger fingers. No discrimination now! From revered 1930's one room school house teachers to Jailhouse Jake serving life without parole, under the surgeon's knife you go. Sorry about the fact that 99.99999% of you would never consider mass murder anyway. I mean, that will be alot more effective and easily confirmable than the hassle of going after the hundreds of millions of guns obstinately and ,well, resolutely, retained by nonetheless lawful Americans, is it not so?
If you believe I am capable of serious thought, please consider this: the moral and spiritual vacuum recklessly fostered by the left, which excuses personal responsibility and convinces the hideously insane that they have justification to slaughter, is the true cause of mass shootings. Jack
Alas though, I'm shocked, shocked I say, that anyone on the American left would advance such a measure. We know how adamantly opposed leftists are to any proposal from those with the temerity to unforgiveably do as much as hint at anything which has even a ghostly chance of "offending" any of the "protected classes" the left cherishes and patronizes and matronizes too. Why, radicals are the people who would ban Christmas because it might trouble animists. The left should be loath to offend the disabled. For shame, leftists, that you would advocate anything which denies any politically approved group all opportunities to live lives strictly and measurably equal in every technical, material, emotional , legal and experiential way! The other group for whom you display your breezy disregard is one for which you have no respect anyway. That is rural southerners for whom an ever increasing invasion by vicious wild pigs is creating ever more lethal possibilities in the woods. You would say, "well, just stay out of the woods" and that's to be expected from ignorant, culturally elite snobs. But reality is that many people in that area (and by the way, the hogs are heading for the Eastern suburbs) must have automatic weapons for protection against multitudinous herds of these creatures, which do not always go down with one hit. But then, you laud artists who use taxpayer's money to create crucifixes immersed in urine and images of Santa's elves having sex; you casually scorn the religious values which inform the lives of most of the common sense majority, so I suppose you'd be loath to identify with rural people anywhere.And we know you have no problem vilifying Christians, especially Catholics; you are "selective" after all, in your condemnation of "discrimination".
Look, I have a proposal to remedy this situation. K.I.S.S. to be sure. Some radicals ( and ,yes, many people of good will, against whom my sarcasm is not directed) suggest ( and that word has a more forceful meaning to those of totalitarian convictions) that we look for factors common to all mass shooters, such as, maybe, use of certain prescription drugs. Despite the "inconvenience" this might cause the millions, including many in law enforcement, who responsibly use such rigorously screened remedies, "if it saves one life its worth it!" Pish tosh - I have a far simpler thought. Since we know for sure that all mass shooters must have trigger fingers, why the solution is obvious. Pass a Federal law requiring all adult Americans to undergo, at government expense, amputation of the first two joints of their trigger fingers. No discrimination now! From revered 1930's one room school house teachers to Jailhouse Jake serving life without parole, under the surgeon's knife you go. Sorry about the fact that 99.99999% of you would never consider mass murder anyway. I mean, that will be alot more effective and easily confirmable than the hassle of going after the hundreds of millions of guns obstinately and ,well, resolutely, retained by nonetheless lawful Americans, is it not so?
If you believe I am capable of serious thought, please consider this: the moral and spiritual vacuum recklessly fostered by the left, which excuses personal responsibility and convinces the hideously insane that they have justification to slaughter, is the true cause of mass shootings. Jack
Thursday, October 5, 2017
"Gun Control"
Since the American left has, true to form, hastened to attempt to take political advantage of the Las Vegas tragedy, it is right for those of us in the common sense majority in the real America to respond.
Those who advocate "gun control" belong to two major groups: The first is of people of good will, often but not always people who don't know much about guns, who sincerely believe that stricter control of the manufacture,distribution and use of firearms in America will result in far fewer mass shootings. I believe them mistaken but do not think they reflect the utter contempt for gun owners displayed by the second group.
