Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Author Archive

Scotch Socialists

Posted by DNW on 2014/09/16

Just trying to keep things straight here in case of potential developments in the Still Somewhat United Kingdom: but, if Scotland declares its independence in order to form a more perfect collectivist state, is Scotland somehow automatically grandfathered in on the various agreements and crap we have with Great Britain?

I mean, like, man, how could this legally be? Wouldn’t Scotland then be a brand new country, with no treaties or agreements with anyone and no membership in any international organizations?

So … then Scotland wouldn’t even be a member of the United Nations, right? And the United States, for example, would have neither direct nor indirect obligations or arrangements with the Scotch – assuming they even exist for much longer before turning their country over to foreign laborers in return for a promise that their pensions will be paid until they die, or whatever.

But think for a minute.  What if Denmark invaded Scotland? Would anyone be legally obligated to respond in its defense? What if Donald Trump invaded … with the intention of turning the whole place into a game preserve?

And, in somewhat happier terms, might this mean in a legal context, for example,  that any annoying  socialist son-of-a-bitch you might run across, would be –  as long as he was Scotch – virtually outside the law … if that is, you could catch it off its home turf?

Now, “Why in the world … “, you might ask ” .. would I even wonder about something like that”? Especially as I am always carping in favor of freedom and self-determination?

The answer is obvious: Alex Salmond.

Speaking of punchable faces

Speaking of punchable faces

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, that Alex Salmond, pictured above. (Though you might be forgiven for mistaking him for that other tubby leftist Scotch miscreant George Galloway.)

I’ve been doing a little reading about the Scottish Independence referendum, and it is clear that a great deal of what has been driving it, unfortunately, is not a desire for more freedom, but a demand for less.

And who is especially in favor of it? Well, according to those profiled in The Guardian, it’s those who have heretofore had little or no interest in politics, and but who presently draw checks from it.

Sort of like Alex Salmond and his 17 years older wife, and his parents.

So what we have here in the Scotch Independence Movement, is a movement that appears to be largely by and for those who draw their meal tickets from the government and who are determined to make sure that if England is infected by “neo-liberal” ideas of the kind that spell individual rights and less government direction, they will not be part of it.

Of course others have a different opinion. Some see it, and speaking of Donald Trump, as part of a vast right wing conspiracy for which Salmond is acting as crony or front man.

Who can say really. All we really know is what the Scotch in favor of the movement say, and that is that they want less dangerous classical liberalism and more guaranteed welfare statism, even if it means paying for their “Independence” by importing a non-Scots replacement population in order to to underwrite it all.

Why don’t they just put guns to their heads and pull the triggers?

The Nazis, famous for being infamous,  were once also famous for complaining that many of the most vigorous of the German nationality had emigrated to America; leaving behind a more stolid and less heroic population than was necessary for an anti-classical liberal national revivification of the kind they envisioned. Their proposed solution was the organized militarization of their political culture, and the expulsion (or murder) all non-Germans in the perfervid  hope of reinvigorating their “people”.

The Scotch solution to an endemic national ennui and the threat of encroaching classical liberalism, is to declare independence from the source of the individual self-direction taint (England), and turn the country over to immigrants who will, they hope, underwrite the comfort of the present pensioner class.

Talk about two suicidal extremes proposed as answers to what was essentially the same question …

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Culture, Humor - For Some, Law, Liberal, politics, society, We Won't Miss You | Leave a Comment »

Adjusting the angle of attack …

Posted by DNW on 2014/09/02

I’ve come to the conclusion that the tenor of some of my recent postings have done virtually no one, including myself, most especially myself, much good.

To put it in the most self-serving terms possible, this lapse has generally occurred while I was critiquing the work of leftist bloggers.

Now, when doing so you have a choice: 1, to stick to pointing out the faults of the narrative, or 2, to also if it seems justified, go after the one doing the narrating – usually by judging them by the announced standard by which they judge others.

With the left, the fundamental standards of social and political, if not all human value, are generally implied to be “intelligence” and artfulness. In their moral universe, the liberal moral universe,  moral values are not discovered, but “created”. So, for example, so-called “Tea Partiers” are berated for being, not merely wrong, but for being uncouth, uncultured, generally ignorant, and above all as fundamentally unintelligent.

Obviously then,  it’s quite tempting to analyze the left’s own polemics in the same terms.

And when you do so, that is to say act by not only marking their errors, but also the “reasonableness” of the errors, the transparency of the errors, and the likelihood of those falsehoods being deliberate as opposed to inadvertent, you are quite possibly tempted, as I have been, to throw up your hands and simply conclude that the liberal writers are either lying, or idiots, or both.

The recent result here has been half-a-dozen of my  posts prominently featuring the term “stupid” in reference to particular persons spouting a leftist line.

Now, in the abstract, they might deserve this treatment. Or they might not.

But I am tired of seeing it in my own productions.

In fact I am going to re-title a couple of my entries and make some modest textual changes.

I don’t want to become in some measure what I am critiquing, by picking up their standards and flinging them back at them. No matter how much they may seem to deserve it..

Even though I have often accused conservatives of playing with one hand tied behind their back, and of being inhibited by limits liberals don’t share, there has to be a better way than sounding as if you have adopted leftist premises yourself.

It’s not only stupid to become the enemy, but ultimately wrong.

Posted in Blogging Matters, Culture, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy | Leave a Comment »

“We can’t save stupid white liberals …

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/30

From a provocative website I often read, resist agreeing with just as frequently, and occasionally comment on, comes this remark from another visitor concerning what looks to be a blossoming theme these days.

“We can’t save stupid white liberals and save ourselves at the same time.”

Seems that whenever there is a report that the chickens of chaos may come home to roost in the liberal coop itself, some observers are quick to offer up a grim “So who gives a damn?”

And what is a limited government type to think when the left/fascist social vandals and subverters of our once constitutional government of strictly enumerated powers, i.e., those who would drag us into fascistic liberty killing social programs like the Obamacare individual mandate, or who would flood the nation with illegally arriving aliens, are themselves targeted, quite literally and for death, by foreign jihadis?

Does one get upset? Do you ruefully shake your head at the irony? Or do you pull up a chair, and crack open a beer?

Now for the main bout of the evening, a tag team match. In the postmodern-left blue state corner, defending the internally driven ruination of western civilization, we have Amanda “Death to the Patriarchy” and borderline personality Marcotte, and Michael “Lord Humongous” Moore!

And opposing them in the Black Flag of Islam corner, we have Mohammad “The Knife” Mohammad, and Mo …

Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen I’m afraid that we have run into a difficulty here over the rules. Apparently, our contestants in the Black Flag of Islam corner, did not quite understand that they were supposed to await the bell before slicing into their opponents.

We are currently attempting to contact David Brooks and Chris Matthews as last minute replacements for the late Marcotte and Moore team.

 

So, somehow ISIS has not gotten the message that the American left is really more like them in their totalitarianism than not. And for some reason ISIS, not recognizing the American left as fundamentally their kind of people, proposes creating mayhem in certain leftist-rich targets.

Recalling then, Michael Moore’s infamous query as to why a liberal target like New York had to be attacked rather than some conservative place like Provo, Utah, what is a non-masochist to think about the possibility of the fat boy himself  (or those ideologically like him) being hoisted on his own malice packed petard?

Well, I’m not quite sure what to think, myself. It’s possible that there is a larger moral dimension to it, despite what one would naturally imagine.

But I am pretty sure that the guy who wrote this was on to something in a general way when he, to repeat, observed: “We can’t save stupid white liberals and save ourselves at the same time.

He says he figures we can’t.

If push comes to shove, I am as yet unconvinced we should even try.

 

Posted in Liberal, Socialists, society, terrorists, We Won't Miss You | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Scotland The Nanny State

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/25

Albania The Brave?

Alba Alban Albanay Albania what's the difference anyway ...

Alba Alban Albany Albania what’s the difference anyway …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great Britain no more?

Scotland is facing an independence referendum in about 23 days. And at present the news reports a 48% favorable headcount.

There are any number of implications to Scottish independence having to do with defense matters and currency, but the driving force behind the movement is from my perspective, surprising, as it is driven seemingly by the politically left-wing.

A glance at The Guardian’s article on divided families shows some very interesting opinions by those in favor of independence.

Apparently a significant number of supporters want national sovereignty, or independence, for the purpose of enhancing an already substantial Scottish welfare state.  This leaning is confirmed by a look at the Scottish National Party web site.

The Freedom to be unfree

The Freedom to be less free

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition, and speaking of voting away your freedom in the name of a worry free existence,  there seem to be numerous questions which would have to be resolved only after independence is declared.  Sort of like ObamaCare: you know, you have to vote for it before you can find out what’s in it.

Anyway, here are a couple of pro-independence voices recorded by The Guardian. Remarkably, they do seem to channel Ms Pelosi in a number of ways.

 

Caroline Wylie, says:

“I’m voting yes because of many things. I think the nationalists, while they’ve been in power, have delivered things that show they can govern properly. I like the fact that I live in a country that can deliver free prescriptions and university education for its children …

The no side say they will give us fresh tax-raising powers, although they are unspecified, but if they are to be believed we will get that anyway, whether it’s yes or no. …

I have to confess, though, that until the referendum campaign I was very apolitical, whereas all the rest of my family – my mum and dad and my two sisters – were all more politically engaged than I and are all against independence.

Most politicians are selfish, I think, and purely in it for themselves, but I think the SNP are different and want to look after ordinary people. We have a chance here to throw out all the debris of Westminster; the large, corrupt and cumbersome government that does not represent the ordinary people in the street.”

 

So, the previously politically uninformed and disengaged Ms Wylie says that the taxing power is going to go up anyway, and she likes free government stuff, and [elsewhere] that she trusts the Nationalists to properly spend the money they take in.

Our next example is from Clare McKenna. Clare says,

I never used to be very interested in politics, as I thought that most of our politicians were just in it for themselves. Then, when I began to study social work, I began to see the negative impact of London’s policies on very many poor and vulnerable people.

I just see independence for Scotland as an opportunity to reject the neo-liberalism at the heart of Westminster politics. This is all about protecting the interests of a tiny political elite and their wealthy supporters.

You can see that in the way that the coalition government, aided and abetted by the so-called Labour party, have punished poor people and disabled people in their austerity drive.

I have seen the pain and suffering that the Westminster government has caused to vulnerable families in Scotland. And now we have been given this fantastic opportunity to reject the greed, corruption and self-interest of Westminster rule and to create a new politics in Scotland.

 

Like Caroline then, Clare had also been uninformed and politically disengaged. But since then, she has discovered through her government job, that she likes and that people are deserving of free things. There is at present she says, just too much London driven Classical Liberalism going on. And like Caroline again, she is certain that once Independence is achieved and the tides of English influence recede from Scotland’s shores, Scots will finally have the freedom they need to be less free and more sharing; as corruption disappears and compulsory wealth redistribution blooms.

Now, for those of us who have been reading about the dwindling away of Scotland’s population and the  ratio of pensioners to workers, we wonder just how do Clare and Caroline expect this to happen?

Well, my guess is that Clare and Caroline really have no idea at all as to how this is supposed to work, since they have they admit, just begun to take an interest in politics. They cannot after all, be seriously expected to have it completely figured out. Discovering that Classical Liberalism is wasteful, corrupt, inhuman and cruel, and that Independence means compassion and caring and sharing out the wealth, is quite enough for starters.

On the other hand, the Scottish National Party has at least some notion as to how they will attempt this multiplication of loaves.

They will do it in part, by importing a replacement population, and then dressing them in kilts, or something ….

What a Yes vote means for immigration

The Scottish Government’s White Paper ‘Scotland’s Future’ lays out our approach.

We plan a controlled points-based system to support the migration of skilled workers for the benefit of Scotland’s economy. An independent Scotland will have an inclusive approach to citizenship and a humane approach to asylum seekers and refugees.

The Scots are exposed to the same anti-immigrant rhetoric of the right wing press, and Nigel Farage is as ever-present on Scottish TVs as he is south of the Border.

In Scotland we have to lump inappropriate Westminster immigration laws, and we are constantly told that they must become even more restrictive to protect us from the various ‘floods’ of ‘foreigners’ who are to erode our way of life.

Scotland votes for a Government at Holyrood that couldn’t sound any more different from the UK Tory Government on immigration and we are a better country for that. The difference in how the two Governments see immigration is best demonstrated in their various responses to the annual census of net migration.

In Scotland, when we see an increase in our population given our history of depopulation, we celebrate the good news. At Westminster it couldn’t make the politicians more miserable.

Scots are also becoming increasingly aware of our own population and demographic requirements. Only 20 or so years ago there was a real fear that our population would dip below five million. Although our population is currently growing at a healthy and welcome rate, there is still a realisation that our population levels remain more fragile than south of the Border.

We can only properly deal with that if migration policy is decided in the Scottish parliament, not by Westminster.

Scotland has always accommodated new people coming to our country — and one of the greatest sayings in Scotland is that ‘we are all Jock Tamson’s bairns’.”

 

And all will then be well: as Caroline and Clare will henceforth be able to more fully enjoy the comfort and security and caring and sharing which they have so recently discovered they, and all others, are entitled to experience through the miracle of redistributive justice, finally, at last, enabled by “Independence” … of a sort.

Well, free to enjoy as long as the imported replacement population allows them to.

Of course nothing to worry about anyway. Those scare mongers on the other side of the debate are making false claims, claims which don’t matter even if they are true, as we SNP types eventually get around to admitting:

 

” … people on the state pension are not necessarily dependent. It sounds academic, but it is also common sense. Think about friends and family who are on the state pension – are they all ‘dependent’? Even if they are right that more people are reaching retirement age, this does not mean suddenly our population will be unable to produce what a country needs to prosper, or that suddenly our spending on health will increase beyond control.

As one of the report’s authors puts it: “Sometimes you hear people saying that 60 is the new 50, and that is absolutely right. The health status of people the life expectancy of 60-year-olds is pretty much the same as it would have been for 50-year-olds 20 or 30 years ago”.

Older people are not the burden that the No campaign tells us they are.

But those who work to represent older people say what we already know – that older people contribute more to society than we tend to admit, including as workers. Age Scotland said “Older people have a great deal to offer to society: as workers, active citizens, cultural contributors and carers.” They say the Edinburgh findings “will help dispel the myth that our ageing population is a burden. On the contrary, it is something to be celebrated.”

See! All you have to do is equivocate the word “dependency”, and then celebrate it, and the problem magically goes away through the miracle of subversive redefinition and (more quietly now) …. changed expectations.  Ain’t that great?

Oh yeah, and don’t forget to import those foreigners. (Link within the above link:) “Our immigration policies and policies to support and encourage families could and must also address this trend.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Culture, Elections, Liberal, politics, stereotype | Leave a Comment »

ISIS threatens to destroy Chicago and Americans shrug

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/22

 

“E Pluribus Unum” no more.

WGNtv Chicago posts the alarming “news” that ISIS has the destruction of Chicago in its sights.

And Americans fed up with the totalitarian collectivists and moral nihilist appetite entities of the left who have already eaten away at not only our civilization but at our heritage of liberties, react with a shrug at the notion of the mayor of chicago trapped in the flaming ruins of the ecological niche his leftist ambition fouls and undermines.

We recall of course  that some 13 years ago progressive propagandist and cherished celebrity, His Rotundity Michael Moore, infamously set the stage for the spread of this attitude, when he asked in dismay why the Muslims had to attack New York, a liberal metropolis, rather than some conservative heartland site.

Gee, if the terrorists had just murdered conservative Christians, then Michael Moore could have understood, and maybe even sympathized.

Yeah Michael you submoral dog. So much for E Pluribus Unum, eh?

Well, thirteen years into it, those Americans who still value liberty and self-direction have gotten so used to the homicidal malice of the collectivist class, that they now, in turn, shrug at the thought of the collectivists themselves being destroyed by morally alien forces.

The underlying question is: What do you actually lose, when a malevolent parasite which has attached itself to you through your own long suffering tolerance and forbearance, is swept away by another?