The second group is concentrated in the coastal la-la lands and is exemplified by Barack Obama, the Mayor of Chicago, Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Rosie O'Donnell (only as a rep for the mostly degenerate entertainment industry) and attended upon by most of those who share their disdain both for rural people and for those who support the traditional values which are pillars of positive American living. The second group does not care whether "gun control" dissuades monsters. Rather, they know that gun owners and their associations, including of course the NRA, are among the mainstays of the conservative movement because they support candidates and office holders who are conservative on a wide range of issues. The left has been done catastrophic damage by gun owners (eg. 1994, 2000 and 2016) and dreams of discrediting gun rights advocates by relentlessly threatening them and passing ever more onerous restrictions. They hope this will wear out gun people and alienate them from what they might perceive as an increasingly ineffective NRA, thereby fatally weakening the entire conservative movement - the hated enemy of radicals. Ain' happened yet! NRA thrives every time it is attacked.
A San Francisco area Congressional rep has accordingly urged passage of a law mandating background checks any time guns change hands. But the Las Vegas subhuman had passed such checks. Perhaps she seeks to distract the attention of common sense Americans from those who are truly culpable -her leftist comrades. Guns were far more easily available in the '50's. I know country people who carried them to school to harvest table meat on the way home. The insanity of mass gun murder was almost unknown. That is because the '50's came before the '60's, when the spiritual and moral foundations of our culture came under the unrelenting assault from the left they endure to this day. In a country where ideas such as "if its my thing, its my thing and I'm gonna do it", "I've been wronged by society as a whole and society is going to pay" and "now lets not be judgemental like we used to be" have wide acceptance, chaos is inevitable. As a prison chaplain once told me"The fear of God must be reestablished because the lack of it is obvious everywhere".
We could consider supporting universal background checks if we were assured that the records thereby generated would not be used to create the lists of gunowners and possessions necessary for eventual confiscation. But we know from experience that such assurance is not possible because we've seen how eager leftist administrators already are to abuse existing gun laws in their unending crusade to disarm law abiding Americans. Misuse of the existing Federal NICS background check system is extensively documented. We must be ever mindful of the possibility of another far left led Federal executive branch determined to advance its comprehensive totalitarian purpose. Their reflexive response to the Las Vegas abomination while in their present exile says it all. Jack
Those who advocate "gun control" belong to two major groups: The first is of people of good will, often but not always people who don't know much about guns, who sincerely believe that stricter control of the manufacture,distribution and use of firearms in America will result in far fewer mass shootings. I believe them mistaken but do not think they reflect the utter contempt for gun owners displayed by the second group.
The second group is concentrated in the coastal la-la lands and is exemplified by Barack Obama, the Mayor of Chicago, Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Rosie O'Donnell (only as a rep for the mostly degenerate entertainment industry) and attended upon by most of those who share their disdain both for rural people and for those who support the traditional values which are pillars of positive American living. The second group does not care whether "gun control" dissuades monsters. Rather, they know that gun owners and their associations, including of course the NRA, are among the mainstays of the conservative movement because they support candidates and office holders who are conservative on a wide range of issues. The left has been done catastrophic damage by gun owners (eg. 1994, 2000 and 2016) and dreams of discrediting gun rights advocates by relentlessly threatening them and passing ever more onerous restrictions. They hope this will wear out gun people and alienate them from what they might perceive as an increasingly ineffective NRA, thereby fatally weakening the entire conservative movement - the hated enemy of radicals. Ain' happened yet! NRA thrives every time it is attacked.
A San Francisco area Congressional rep has accordingly urged passage of a law mandating background checks any time guns change hands. But the Las Vegas subhuman had passed such checks. Perhaps she seeks to distract the attention of common sense Americans from those who are truly culpable -her leftist comrades. Guns were far more easily available in the '50's. I know country people who carried them to school to harvest table meat on the way home. The insanity of mass gun murder was almost unknown. That is because the '50's came before the '60's, when the spiritual and moral foundations of our culture came under the unrelenting assault from the left they endure to this day. In a country where ideas such as "if its my thing, its my thing and I'm gonna do it", "I've been wronged by society as a whole and society is going to pay" and "now lets not be judgemental like we used to be" have wide acceptance, chaos is inevitable. As a prison chaplain once told me"The fear of God must be reestablished because the lack of it is obvious everywhere".