Many have noticed that modern liberalism and Islamism are both anti-liberty of conscience, socially fascistic, and legally totalitarian ideologies. Many freedom loving Americans, less naive than their parents and grandparents, are apparently now prepared to stand back and watch “Hitler “and “Stalin” destroy each other; even if the war takes place on our own soil.

The question of whether the destruction would have unstoppably catastrophic side effects aside, it’s hard to blame a free man for shrugging at the destruction of those emotionalists who are, and have been, working for decades to destroy his freedom and ultimately his life.

What has a free man got to lose, when one flavor of collectivist is killed by another?

 

 

UPDATE:

Now here is something puzzling: the comments don’t seem to load up from the WGNtv link above anymore. Nor from the old (earlier today) history link, nor from internal links in the web page I preserved .

So, as a fair comment proof of this post’s contention, I shall quote a few of the more temperate comments below. Recognizable personal names are redacted, and discernibly racist crackpot bigotry is deleted.

 

            *****

    • J********a

      Dear Chicago,
      God forbid that you should fry like so many little french fries caught in the searing heat of a deep fryer. But, if you do, remember it was you and your kin that put Obama in office. You gave us a slug of a president whose ability in foreign affairs is zero to none.
      I will feel sorry for you later, because right now I can’t.

      w*****9

      Chicago goes up and this president must be removed before he takes the rest of the country down Impeachment and removal. He has clearly shown a total disregard for the security of this country and dares play golf at a time of crisis. Unfortunately, with ISIS here, possibly, we will need to employ every weapon at our disposal to eliminate them and their threat. Without security, what good is anything.

      1Yousuck

      perfect target! beautiful poetic justice!

      make no mistake. obama, democrats, libs, etc…truly believe in the undoing of Aimerican pride, power, success, etc…and a much more destructive and impoverished world is the natural result, when you undercut a free people.

      so, let the reaping of their sowing be true. these dark-hearted people are intent on allowing more evil, and letting it come here. therefore, let it come upon them FIRST!

      my prayer since obama’s first election has been simple: let ALL them that voted for him reap to the fullest, what they have sown: social degradation (ferguson), economic failure (unemployment, welfarism), and ground zero as the next terrorist attack (chicago)

       

      gunnyginalaska

      Dear ISIS, if you can’t hit Sh*tcago, might I suggest other cities like Oakland, SF, Trenton, Filthadelphia, Camden, Detoilet, or any other city full of liberals will work.

      *****

      Chicago and their corrupt leftist progressive politician’s polices and the “peaceful” muslims who live among them deserve each other.

      Iraq/Afg Vet

      Most Americans don’t have the stomach for what it would take to truly rid the world of this cancer. Rules of Engagement, the enemy using human shields and hiding in schools, religious temples and mosques all make any operation dicey, and open to scrutiny by those too meek to even take part — but not afraid to arm-chair QB. Once again, the U.S. is alone because our allies in Europe don’t have the stones to do what is needed. Once again, we will inevitably come to the rescue and risk our troops, spend our money and resources, and bear the burden of fighting another terrorist group in someone else’s backyard — while the rest of the world does nothing but judge. The only way to rid the world of these guys is to take them head on with severe malice. No more of the ticky-tack, PC, inoffensive stuff. Either we go in guns blazing and with bad intentions, or we sit out and tell the rest of the world to figure it out.

      Psalmon

      1. Sickens me to hear O talk about Justice for anyone who harms Americans, when he does nothing on Benghazi
      2. John Kerry our SOS keeps claiming Climate Change is our #1 threat

      These guys are almost bigger lunatics than ISIS.

 

Posted in Islam, Liberal, Philosophy, politics, Socialists, society, terrorists, Uncategorized, We Won't Miss You | 9 Comments »

Justifiably killing Michael Brown

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/19

One of the issues we have had to confront over and over again in the political wrangles over how we shall live under law together, if indeed we shall continue to do so, is the issue of wildly differing personal boundaries.

It’s clear that liberals on the one side and libertarians and conservatives on the other have what appear to be very different and even antithetical psychological and perhaps even organic expectations and requirements.

Think back to the days of liberal rage and hope in the 1960s and 1970s. Their anthems, their secular prayers, their hopes and dreams were full of collectivist and “community” yearnings. Yeah, some of it was conscious communism, watered down so as to seem humanistic and full of feeling, but, I think, much of it represented their natural yearnings. “No man is an island”, “Attention must be paid!”, “unconditional love” and I will lay me down for you like a bridge over troubled waters, yada yada yada.

Give me a moment … I can’t effen breathe in the humidity generated by that last series of liberal-mentality quotes.

Ok, so anyway the interpenetrative masochism, so to the taste of the left – the experience of which both convinces the leftist it has a “right” to exist while adding a fillip of sexually perverse excitement to his politics – is what sets the leftist anthropoid apart from morally redeemable human beings. The craving for submission and suffering simply cannot be unwound from the leftist DNA. It is after all, what makes them what they are, and is why they behave in the way they do.

In line with this, has anyone noticed that few if any have asked if the shop clerk who was assaulted and battered by Michael Brown would have been morally justified in standing his ground and killing Brown if necessary?

Where did Michael Brown presumptively derive the right to lay hands on another with impunity?

The man he assaulted was in fact small, and seemed to offer little if any resistance to Brown’s attack. But under what theory of law was he, dog-like, obligated not to do so? When did we reach the point in this country when an inoffensive person is considered morally bound to accept a battering or maiming for the sake of the well-being of a malicious and battering offender? How exactly is this equation rendered?

 

Here is an interesting video. Would it have been right and just for this woman to have killed her assailant? After all, she didn’t die herself.

 

http://newjersey.news12.com/multimedia/beating-attack-of-young-mother-caught-on-surveillance-video-1.5562236

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/29/arrest-made-in-nyc-suspect-in-nj-home-invasion-caught-on-nanny-cam/

 

Now our friend Michael Brown, this is a picture of Michael Brown below, did not break down a bolted door in order to beat the living shit out of a mother in front of her terrified daughter.

Brown from various sources

Brown from various sources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, Michael Brown allegedly but feloniously robbed the Ferguson Market and Liquor store and assaulted – and technically battered – the employee.

 

Brown assaults employee while robbing store

Brown assaults employee while robbing store

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And then when Michael was allegedly finished robbing and assaulting at the market, he went strolling down the middle of the traffic lanes of a nearby street; whereupon, he assaulted – allegedly – a passing police officer who had asked him to stop blocking traffic and move to the sidewalk.

Now to put the cherry on top so to speak, he allegedly battered this police officer, tried to take away the cop’s gun, and then after a shot was discharged in the struggle over possession of the cop’s weapon, he briefly ran from the fracas he had started. He then, reportedly, turned about (was this guy channeling Trayvon?) taunted, and then charged at the cop.

Well, let’s place all the “alleged” material off to the side as provisional, as bracketed, and to this point hypothetical. And let’s consider the scenario in a hypothetical worst case scenario way; and here’s the big problem remaining.

Do grant for the sake of argument – and to this moment only for the sake of argument – that Michael Brown did indeed feloniously steal 50 bucks worth of cigars in a brazen strong arm robbery wherein he also assaulted and technically battered an employee. Grant further that he then sauntered down the middle of a public street interfering with traffic and thereby attracting the attention of a police officer who asked him to move out of the traffic lane and onto the walkway.

Further grant – for the sake of argument only – that Michael Brown did in fact refuse to do move out of the traffic lane, and attacked the cop in his car when the cop subsequently pulled up ahead in order to deal with the situation on foot. Grant also that Michael Brown battered the cop’s face. Grant that Michael Brown tried to take the officer’s weapon, and shoot the officer with it, only running off when he failed.

Grant that after Brown ran a short distance, he turned about after some modest number of feet, faced the cop who was ordering him to stop, and then taunted the cop: finally, charging him in order to … well Michael Brown only knows.

Amazingly in doing this, you have to grant felony robbery, and felony assault on a police officer; and probably attempted murder.

Yet if you grant all of that, and apparently some do even on Michael’s side, here is the problem remaining. Michael Brown’s apologists still don’t think that the police response was appropriate.

Now would they possibly alternatively concede that it would have been appropriate for the puny little store clerk to have killed Brown with a weapon, if, say, the preservation of clerk’s own bodily integrity while under active assault and battery, had depended on it?

No, I am convinced most on the left would not.

And I think we have good evidence for this conclusion: Trayvon Martin. After the bloodied face and skull of Zimmerman was finally shown, after it was eventually geometrically demonstrated that if Trayvon’s so-called girlfriend was to be believed at all, then Trayvon had had to have doubled back on Zimmerman in order to confront and attack him; even after the slim drink business; even after the burglar tools; even after the other fights and assaults … none of it mattered.

And not only to his family did it not matter, but neither to elderly white leftist provocation specialist trash like Perry Hood, or now our erstwhile commenter John The Liberal of American Liberal Times blog.

You might think that these moral miscreants are deliberately trying to cause a social Armageddon. But the more likely explanation is that they just don’t care, or are incapable of caring, about the truth.

Because in the final analysis, Michael Brown’s most ardent apologists, of whatever color or ethnic makeup, are simply moral aliens, people who have and who recognize no boundaries at all when it comes to satisfying their urges and wants, but who expect that those upon whom they impose, wheedle,  and often violently prey, will always submit.

Moral alien activists expect that they, or their social pets at least, may rape and plunder and assault, and that the victims will properly respond with unending and self-destructive restraint: all the better to abide the very rules which the Michael Browns and Trayvon Martins and Bill Ayers of the world sneer at. In other words they expect that all men will act like the pathetic and contemptible masochists we know as old white liberal males.

It is clear enough that we know who is actually doing the dying as a result of this poisonous attitude and psychology.

Maybe we should ask from a more broadly moral perspective, who really should be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

A moment of reflection …

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/19

I’ve taken a backward glance at a number of the posts I have put up in recent months, and noticed what has become a recurring theme for me: the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the everyday left and its mouthpieces.

I also notice that in choosing the most plainspoken and idiomatic terms available, I have repeatedly labeled their condition “stupidity”.

Now, this “Dishonest stupidity of everyday Progressives” business, is not a theme I have intentionally chosen to harp on. It is simply the result of watching what everyday progressives do, of listening carefully (and dispassionately above all else) to what they themselves say, and of then evaluating the narrative they are putting forth for (presumably) our consumption, for its logical coherence, evidence of intellectual integrity, and overall sense.

It is startling to reflect that in the process of reviewing so many different progressives’ work for intellectual coherence and truth value, I have been inexorably led to the same end-point; a place wherein I was confronted with the obvious:  that progressives habitually lie, are untroubled by their lying and duplicity, and that they are not even very clever in doing it.

Katie Halper, John The Liberal, Benjamin Crump, progressives big and small, public and not so public, they are all essentially the same ends-justify-the-means types who live in a world of moral convenience: one which they ultimately strive to order for their emotional comfort and satisfaction.

Ann Coulter sometime ago commented that despite the progressive’s constant talk of intelligence as if it were a cardinal if not the supreme, moral virtue, they seem to be quite deficient when it comes to exercising it themselves or in applying that intelligence standard to members of their political client class.

And perhaps that is the key, and why I placed the word “presumably” in parentheses when I said above that progressives were speaking for “our consumption”. They really are not. The progressives are not trying to convince us. Instead, as David Horowitz had made himself blue in the face pointing out, their rhetoric is not designed to convince us of the validity of their reasoning, so much as to wage social war upon us by manipulating emotionally immature, and mentally limited third parties.

Knowing their own herd then,  given who they themselves are, what they value, and who it is that aligns with them, they know that they need not be careful, accurate, or truthful; and that emotion and sarcasm serve their ends better than reason.

As their chosen audience has presumptively little or nothing in the way of critical faculties or genuine knowledge, they need not trouble themselves too much when it comes to arousing them.

“Stupid”, may not be the most artful word to describe the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of political progressives. But apart from terms such as “nihilist”, “self-serving hypocrite”, or “evil”, it seems upon consideration, to be the most accurate.

Posted in Blogging Matters, Liberal, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Have a drink, listen, and watch the sunset

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/15

As the American polity stumbles under the weight of the brainless and behaviorally incontinent, recall to mind that the human spirit is larger than this present time, or even this nation.

So although we look toward the future of our own country and our people with confidence, we can also spend some moments in appreciating the heritage of the wider western world.

It’s not all jabbering leftists and snorting buffoons.

From YouTube, the famous adagio from the Concierto de Aranjuez performed by Angel Romero for a United Nations concert many years ago.

John Williams and other classical guitarists have performed this too, but as a Spaniard himself, the feeling Romero brings to it seems to be especially evocative.

 

 

Posted in Entertainment | Leave a Comment »

Speaking of Benjamin Crump

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/15

From his website: Intellectual powerhouse Benjamin Crump.

How did this clown ever get a law degree?

How did this clown ever get a law degree?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read the screen capture below and weep for civilization.

Three so-called “Esquires”, all signing off on a contemptibly inflammatory polemic intended to shift attention away from what appears to be a steadily creeping indictment of the moral character of the late Michael Brown of Ferguson, Missouri.

And all they succeed in demonstrating is their own moral and intellectual incompetence.

See the first paragraph issued by these legal geniuses: “piece mil” for “piecemeal”.  Unfortunately for them, it is the kind of error spell check won’t catch; since, both “piece” and “mil” are real words.

So three activist lawyers rush to the scene of a fiasco, put their demonstrably sub-par heads together, and that is what results.

 

Crump the illiterate crop

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did they write the nonsense they published above? Who knows? But it appears over Crump’s name.

 

Did they read it? Again, who knows? But one is justified in presuming that material published over a man’s name has at least been read by him.

 

Three publicity seeking bomb throwing lawyers, and apparently not one of them could spell “piecemeal”.

 

And just in case people are wondering if some AOL typist is responsible for the error in the statement:

 

Crump Esquire's statement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kind of sums it up, doesn’t it?

Posted in Culture, education, Humor - For Some, Insanity, Law, Liberal, media, politics, society | 2 Comments »

The liberalism of the American Liberal Times blog

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/14

A little while ago I posted on my failed project to enter into a constructive dialog with a liberal … any liberal at all. The latest case being, one John The Liberal, the proprietor of the “American Liberal Times” blog.

That was then.

 

Now, introducing just a little more of John The Liberal.

American Liberal

Screen Shot

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John The Liberal has a few observations and rhetorical-style questions.

We will present his remarks as “questions” and “comments”, and then propose our own “answers”.

 

1, Question  from John:

“It seems that some “Christians” . . . ( I have no reason to doubt they are Christians . . . I am not their judge and jury . . . That is God’s Business) . . . some Christians seems to be Hell-bent ( pardon the unintended pun) on getting themselves into trouble by trying to export their belief system to foreign cultures . . . did you ever notice?”

 

Answer:

Dear John.

Yes we have. This is probably due to the fact that it is a critical and essential part of their faith according to its very Founder. Sometimes it is referred to as “The Great Commission” . You have repeatedly referred to your own religious faith in terms which would lead one to assume that it had, or once had, something to do with Christianity as well. So perhaps you heard of the command to evangelize at one time.

The following references were mostly taken directly from a Bible verse site which easily accessible to anyone looking to confirm.

 

Matthew Chapter 28

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, [even] unto the end of the world.
Mark 16:15

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.
Acts 1:8

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Luke 12:8

Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God
Mark 4:21

And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?”

 

It should also be noted that Church history records that all the original apostles did in fact “get into trouble” exporting their faith to foreign cultures; with only one apostle even surviving the commission: albeit in exile.  The plain fact is that the faith was at one time foreign to all cultures; even the culture of its homeland.

So yes, John. Many people have noticed.

 

2, Comment from John:

“I am one of those “Liberal Freaks” who firmly believes that if some pew-jumper church starts preaching politics from the pulpit it should lost its tax-exempt status . . . period . . . end of story. Why should they rake in millions of tax-free dollars for their big wig preachers to live high on the hog on and be able to shove their politics down their parishioners’ throats at the same time?

It has nothing to do with “freedum of ree-ligiun” at all.

It has to do with trying to mix politics and religion – – and that is something that simply cannot work out in the long run. …

I’m all in favor of the government taxing the Living Hell out of any church that makes itself a virtual headquarters of some political party.
Share this:callous! I didn’t mean for it to sound that way but I think it has to be asked.)