We could consider supporting universal background checks if we were assured that the records thereby generated would not be used to create the lists of gunowners and possessions necessary for eventual confiscation. But we know from experience that such assurance is not possible because we've seen how eager leftist administrators already are to abuse existing gun laws in their unending crusade to disarm law abiding Americans. Misuse of the existing Federal NICS background check system is extensively documented. We must be ever mindful of the possibility of another far left led Federal executive branch determined to advance its comprehensive totalitarian purpose. Their reflexive response to the Las Vegas abomination while in their present exile says it all. Jack
Sunday, October 1, 2017
Massive reeducation, ehh?
Sometimes radicals inadvertently open windows into their totalitarian souls: Fox News reported today that a Penn. State professor denounced the term "meritocracy" as a "white"concept (read: " understood to be beneath contempt" despite the otherwise by leftists despised stereotypical cast of the criticism) and advocated "massive reeducation" to change the minds of those as corrupted as to think hard work in hope of personal gain is morally and objectively correct. If accurate, this report should be paid attention.
Since the left enthusiastically pushes the concept of "microaggression", I shall use it in opposition; surely leftists dare not chide. The term, as I understand it, means subtle remarks which nevertheless strongly suggest sincerely held politically incorrect ideas such as the many ill defined "isms", accusations of which leftists feel free to level at those who attract their scrutiny.What then might be implied by the term "massive reeducation"? If used by an academic as radical as to poo-poo one of the fundamentals of positive, productive living in almost every culture, it fairly begs the question. Could it be indicative of belief in TOTALITARIANISM?
I think those millions caught in the tender clasps of empowered Marxism know just what massive reeducation means; the use of this term bespeaks gross "insensitivity" to their feelings, an accusation leftists must answer since they think themselves free to aim it at will at any who vex them. I'm reminded of youthful 1960's idealists recorded discussing the then coming necessity (by their venerable lights) for setting up "reeducation camps in the southwest U.S." to reform those patriots still alive after the cleansing murder of the 20 million (more or less) who were beyond hope of correction . Some of these lethal dreamers are paid by taxpayers to teach at major American universities today. Of course, Southeast Asian Marxist savages in the 1970's approached perfection in the murderously applied science of mandated politically redeeming "education".
I would assume that the professor who is alleged to have used the term "massive reeducation" invested some little effort in "earning" the advanced degree which is yet still required for faculty status in a university? Having been overwhelmed by the readings in my first and only M.A. course, I can appreciate how much, well, just plain hard work is involved.
These ardent leftists have been making perfect asses of themselves lately, is it not so? Their conduct defines their cause. Jack
Since the left enthusiastically pushes the concept of "microaggression", I shall use it in opposition; surely leftists dare not chide. The term, as I understand it, means subtle remarks which nevertheless strongly suggest sincerely held politically incorrect ideas such as the many ill defined "isms", accusations of which leftists feel free to level at those who attract their scrutiny.What then might be implied by the term "massive reeducation"? If used by an academic as radical as to poo-poo one of the fundamentals of positive, productive living in almost every culture, it fairly begs the question. Could it be indicative of belief in TOTALITARIANISM?
I think those millions caught in the tender clasps of empowered Marxism know just what massive reeducation means; the use of this term bespeaks gross "insensitivity" to their feelings, an accusation leftists must answer since they think themselves free to aim it at will at any who vex them. I'm reminded of youthful 1960's idealists recorded discussing the then coming necessity (by their venerable lights) for setting up "reeducation camps in the southwest U.S." to reform those patriots still alive after the cleansing murder of the 20 million (more or less) who were beyond hope of correction . Some of these lethal dreamers are paid by taxpayers to teach at major American universities today. Of course, Southeast Asian Marxist savages in the 1970's approached perfection in the murderously applied science of mandated politically redeeming "education".
I would assume that the professor who is alleged to have used the term "massive reeducation" invested some little effort in "earning" the advanced degree which is yet still required for faculty status in a university? Having been overwhelmed by the readings in my first and only M.A. course, I can appreciate how much, well, just plain hard work is involved.
These ardent leftists have been making perfect asses of themselves lately, is it not so? Their conduct defines their cause. Jack
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)