 

Answer: Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United

 

3, An “observation”  from John The Liberal of American Liberal Times:

“When tyranny comes to a nation it always comes wrapped in a flag and carrying a gun and a Bible.”

Answer:

Really, John?

Pol-Pot Mao Zedong (1) Mao Zedong (2) Robespierre

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pol Pot

 

Mao

 

Stalin

 

Robespierre and the efforts of his friends and allies

 

Posted in Blogging Matters, Character, Christianity, Humor - For Some, Insanity, Liberal, truth, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

You are a modern liberal …

Posted by DNW on 2014/07/21

 

 

You are a modern liberal

… and you don’t believe in natural rights.

Ok … let’s ask some questions which may even seem silly at first, but which, in the asking, will clear away some of the unhappy vagueness we tend to live with out of social politeness or the fear of seeming too radical.

So:

Do you have, let’s say, a right to breathe? If so, where does this “right” come from? An act of Congress?

Do you have a right to be served by others? If so;

Do they have a right to be served by you? If so;

Do they have a right to serve themselves by not serving you?

 

The questions are too general or abstract or silly or provocative you say? And anyway, it all depends, you say? Alright then, “it all depends”.

In hopes of making some kind of progress, let’s wave away any of the question begging “balancing of rights” or “cultural context” distractions into which you would like segue, and try to press forward instead.

To continue on a slightly different tack.

Do you (yeah you personally) let’s say, have a right to speak freely? If the answer is “yes”, is that “right” merely a contingent legal permission – be it constitutional, statutory, whatever – which you for the time being enjoy? Can you equally well be deprived of that permission in a way which would leave you with no rational cause for complaint to someone else? If you cannot so be deprived without a rational cause for complaint to someone else, do you then claim a more basic right to that express right? If so, how, or upon what, is that claim grounded?

 

You are a modern liberal; and, let’s say for the sake of argument, that I am not.

And you’re determined that you are not  going to “fall for” any of the questions I have asked. A “right” you insist and will boldly maintain, is nothing more than an arbitrarily recognized social permission – that tolerance or support which others are habituated or intimidated into conceding to you. Usually written down if it is to mean anything.

You then as a modern liberal, consistently and without exception or proviso do assert and affirm that the concept of “rights” really renders down to what are in essence, no more than social permissions; having no other objective grounding or reality.

So now, let’s say that you the modern liberal, and I the not-modern-liberal find ourselves on an island. One with no law books.

I’m stronger that you are and … Yeah, yeah, trust me, I am. And, and anyway as I was about to say, although there is enough for both of us to survive, if I kill you now, I can live more than just comfortably. Besides, I find your weakness and whiny-ness annoying.

If I do kill you, have I done anything objectively wrong? If so what is it, and how do you know? Have I thereby, on this law book free island, deprived you of anything that could be called “rights”? Is my killing of you, “unjust” in any sense, even though no judicial writ runs here? If so, then how so; and, how do you know?

Have you any reason to complain over an injustice in my act? Notice I said “reason”; and notice that your utility to me is not an issue here. How would all this be balanced out under a social permission theory of rights?

Well now, I don’t really expect you as a liberal to answer these questions, or to take them seriously, or even to grant that the framing of the speculations is something you would abide or tolerate.

Because of course, these questions are not really meant to change a liberal mind regarding the nature and status of rights by means of pointing out just how incoherent the liberal use of the term rights is, when the term is used in the sense conceived of, and conceded by, liberals.

I know this because I have wasted many hours attempting to get modern-liberals to explain themselves: and their strategy has been, without exception, to either refuse to do so, or to shelter behind the terminology of a moral worldview which they in fact reject.

You liberals, high-minded or low, already know all this too. You know, explicitly or implicitly that you are are spouting clandestinely self-serving rhetoric not reason, and emoting, not deducing, when you speak of “rights”.

So what’s the point?

The point is that: what this exercise is really meant to do is to remind non-liberals that, in the final analysis, modern liberals are motivated by a simple will to power and/or by urges which they themselves don’t care to justify or explore too deeply.

This is a fact of social life which non-liberals need to face, and of which they need to steadily keep reminding themselves.

Liberals are able not only to readily face this view of themselves, they ultimately embrace it; and when pushed to the wall, they will even proclaim it. They see it – entropy, inherent meaninglessness, and ultimate nothingness – as a state of affairs which grants them freedom from ultimate consequences. Insofar of course, as there is a coherent “they” to them, and insofar as “freedom” has any any meaning, insofar as consequences have any significance, and insofar, insofar, insofar …

So, isn’t it about time that conservatives become brave enough to face what it is that liberals are blithely admitting about themselves as liberals?

Its only prudent, after all.

 

Posted in Conservative, Culture, Liberal, Philosophy, Real Life, society, Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Conversations with an ardent Liberal

Posted by DNW on 2014/07/08

Conversations with an ardent Liberal … another failed experiment

 

As was apparent from my earlier “We had a liberal visitor” post, I had recently engaged in the project of continuing an exchange with a self-identified liberal blogger named John, who had visited this site and commented on my post concerning the AOL/Huffington Post news comment policy: Now, it’s “Facebook Conversations

For those who might have missed it,  Huffington Post material, unlike strictly AOL articles, of which there are apparently still some, invites comment only through “Facebook conversations”.  In other words if you comment on a news article you will be doing so through your Facebook identity. Assuming you have one.

John basically agreed with my take on the issue and said so. Since he made sure to leave a link to his own blog in his response, I then reciprocated his visit here with one of my own to his site American Liberal Times.

John the Liberal’s site was and is a curious mix of material and attitudes. And to be fair, John the Liberal makes no bones about the fact that it is: stating outright that it is a blog about his opinions and views and that he doesn’t intend to be forced into the position of justifying or defending the logic and reasonableness of his views.

“TERMS OF SERVICE

Some people who stop here and read stuff might get offended at my rather strong and direct tone.

If you get offended by something you read here then I am sorry and I suggest that if you are going to get offended at the way I write my blog then you have the option to immediately leave this blog – read no further and go somewhere else to read.  It is that simple.  If you don’t like my “Program” then just turn the dial and find something else somewhere else on the Internet that you do like better.  No big deal is it?

The second point I would like to make is that I do not ordinarily allow Radical Right Wingers or those who I have come to think of as “Obama Haters” or haters of Democrats, Liberals and Progressives to leave any comments on this site. (I do make some exceptions at my discretion however.)   There are plenty of Right Wing Radical Hate-Mongering blogs on the Internet and if that is your thing then I suggest you find one of those to visit or to haunt or to hang out at because your propaganda and your attitudes are not always welcome on “AMERICAN LIBERAL TIMES”

AMERICAN LIBERAL TIMES”  is my blog and I post whatever I want to post on it and I allow whoever I want to allow to post comments on it and I prohibit anyone from posting or commenting when I don’t like what they have to say and that is my privilege as a blogger and because of the great number of Rightist Numwads and Mindless Ninkos who try to troll me on this blog I rarely – – if ever – – accept any comment from any right wing source anymore.  Too bad!

To the rest of you – – – to anyone who thinks anywhere near the same way as I do – – WELCOME! … “

 

Nonetheless, on June 18th he certainly appeared to make a stab at embracing reasonableness when he volunteered that he was considering tempering the vehemence and vitriol with which his postings were typically imbued.

Courtesy, Respect And Good Taste Never Go Out Of Style!

… I am fully convinced that it is perfectly reasonable and achievable to arrive at the point where we can inform the world we believe a certain politician might not be acting in the best interests of his constituents without resorting to such crudities as “Chief Fraud” or other such juvenile crud-encrusted delicacies of the vernacular.

One favor I would ask of my readers: If you see me engaging in any conversation that seems to you like it might qualify as “Bad Taste” please leave me a comment and alert me to my digression . . . regression. I definitely want to elevate “American Liberal Times” above the level of decency employed by a great number of what I call “Right Wing Hater Blogs.”

I cannot do it alone and that is why I ask my Readers to participate in the process of adding a little more panache to this blog.”

I even congratulated John on this, and figured that with that as a predicate, I might venture on a short-term experiment in order to see just what potential there might be for an actual dialog with a partisan liberal; notwithstanding John’s forthrightness in stating upfront that he was, in essence, interested in no such thing.

A conclusion which was,  I must admit, inescapably reinforced by posts such as this:

7/1/2014

More Changes To The Blog But I Do Not Know If They Will Last:

First of all let me say that I have no idea of whether or not a blog can be crawled by the “Crawlers” without each post being preceded by a formal “Headline.”  But I would say that I am about to find out.  I have seen other blogs with high readership that do not make use of headlines and so I am trying it myself – – for the time being.

Secondly:  I have spent considerable time today going back through the posts on this blog and deleting forever almost all comments left on here by Right Wingers over the years. …”

Now, a man determined to go back years in order to purge any trace of “right-wing” commentary from his blog is not likely to be a man reasoned with easily.

But, John seemed so inordinately grateful for the comments I left,

“Dear DNW:

First of all let me say that I sincerely appreciate your visit today and I am grateful you took your time to comment.”

Dear DNW:
Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful comment.

… that I wondered if he could not somehow, and against his natural inclinations, be finessed into an intelligent conversation. After all, what’s a month more?  I have already spent years trying to do so with other political progressives. That is, to discover if – contrary to all appearances –  there really is not something like a right reasoning mind behind the modern liberal face; a faculty which could be carefully teased out of the appetitive confusion behind the eyes … some residual capacity, some sputtering wisp of a reasoning soul which could be carefully fanned to life.

Now this would necessarily not be easy. Not only because John had stated that he was not particularly interested in reasoning, but in addition because he posted at such a frantic pace. For example, he placed up what I count as eight posts on July 1st, alone. Perhaps then, comments like these, made in response to my own, should have proved enough.

” … My interpreting principles change like the myriad colors of a Texas sunset because all of Creation is always in a state of flux ( evolving . . always evolving . .) and even in our social order that which was acceptable ages and ages ago ( The stoning of disobedience to death in public spectacles of death ) has now moved forward ( Progressed ) to where public stoning has become abhorrent to most people and some less severe measure has been compromised upon.

I do not care to justify moral preferences or claims because my own moral preference and claims don’t amount to anything of much significance in such a vast and diverse society as ours and in times when generational and demographic changes are on the cusp of making cataclysmic changes in many of our generally accepted perceptions of many things at many levels. I simply present what I think ( at the moment I think it ) knowing full well that it might all change dramatically as new impressions are received inside of myself either by inspiration or by being impressed from influences without. Why be a hypocrite about it?”

… and then there were discouraging things like this:

John, in the original posting:

“I have discovered over the years that (A) It is totally impossible to have a reasonable conversation with most radical Righties, …”

Me, in response:

” …What do you mean by “a reasonable” conversation? Are you referring to some lack of ability in the area of logical analysis? A specific lack of historical knowledge? Certainly you cannot be referring to a reluctance to “respond on point”, since you quite clearly stated that you would not be held to any such a standard yourself …”

John, in reply:

” … And what is my notion of a reasonable conversation? I have no concrete notions of a reasonable conversation because for one thing this blog is not intended to be a conversation or a debate . . it is an “Opinion” blog . . my opinions . . . but maybe a more reasonable “Conversation” in this instance might be condensed as “Thank you for your comments. I always appreciate receiving your comments.” (Evasive enough is it?) :)

 

And so it continued to inexorably and predictably play out.  He would not respond on point because it was an opinion blog, and was his, and he would say whatever he wanted. And while he accused conservatives of making a reasonable exchange impossible,  as we see above, he would not, or could not, say what it was he considered as reasonable.

In some ways he was remarkably like our old friend Perry Hood. Grown up poor. Grateful to the government for lifting him out of poverty; now of a certain age – 76 today apparently;  prone to quoting Christian scriptures for rhetorical purposes while making a certain contempt for Christianity itself quite clear; and, oh yes, like Perry, a one time ardent Pentecostal or Evangelical who now finds the appeal of government love and state organized wealth redistribution more emotionally powerful than a love of God and a commitment to personal charity.

In the new Religion of Progressivism, it is the “rightwads” the “teabaggers”  who are conspiring to storm the heaven known as Washington, D.C.,  and tear down our great country and all the wonderful things which divine liberalism has bestowed upon a yearning humanity. Replacing the devil he once believed to be the source of evil in the world, now stand those evil conservatives and their imagined conspiracies. And don’t try to reason him out of that view. It’s his blog and he feels the way he feels and that is all there is to it. Nothing to discuss, period.

Well, the ending was obviously foreordained.

Seeing that a month of reasoning effort was going just as far as years did with Perry Hood, which is to say absolutely nowhere substantively, I figured I might as well speak directly and let the chips fall where they may. The proximate occasion was John’s post entitled :

I Haven’t Got My Obamacare-Mandated RFID Chip Implant Yet!
Posted on July 8, 2014

DAMN! WHAT’S THE BIG HOLD UP?

He continued in the following manner …

“The Right Wing scum were screaming, yammering, bitching, moaning, crying and howling that every American Citizen was going to be forced to have some kind of microchip implanted under their skin by the year 2013. This mandatory microchip called an RFID chip ( Radio Frequency Identification Chip) is something the Right-Tighters were insisting was absolutely required by The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act ( Obamacare ) and that no American Citizen would be immune from having their government force them to have this device implanted in their skin.

Well the bastards must have either been wrong about the requirement for the implant or the government simply has not yet gotten around to implanting me with my Obamacare-Mandated RFID Chip yet and here it is 2014 ….

Could it be that the Rightscum got this one wrong? …

My desire is that when the Rightwads get their mandatory RFID chip compliments of Obamacare ( As they have been claiming ) they get it up the rear end! To know that little tidbit of knowledge would be intensely pleasing to me as a left of center moderate liberal.”

 

This of course from the man who said : “If you see me engaging in any conversation that seems to you like it might qualify as “Bad Taste” please leave me a comment and alert me to my digression . . . regression. I definitely want to elevate “American Liberal Times” above the level of decency employed by a great number of what I call “Right Wing Hater Blogs …”

Yes well, given that, the following exchange ensued.

Me to John:

DNW on July 8, 2014 at 12:29 PM said:

One of you(r) commenters asks,

*groan* Are they back on that old kick again?’

Apparently “they” ["rightwads", or whatever] , are not.The only source you cite, and from which as cited he/she could have draw such a conclusion, is a four year old, 2010 Snopes article wherein the following is stated:

” First off, the referenced information was not part of the “Obamacare” health care legislation actually enacted by Congress. … the cited wording did not appear in the replacement bill (HR 3590) eventually passed as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, … although similar language was included in initial versions of the subsequent reconciliation bill (HR 4872), it too did not appear in the final version of that bill as passed by Congress.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/microchip.asp#5R6LYeXixaxwE03C.99

So, although the alarm was based on proposed, rather than passed legislation, and the case for alarm overdrawn in addition, the issue of implantable RF chips has been in the news consistently, as has been government mandated individual medical reviews and health data collecting.

In fact, as you will recall, John Edwards stated that as part of his universal heath care program he was in favor of a policy of government mandated annual checkups with individual medical records being accessible by the government.

With fascistic and even apocalyptic sounding policies being noised about by mainstream Democrat candidates like Edwards, it is only expected that the casual reader might react with more alarm than justified.

But of course we are left with the question as to how many modern liberals really would object to such a mandate if it were promulgated? Certainly, numbers of “the Democratic Underground” commentators who discussed this issue, saw no problems with it, if those who were mandated, were on the government insurance plan. ….”

So, in other words, I pointed out that the old Snopes article simply addressed the language that did pass, while offering an interpretation (probably correct) of the language that was omitted.  But that that nonetheless left John’s post as little more than a  vitriolic attack on what looked to be a blatantly resurrected strawman from years past .

John, combatitively responded:

“The reason I published the RFID article was so as to keep the insanity of the right wing conspiracy nuts in front of the voting Public. The voters need to be reminded often of the nutwad mindset of the radical righties and …”

To which I replied:

In other words you dredged up a 4 year old article on an anonymous viral e-mail, not because anyone with a public profile was saying such things, nor because anyone at all was now saying such things, but because you wanted to stir the tar pot and apply the brush, just “… in case somebody who should know better is thinking of believing any of their crap.”

Better take another look at what you are really up to, John.

To which John retorted:

” My job is to expose the lies, deceit and treacheries of the radical right wing wherever I can find them and that is the mission of this blog and that is what I do. The radical right is a cancer eating at all that is decent and good about America and it is on a straightline agenda to destroy the country …”

 

This was going nowhere fast, obviously. And shortly before my remark above, and explicitly adverting to the misunderstandings of the naive or ill informed, I had also written
Ridiculing naive or gullible types for reporting liberals as promoting completely crazy and Nazi-like things, doesn’t work that well when the liberals can actually be shown as saying pretty outlandish and unmistakably fascist things, as was the case with John Edwards.
Left-fascism, that is pan-ethnic social solidarity fascism, has become, I think you will grant, pretty much the default position of the modern Democrat Party. Though they prefer to refer to it with terms such as “community values”, “solidarity”, and shared individual responsibility.
Actually the impulse dates right back to the beginnings of the social security, “social insurance” movement. Getting people insured was never the only goal: establishing a sense of collective and mutualist identity was right there from the beginning.
It’s always comforting to have neighbors who cannot say no, because the law won’t allow them to. But it isn’t freedom or dignity.
Which provoked the following retort from John as he slammed the barn door closed after the horse had departed:

John on July 8, 2014 at 6:44 PM said: The comparisons of Liberals to fascists and nazis has invoked my Godwin Law response and you can be sure you will not be commenting on this blog again. …” 

It is of course doubtful that an accurate reading of what I had written about “naive or gullible types” reporting liberals as promoting Nazi-like things, actually functions to compare liberals to Nazis.

However, indignant liberals may rest assured that I while I certainly did not myself compare liberals to Nazis, nor all liberals to fascists, I did in fact plainly state that pan-ethnic social solidarity fascism, ” … has become, I think you will grant, pretty much the default position of the modern Democrat Party.”

And so it indisputably has.

I suppose for those modern liberals of tender feelings, outright saying that left-fascism is pretty much the default position of the modern Democrat Party is almost as bad as “comparing Liberals” to fascists. LOL

As for John, well, he will go about his life just as before, feeding his spite and the appetite of his readers for venom, by posting multiple vitriolic and accusatory entries daily. Then, gushing out gratitude to the chorus of a couple, while vigilantly defending against “rightwads” who either mock him on their blogs or dare to try and reason with him on his own – by taking an eraser to whatever remarks he can.

And after all, why expect otherwise? Hasn’t he told us plainly that he is not interested in reasoning and has no principles worth discussing? He has indeed. I just could not quite believe he meant it and had to test for myself.

As for me, I will go on my way as well. Having tried one more fruitless time to reason with a self-proclaimed liberal by taking him up on the unsolicited invitation to visit his site which he left as a link after first visiting here, I’ll now go about my business.

Yet, I am still hopeful, if not confident, that there is somewhere a liberal who has not nihilistically abandoned reason for appetite, sentiment, and arbitrary will; a liberal somewhere who can be reasoned with on and about principles. It just happens that John the Liberal, like Perry is not and cannot be made into, such a person. They have both said as much themselves.

God help us if modern liberals really are in fact all intellectually and spiritually reduced to such mindless, vitriol spewing, husks.

Happy 76th birthday, John-the-liberal.

Perhaps someone else will be able to give you the appetite for careful and dispassionate reasoning which you so plainly, and admittedly, and tragically, lack.

Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, Liberal, politics, society | 2 Comments »

The real freedom fighters

Posted by DNW on 2014/07/02

 

The Fourth of July is nearing, and perhaps it’s time to again give a little recognition to that quickly passing generation: those who served in WWII

I’ve already placed some images from my family archive on the Veteran’s Day entry, including an image of my Father manning a Bofors training piece, as well as photos both by, and of, my uncle taken in France and Germany. Fortunately, both my father and my uncle are yet with us, with my father being in remarkably good health.

But I thought that here I’d mention another man of that generation. This one, unrelated to me, but a man whom I was privileged to get to know quite well through business.

His long-time nickname, used even in correspondence and on memos, was “Obie”.  And I assure you that despite his white hair it had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Star Wars, but everything to do with his initials.

I won’t give out his last name here. But anyone stumbling across the image further down, and seeming to recognize the older man on the right, while recalling an acquaintance with the Christian name of “Roswell Edison …” would have the identity.

Obie’s been gone over a decade now. And as I think back on it, the image below was probably taken of us not too long before his passing. I think, at his own request.

He was a talented man, who had among his various experiences trained as a fighter pilot during the war [for flying Thunderbolts as I recall], but who was never actually sent into combat due to a declining need for officer pilots overseas.

It was obvious however that his Air Corps pilot qualifying and training experience had had a life-long effect on him. Moreso perhaps than having also gone to college, something that traditionally shapes the young man for the future.

He was disciplined, orderly, assertive and aggressive in a positive sense, and prided himself on his ability to, as they would nowadays say, adapt and overcome. He was also good humored and quick witted, if somewhat wry.

One quirk that he did have was that of good-naturedly “testing” people. That is to say, he presented them with, possibly disquieting, little challenges just in order to judge how they would handle the matter. He attributed the impulse to something originating in his officer candidate training experiences. He said that they would throw little shocks at you so as to determine how well and how maturely you could handle them. I suppose it was to see if you had the right stuff to fly combat.

I, don’t know. Maybe he just liked subtle, slightly provoking jokes.

Eventually, I one day turned to him and said, “Haven’t we known each other for years now?” He acknowledged we had.

“And haven’t you had your “testing” fun repeatedly, and found I’m pretty much unflappable?  After all I know it’s a game.

He acknowledged as much.

“You have yourself referred to me as a good friend, despite our generational differences?”  Yes, that was true too, he admitted.

“So what’s the further point”?

He laughed and acknowledged there was no longer any. And that was that, the end of it.

Some people didn’t take it so well, but hey, that’s life. On the other hand, some did.

One instance of the kind of response I think he was looking for and know he appreciated, occurred during a long drive back to the city wherein we had to pass through some small lakeside resort town about mid-afternoon and late season. Not having had lunch, and with no obvious place to go anywhere in sight, we loosened our ties, left our jackets in the car, and got out at a slightly fru-fru looking deli-and ice cream shop, only to find it manned by a lone high-school aged girl of indomitably cheerful disposition.

Being naturally cheerful himself, Obie wasted no time after placing the carryout order in engaging in what was a transparently fake curmudgeon-like mini-lecture on how he expected the sandwich to be the best he ever had considering the prices and the tony pretensions of the place. She assured him it would be. “Oh yeah, how do you know?”

“Because”, she happily announced while looking right back at him, “I’m making it myself!”

He beamed at her like she was his own granddaughter. “That’s what I’m talking about!” he said, turning to me.

“Yeah, that’s fine but let’s have a little fewer of these demonstrations of how the human spirit can rise to the occasion, eh?”

He was a good citizen. And as well as a long term USAF Reserve or National Guard pilot (I’ve now forgotten which) who enjoyed flying his own private plane, he was a volunteer fireman back when his upscale township was still semi-rural, and a proficient HAM radio operator, who was always ready to assist in emergencies.

He tried to get me interested in “HAM” radio operation.  But even then it was in what I supposed was its waning days; and although a serious involvement probably serves as a practical entre into electronics, I was never able to build up any interest in it.

I always did admire his draughtsmanship though, as he had spent some post-college time on the board before moving on and up. That, skill in technical drawing and lettering, is something CAD and Graphics courses had never given me, much less the subjects of philosophy and the history of law.

Obie was also, and the significance of this trait may at first seem elusive, a good and conscientious record keeper. The point here being the diligence, care, and sense of responsibility he felt for important matters he had been involved in, and toward those who might need to rely on an accurate and truthful record.

This no doubt seems a very small matter and hardly worth mentioning as a character related trait, until one reflects on where we as a nation are when even Federal agencies now “lose” information at their apparent convenience.

It has to do with moral responsibility, you see.

Fighter pilot on the right

The fighter pilot is on the right

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That acceptance of responsibility, and courage and grace in the face of it,  came through clearly as he eventually faced death.

He had been for many years, a smoker, and admitted that it was unwise. But, he stated frankly that it was a powerful habit dating back to his military days, and one which afforded him certain benefits in stressful situations. After getting to know him well,  I suggested – over drinks – that he stop smoking; while making it plain that I would only suggest it to him that once. He candidly, and even vulnerably replied that although he was as I certainly knew, proud of his ability to “handle any situation”, this one, had him more or less licked. To closely paraphrase, he told me, “My daughters have come up to me crying, pleading with me to quit, and I have tried … but it creeps back.”

As this was just about the time our national anti-smoking mania was climbing toward its peak, it’s probably not surprising to hear that once he was discovered with “shadows” or spots on his lungs, and the diagnosis became “terminal without treatment, likely terminal with”, one of his attending physicians, a zealous young man, decided to deliver a priggish little anti-smoking homily, along with the dismal verdict.

I guess the fellow felt morally entitled to righteously rub the dose in. To which performance, Obie, as he told it, responded:  “Stop right there. You’ve delivered the prognosis. You’ve done your duty.  You can go, and save the preaching  for someone else.” [I think upon reflection, that what Obie actually told me was that he got peeved enough with the doctor in his own hospital to use the words "you're dismissed" with him . "I told him, 'You're dismissed" ' .]

At which point, he said, the medical commissar rose in a huff and walked out of the room, never to reappear as one of his attending again.

Obie then, after thinking it over for a bit, decided to forgo any surgical or radiation treatment, in favor of a few palliative measures.

He told me that his age peers among the doctors, informed him after the fact, that that is just what they would have done under the same circumstances. This palliative treatment eventually included the regular draining of fluid build-ups around his lungs. It was a procedure wherein he as patient granted supervised medical trainees permission to work on him as a means of assisting them in the development of their medical skills.  No record exists of what if anything the young medical prig made of this gesture.

He had, as I recall, about seven to ten good months during which he still visited the office, several more of moderate well-being wherein several of us were still able to get together for dinner out, and a couple of more or less house-bound ones that occurred during the course of the year end holidays. After which he passed. I hadn’t seen him since sometime before Thanksgiving, I think.

Obie left behind a well provided for wife, three adult and married daughters, two adult and married sons, some grandchildren, and an enviable record as a citizen and a man.

He represents the kind of men of character America used to produce in abundance. It is for the lack of such men in politics, that this nation and culture suffers as it does today.

 

[Update: Since yesterday and since reentering virtually the same offices and environment in which some of these conversations took place, I've been able to recall more exactly the words and phrasings used in some instances, and have redone them to better, though not perfectly, reflect the actual words used in conversation. I may not be a writer, but I can strive for improved accuracy at least. Also, as usual, I have noticed that I put up what was no better than a draft. Made a couple of changes here and there even adding one telling incident, but I think I'll, again, leave it at that.]

 

Posted in Culture, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, Real Life, society | 2 Comments »

America less free? Couldn’t have anything to do with that fascistic Obama Care mandate, could it?

Posted by DNW on 2014/07/02

 

Well, Surprise, surprise!

 

We see the collaborationist media and national socialist Obama supporters struggling to explain why Americans feel less free.

 

Not so free anymore

Not so free any more

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

” ‘I think this decline is interesting in terms of perception,” says Jon Clifton, managing director of the Gallup World Poll. “Certainly the previous numbers make sense in terms of our classic self-perception. The recent numbers do not.”

One possible explanation for the sharp decline in the US is that Americans have been feeling constrained by the economy since 2006 – and their options have declined in a concrete, material way, Gallup says.

“The decline in perceived freedom among Americans could be attributed to the U.S. economy,” the report says. “Many Americans continue to lack confidence in the country and continue to see it as one of the biggest problems facing the country.”

Still, the report notes, there are some problems with this hypothesis: Self-reported job creation has rebounded, Americans are “feeling better about the economy,” and spending habits in the US are near their pre-recession levels.”

 

“Why?” they ask do Americans feel less free?

It is because those Americans still capable of personal responsibility and the act of self-governance, know that we are.

The individual mandate, aka the “shared individual responsibility provision”, which for the first time in our political history lays an open-ended and uncontingent Federal purchase mandate upon,  and a life energy redistribution claim against the existence of, each and every American, does obviously lessen our historic political and economic right to choose.

It’s the institution of a blatant fascism in America, plain and simple; and the degraded miscreants who support the individual mandate (and its social insurance predicate)  well know it.

So why the pretended mystery? Because to admit the reason would ultimately be to assign moral responsibility – to the very left-fascists of the present Administration and Senate in whose service the collaborationist media have placed themselves.

And if there is one thing moral garbage will not take responsibility for, it is for the consequences of their own life decisions and actions.

And isn’t programmatically avoiding responsibility for self, exactly what constitutes the very essence of modern liberalism?

 

Posted in Character, Culture, media, politically correct, society | Leave a Comment »

Liberalism at its best …

Posted by DNW on 2014/06/30

 

… and most amusing.

I could not believe this when I first saw it in my e-mail, I thought …

Well, wait a second and let me back up.

A few years ago, more than a handful actually, I subscribed to a German news service which was headquartered in D.C.

The reason I did so was because, ironically enough, I wanted to keep abreast of legislation in Europe related to firearms ownership control, and crime trends.

It turned out that although I did receive some useful news links, especially concerning crime and economic trends in Germany, I was able to accomplish much of what I really wanted to do with my own research.

So I cancelled, and after wrangling for some months, eventually managed to put an end to the service.

Imagine my surprise then, when about a year ago I started receiving e-mails from “EIN” ( that was the name of the service) containing links to various news items from around the globe. Well, sort of from around the globe. Many concerned the United States, and I’ll be “doggoned” if the strangest thing hadn’t happened. It seemed almost as if some breathless politically “progressive”  intern from the Huffington (Facebook conversations reflecting community values only please) Post had assumed control over news item selection and captioning.

My routine became, click to open, quick to glance, click to close.

So, anyway today I opened up the latest EIN “World News Monitoring” e-mail , and found that according to EIN News Editors’ Picks for June 27, 2014, Walmart was peddling sniper rifles to all and sundry.

EGAD! SNIPER RIFLES!!!!

EGAD! SNIPER RIFLES!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My goodness! Walmart is selling Barretts? Or at least honest to goodness sniper rifles?

Gee. “How much could I pick one up for?”, I wondered. Or maybe Kathy would get me one and stash it away for Christmas?

No, no. I better get right over there and scoop up mine before the horders arrive!

So I followed the link.

Now, let’s actually  take a look at the “sniper rifle” Walmart is selling,

 

Walmart's .177 pellet gun

Walmart’s .177 pellet gun

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A pellet gun! A lousy pellet gun!

This “sniper rifle” turns out to be a pellet gun – a crummy pellet gun. You know, of the same caliber as the standard BB gun, but with a higher velocity, and maybe suitable under some circumstances for dealing with smallish rodents where the law allows. Don’t shoot at that red squirrel if there is a window behind it Johnny!

Perhaps the EIN News writer, knows so little about guns that he or she doesn’t even understand the difference between a BB gun or a pellet gun on the one hand, and what they insinuate is a firearm on the other?

Well maybe. Perhaps the person I early on mocked as an apparently histrionic intern, is in fact British. That might explain it, since the alarmed reaction might then make some sense; since even toy BB or air soft guns are disallowed in that so-called “cradle of liberty”.  As is when you come right down to it, so much else illegal in Great Britain nowadays, such as for example, truly free political speech.

But, you would at least think that someone, other than a transparently lying propagandist, or a timid twenty-something ignoramus from Great Britain, or their American equivalents, would exercise a final editorial supervision over the titling of these links: so as to at least minimize, if nothing else, the ridiculousness of the situation when the redounding stupidity of their presentation became, as it inevitably would, comically apparent to all and tarred the writer with the label “IMBECILE”.

What are these idiots thinking? Oh that’s right. Idiots don’t.

That’s why they are idiots.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Culture, Humor - For Some, Insanity, Liberal, media, politically correct, politics, society | 2 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 215 other followers

%d bloggers like this: