Learned a New Song Today


It’s “I then shall live,” based on the melody for Finlandia, by Jean Sibelius.

Beautiful melody, and really sweet on a nice guitar. Lots of room for creative embellishment as well. The long-time improviser in me loves that!

And what better day to learn a beautiful melody than on Beethoven’s birthday?

– xPraetorius

A Couple of Interesting Things


Numbers 8 and 2 here.

The video is entitled: “Top 10: Lies You Were Taught In School

I knew #8: that slavery was not all about a bunch of white people invading black African countries and kidnapping people off the streets to haul them away to America. Rather, it was about slavers going to Africa, where they bought Africans from other Africans who became filthy rich from selling their brethren. The dirty secret about slavery was that in Africa, the evil trade was managed by black Africans.

It’s kind of sad that we feel that we have to whitewash out of history the real story of slavery — the fact that the innocent victims were caught equally between white and black slavers.


I kind of suspected #2: that evolution was not about some monkey somewhere one day giving birth to a human, or a proto-human, or the like. Rather it’s about micro-changes appearing in species in response to changes in their environment. Bottom line: if this is true, then it is impossible to use evolution as an reason to try to “disprove” God.

Soooo…why did I “kind of suspect” #2? Easy, get to the very moment where another species appears from its supposed predecessor species — a different species — and try to imagine that moment. Yes, it’s kind of easy to imagine a chicken laying an egg containing a new non-chicken critter. However, it’s one whole heckuva lot tougher to imagine a monkey producing another species in any conceivable (heh heh) way.

Furthermore, if you think about the chicken and egg thing, how would even that happen, except as the result of some non-normal thing — like mutation due to pollutants or radiation or something. But, from evolution? I mean, it’s not as if the chicken were just saving up in itself all the changes necessary to produce another species, so it could lay that one egg that would produce the new non-chicken, is it?

Again, evolution as the engine of new species simply doesn’t make any sense.

But, evolution as a constant micro-tweaker of existing species? Sure. Of course! With the discovery of DNA and some greater understanding of how it operates, this seems obvious.

I even noted in several posts that Darwin himself shot down the idea of evolution as a process to bring about new species. Here, for example (at insanitybytes’ blog). According to Darwin, if the fossil record were not chock full of missing link species, then evolution did not bring about new species, but merely acted as a way to allow existing species to adapt to a constantly changing environment.

– xPraetorius

Adolf Hitler – Right-Winger? Uhhh…No. (Part 8)


Click here for a nice summary of what we’ve been saying for some time now: Adolf Hitler was a political left-winger, not a right-winger. And the summary was written all the way back in 2009!

Heck, we just might have read the book, Liberal Fascism, that helped confirm what we had thought for a very long time. Okay, okay, I did read the book. But, I was aware of its findings long before I read it. It was nice to see someone else — especially Jonah Goldberg — agreeing with me.

Goldberg makes the simple point that hardly were Hitler and leftists like Stalin, Mao, et al, on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but rather rivals on the same end of the spectrum. Kind of like two baseball teams in the same division — they were rivals for dominance of the same division. They both played in the Socialist League, while — to torture the metaphor a bit more — real right-wingers played in the Capitalist League.

The fate of the world rests on the results of that particular World Series, in that continuing rivalry.

Here’s a well-stated passage from the above-linked piece:

Tomasky also compared apples to apples to prove that one of them was an orange. Guffawing at my argument that Hitler was a “Man of the Left,” he observed that one of the first things Hitler did was crack down on independent labor unions. True enough, the Nazis rolled them up into the German Labor Front (DAF—from its German name, “Deutsche Arbeitsfront”). The Nazis defended the DAF by arguing that it gave labor a seat at the table of government (a frequent demand from progressives to this day, and one satisfied, in part, by an outcome not all that dissimilar to the DAF: the UAW’s joint ownership, with the U.S. government, of GM). Whether that defense was true is a worthy debate topic, but either way Tomasky’s example does not serve his critique. After all, how did independent labor unions fare under Stalin? Mao? Castro? Are these men also not of the Left? Sociologist Michael Mann, reviewing Liberal Fascism in the Washington Post, wrote, “What really distinguished fascists from other mainstream movements of the time were proud, ‘principled’—as they saw it—violence and authoritarianism.” If you say so. But again: How opposed to vio­lence and authoritarianism were Messrs. Stalin, Mao, and Castro? Time and again liberals take an aspect of Nazism and say, “This proves Nazism was right-wing.” On al­most every count—genocide, racism, discrimination, suppression of free speech, militarism—the most famously left-wing regimes in history have acted in identical fashion. But the actions of those regimes are deemed irrelevant, whereas the actions of Nazis are taken as proof of the right-wing nature of Nazism.

Which invites the most basic question: Since when is violence, or racism, or authoritarianism, inherently right-wing—particularly in the sense of the Anglo-American Right? Tomas­ky, Mann, and the rest prove the continuing truth of George Orwell’s observation in 1946 that fascism had come to mean “anything not desirable.”

As Tom Wolfe said, the assignment of the Nazis to the political right was the “spin of all spins.”

Adolf Hitler was a leftist, never a rightist.

– xPraetorius

About All Those Fake Rape Accusations (Caution: blunt, occasionally uncharitable, very straight talk)


As someone said, there may or may not be a sexual assault problem on college campuses, but there is indisputably a false rape accusation problem in America.

Why?

The answer is probably pretty easy: It’s ultra-fashionable to be a victim, and it might be worth a lot of money, or social cachet.

  • Why else would the Duke Lacrosse Team accuser do what she did if not for money?
  • Why would “Jackie,” Rolling Stone magazine’s fake accuser, threaten to ruin dozens of innocent young men’s lives, if not for money?
  • Why would Lena Dunham do what she did if not for social cachet? She’s got plenty of money.

People want to be “in” and if by being “in” they can also get rich, there are plenty of unscrupulous people out there willing to take a shot at it.

Warning: I’m going to be cruel and crass here. In the case of Lena Dunham, it seems like kind of a pathetic attempt to get “in,” or to obtain cheap ego gratification. Dunham is kind of a dumpy, unattractive woman, with self-admitted odd predilections of all kinds, likely awash in all the insecurities of a young woman with few physical gifts and even fewer intellectual ones. Luckily for her there were several rich and thriving grievance industries just waiting to scoop up such a bedraggled figure as Dunham: The Feminist Grievance Industry, the Gay Grievance Industry and the Sexual Assault Grievance Industry, for example.

I’m figuring that Dunham has generally attracted the attention of very few amorous young men, and now realizes that just maybe she has the means and forum with which, to (1) get some revenge, and (2) prove to everyone else she is attractive after all. Never underestimate the destructive power of female vanity. Never underestimate the ability of a rich, insecure, or scorned feminist to do evil.

Listen, I’m all about not hurting the egos of women … ever. Attractive or not. I’m all about not harming women in any way whatsoever. I’m all about being really nice to all people one ever encounters. Period.

Let’s be blunt: there are young women out there who are ready, willing and able to do the kind of horrific crime that ruining an innocent man’s life represents. These are the daughters of feminism, and they believe that any and all lies, frauds, scams and hoaxes are justified if it’s in the cause of the sisterhood.

If Lena Dunham falsely accused someone of rape, then she needs to go to jail(1), and deserves a heckuva lot more public shaming than I’m now dishing out. Same for “Jackie” and the Duke Lacrosse Team accuser. It’s worth considering that the Duke Lacrosse Team accuser and “Jackie” felt no fear of reprisal for their evil acts. That would seem to argue in favor of a conclusion that it’s actually pretty easy to claim rape. It seems to happen pretty all the time, whether it’s true or not.

There are some conclusions one can draw from all this:

  • Feminism is seriously implicated by this. Weren’t women supposed be be better than this? Ruining the lives of innocent men for their own enrichment, or worse — for mere social acceptance? True feminists all, these are the pathetic, mewling, whining, self-obsessed, creatures that feminism has produced.
  • The “sexual assault epidemic on campus” is highly suspect. The statistic : “one in five women will experience sexual assault in college” — is an obvious fraud, but still the leftist media use it. I’ve also heard: six per thousand. Yes, six is six too many, but it’s also more than 30 times fewer than one in five.
  • This fraudulent statistic joins many others, the most recent of which was the 77 cents on the dollar scam. Is it too silly to say that as soon as someone points out the fraudulence of the statistics, the media ought to acknowledge the inaccuracy, and move on with the new, adjusted, more correct understanding?
  • If the media dealt only with accurate statistics, the “issues” the left uses to bludgeon populations into voting for them would disappear overnight.
  • One day someone will see that the entirety of the left’s vast edifice is based on lies, scams and frauds like these statistics.
  • Back to the “sexual assault epidemic” on campus. Yes, I get it that the fraudulent claims make it more difficult for real victims to come forward. But, only marginally so. There simply is no stigma attached to being a rape victim like that attached to a rapist, or even an accused rapist.  Except, that is, for Bill Clinton. Real victims experience only a vast tide of compassion directed toward them by the whole country.
  • Sexual assault epidemic? No names? No charges anywhere? I’ve heard of some kids being kicked out of college for sexual misconduct, but sexual assault is a felony. If the kids were known to have done a felony, then why aren’t they in jail? Or was what they did maybe somewhat short of real “sexual assault,” if still rude and inexcusable? Absent any real evidence, we simply can’t know. I mean colleges are hardly bastions of concern for the protection of young males or anything.
  • At this point, all we have are a bunch of people yelling “Sexual assault epidemic! Sexual assault epidemic! Sexual assault epidemic!” Chicken Little comes to mind or, knowing men, women and feminists as I do: “The Boy who Cried Wolf.
  • If, indeed, there is a sexual assault epidemic on college campuses, then I want it dealt with. I have a daughter who attends one of the universities supposedly being investigated by the Department of Justice(2) over how they deal with sexual assault complaints. She isn’t worried in the least. Nor are her friends. None of them are even aware of anyone who has suffered “sexual assault.” Rudeness? Sure. But, and they stressed this: nothing that surpassed rudeness or even came close to being even slightly menacing.
  • The eagerness of all commentators to fall all over themselves to assure everyone that they surely know that there is a “sexual assault epidemic” on campus, juxtaposed against the total lack of support for the victims of potentially life-ruining accusations shows that women’s lives and safety are valued more than men’s. Correctly, by the way. One man could re-populate the world, but not without millions of women.
  • Finally, it’s worth repeating what I said above: the rash of scurrilous false accusations seem to argue for a conclusion, contrary to prevailing thought, that it’s pretty easy to claim rape.

The false accusations are, of course, inexcusable, and the ones who do it should go straight to jail.

– xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) She said that the most prominent campus Conservative, a guy she called “Barry,” raped her. It turned out that such a campus Conservative named Barry, who went to Oberlin College at the same time as she, was easy to locate. It turns out that he didn’t do it. Now everyone is retreating from the story, and Dunham is claiming that “Barry” is a pseudonym. However, in the supposedly “non-fiction” story, she never made any mention that “Barry” was a pseudonym. If the book is non-fiction, then the use of “Barry’s” name amounts to an accusation. I doubt there are First Amendment issues to worry about here.

(2) I wouldn’t trust Eric Holder’s Department of Justice to investigate whether bears choose arboreal areas for their restrooms.

More Lies (and more and more and more and more…)


Remember when Jonathan Gruber, architect of Obamacare, said that he and the Democrats had to lie in order to get the bill to pass?

Mark these words: he was just one who got caught. If there’s one, there are others … a lot of others. We just haven’t caught them. It’s not like they’re not out there. They are … all over the place. We just have to be ready to catch them.

This is, after all, the modus operandi of the left: do whatever it takes to accomplish what they want to accomplish; and all of it in service to their real prime directive: the pursuit and retention of power. Lies are certainly acceptable to the left if they are in service to the prime directive.

Oh, they’ve been caught, of course, but remember, the left used to have a monopoly on the media until only a very few years ago. The media simply ignored it when the left lied. It’s only in recent years that there has been anyone to catch the left when they act as they do all the time.

That points persuasively to the idea that technology could be the undoing of the left. They have been used for decades to operating in the shadows, without fear of exposure. It’s been said that Lyndon Johnson never won an election that he didn’t steal. Do you think he could have done that without with media complicity? Of course not.

If the left and Democrats have been operating like that for decades how will they do that now that there are people out there to call them on it?

Gruber admitted to lying, and that Obamacare was passed because of lies. He is just one of thousands and thousands and thousands of Democrat politicians, bureaucrats and hangers-on, who have looked at us smilingly, saying, “Trust me! Would I lie to you?” … as they then lie through their teeth.

 

– xPraetorius

 

“Debating” With Leftists


I’ve done it before. The word “debating” is in quotes because so frequently leftists simply don’t debate. They dodge, evade, insult, accuse and engage in a vast array of behaviors that have nothing to do with pitting idea against idea in a contest that  could prove instructive for both participants.

The reasons for this evasion are simple: the “ideas” of the left are not reason- or thought-based, they’re emotion-based. In the vast majority of people who hold leftist ideas, it comes from a desire to “do something” in order to solve a problem. Frequently, that’s as far as it goes in their minds.

The leadership of the left, on the other hand, hold these ideas because they represent a path to power. Nothing more than that. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid know full well that their plans and programs are not going to bring prosperity to people. But they also know that they can frequently cobble together 51% or more of the voters in given elections to give them power. 

This is why, from top to bottom, the left’s response to Conservative arguments against their plans is jam-packed with invective, insult, haughty, smug, self-congratulatory, holier-than-thou, sneering mockery. At the top they don’t believe in their plans, so they need to cheat to win; underneath the top, they believe the propaganda that their beliefs actually make them better people. 

Now for some details. The last time I engaged in pitched “debating” battle with the left, I was taking on the Race Grievance Industry — the RGI. This group were particularly devoid of substance, engaging in all the things I’ll show you below in order to disguise the fact that their thinking was immature, poorly reasoned, emotional and shallow.

Here are the behaviors I observed when I took on the RGI. Many if not most, of the responses exhibited several of the behaviors. :

(1) Stupid responses. This the overall characteristic all the response types below. It was just a question of how dumb the responses were.

(2) Irrelevant. For example: In my particular argument, I was arguing that white racism is not a big problem in America today. My interlocutors were constantly telling me of the long ago sins of white people.

(3) Nonsensical. I’d make a point, and someone would tell me something like, “You probably hate cats too.”

(4) Gratuitous insult. I was called every name in the book.

(5) Racial slur. I was frequently attacked because of the color of my skin. Only because of the color of my skin. I wasn’t offended, but it’s not a valid debating tactic.

(6) Tries too hard to be clever. They thought they were funny. They usually weren’t.

(7) I covered it bunches of times before. I got tired of having to answer and re-answer and re-answer again the same things.

(8) Responds to a post containing these same substanceless things. One of the moat common scenarios: someone would post a nonsensical, or irrelevant or otherwise ridiculous response, and another person would pick up the errant ball and run with it.

(9) Wrong on the face of it. They would say things that were simply, obviously wrong.

(10) Statement is unknowable by the one making it. This was a constant. They were constantly making vast generalizations that were perfectly unknowable. My favorite example of this is the next one. They constantly engaged in: mind reading.

(11) Mind reading. The others constantly told me what I was thinking, wanted, hoped for and needed. They even told me what my educational level was.

(12) Pseudo-intellectual poppycock. Three words: Dr. Llaila Afrika. This guy is the black successor to the phrenologists and eugenecists of the early 20th Century.

(13) Personal anecdote, of limited scope and extent, meant to prove a point across entire peoples. (This one is much beloved by this crowd too!)

(14) Misstates something I said, then draws some conclusion from the erroneous statement. (This one is a big favorite of this crowd too!)

(15) I know you are but what am I. Yep. Precisely that.

(16) Resorts to esoteric sources and information whose validity can’t be verified in the context of this blog conversation.

(17) Idle speculation for no relevant purpose.

(18) Evasion to distract from addressing the real points.

(19) Even if it were true, it doesn’t affect the argument one way or another. Shorthand: So what!

(20) Says the same thing I said right back at me.

(21) Personal sentiment irrelevant to the topic.

(22) Why? Because you say so? Who the heck are YOU to make that determination?

Those interlocutors who avoided the above worthless tactics were few and far between. When they did argue, then their arguments were dismayingly elementary. When you’re arguing at a graduate degree level, and your interlocutor’s understanding is at a third-grade level, imagine the gulf between you. How do you make him understand?

– xPraetorius

My Dream


I have a dream today:

  • To see my children into early old age.
  • To meet my grandchildren.
  • To watch the Red Sox win the World Series. (done — three times!)
  • To have salvation. (done)
  • To witness the recovery of America from its current sad, downtrodden mood.
  • To see millions upon millions upon millions come to Jesus. (*)
  • That all people would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

– xPraetorius

(*) Because, let’s face it, everyone knows that if everyone in the world were to convert to Christianity tomorrow, that would be the end of war, poverty, hunger, disease, sadness, violence of any kind…

NPR Watch — Did I REALLY Just Hear That?!? (12/9/14)


A twofer today. One from the morning ride into work, then another from the ride home.

I was driving in to work this morning, listening to National Public Radio. So, as you’ve probably heard, there’s been this rash of false reporting of rapes lately. First there was the Duke lacrosse team, then Lena Dunham, then the Rolling Stone fakery. NPR had to do a story on it. See if you can guess their take.

Yep.

They lamented how real rape victims might have greater difficulty coming forward now that those who had leveled the fake accusations were being lambasted in the media.

The quote that grabbed my attention was when someone (not important who) said of “Jackie’s” false accusation “This is not a lie or a hoax or a scam.” Oh? Those things are precisely what the accusation is. Demonstrably.

So, let’s get this straight. A woman comes out and slanders the entire Duke lacrosse team, then Lena Dunham libels an easily identifiable guy from her college. Then, Rolling Stone allows “Jackie” to libel an entire fraternity from its pages — all falsely claiming rape where there was none, and threatening to ruin the lives of dozens of innocent young men — and somehow that’s not a problem.

Let’s be the very first to say it in these pages: There might be a sexual assault problem on college campuses today, but there is definitely, no-doubt-about it-absolutely-certainly-obviously-plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face a serious problem with nutjob women making false claims of sexual assault.

It certainly makes me doubt there’s any kind of major sexual assault problem on college campuses.

That NPR then takes the story of the lie, the hoax and the scam and turns it into a problem with … college men, really just solidifies my point for me.

It should be noted that these women were all perfectly willing to destroy the lives of many innocent men all for lies. If the media are lambasting them, it’s probably because they richly deserve it.

Between you and me, I hope the fraternity sues, and ends up with ownership of Rolling Stone. And I hope that Lena Dunham’s victim sues her and gets half her fortune.


And… Part II:

I was driving home from work tonight. Listening to National Public Radio, when on comes a story about Argentina. The reporterette on the scene was one Lourdes Garcia-Navarro. She reported on how Argentina is the robbery/mugging capital of South America, and it’s because the people have no confidence in the banks.

Then she said the thing that dropped my jaw, and made me say, “Did I just hear what I think I just heard?” She said that since people don’t trust the banks, they don’t keep their money in banks; they keep it “under their mattresses,” using the timeworn American expression for “somewhere other than a bank.” Here was her explanation for that. The wording is a bit different, but the meaning is the same:

“You see, there is bad inflation in Argentina — running at around 40% annually. The banks may pay only 20% interest, so you’re losing money if you keep your money in a bank. Most people figure they might as well keep it under the mattress.”

Oh?

How much interest is the ol’ mattress paying?

So, apparently Lourdes Garcia-Navarro thinks that Argentines, at a time of 40 percent inflation, prefer to earn zero percent interest over twenty percent interest.

Well, if she’s right, then we need look no further for explanations as to why so much of South America is little more than a third-world hellhole. The people there are stooooooooopid. Or, as is more likely the case, I just finished listening to yet another NPR “news” feature that simply had nothing in it that was meaningful, useful or even true. Or made any sense.

L G-N, is one of the funniest at this. First, she’s prone to howlers like the above. Second, she is so incredibly earnest and deadly, deadly, deadly serious. Listening to her you get the impression that she thinks that the fate of the world hangs on her next words.

I, however, get the impression that the people at NPR sit around in a living room somewhere in Des Moines writing these things, because so often they transparently have nothing whatsoever to do with their subject.

– xPraetorius

Play in the Metaphysical with Me a Bit


Imagine that you might have a dream like the one I had.

I was fast asleep. Yet, there’s a bit of awareness there, as in all sleep.

As I slept, I slowly became increasingly aware that someone — Someone! — was very patiently awaiting my full attention.

As I came around, I became aware that I was in the strange circumstances in which someone was communicating to me directly via some kine of mind transfer. I understood it to be a kind of a Q+ A session. He — it felt like a “He” — would say something…I’d not understand…I’d ask Him a question and He’d answer it.

Him: What if I were to give you the power to make something? To make something like a person?

me: Why would You do that?

Him: To let you understand.

me: Ok…what did You have in mind?

Him: I mean to give you the power to create a creature and to give it life and to define the parameters and dimensions of its/his/her life.

me: Ummmm…ok. Cool!

Him: Okay, now what will you make and how will you make it?

I thought and thought and thought and thought and thought and I realized: I’d make a human, and I’d make that human exactly as He had made them. No difference whatsoever? Nope. No difference whatsoever. Why? Simple: because I’d want to be loved by my “creation” unreservedly and sincerely. Without free will, my “creation’s” love for me wouldn’t be real, it would be coerced. But, if I were to give my “creation” free will, then I make it so that he just might not act as I want him to all the time. And he just might muck things up from time to time.

Hmmmmmm… sound familiar?

– xPraetorius

If – Then — Some Questions About Language


  • If thin is spelled “thin,” then why isn’t this spelled “dhis?”
  • If it’s “nation” then why isn’t it “equadion?”
  • If it’s “stuff,” then why not “ruff” and “tuff” and “enuff?”
  • In fact if it’s “rough” then why not “stough,” and “grough” and “flough?”

The answers are fairly simple, but still…

– xPraetorius

Hillary Says We Should Have “Understood the Nazis” (Part II)


In this post, here, we showed how Hillary Clinton had outed herself as a Nazi sympathizer. Okay, okay, okay… maybe we took some teentsy-weentsy liberties in interpreting her remarks but, if you think about it, did we really? What’s ambiguous about “understanding our enemies,” and “empathizing with them,” as Hillary suggested that we should? Nothing, really. Who in America’s history has been more of an enemy than the Nazis? No one, really.

Now, however, it is instructive to note that before World War II, and even in the beginning of the War, the primary Nazi sympathizers in America were … the Democrat Party.

Let’s not forget that the Nazis called themselves “National Socialists,” with an emphasis on “Socialists.” Hitler was a through and through socialist, and there was a strong tendency among America’s Democrats to admire them for that. Hitler was also a big admirer of eugenics theory — the theory that you can “purify” the human race by eliminating inferior races and individuals. The home of eugenics in America was also the Democrat Party.

Before Hitler sent his Wermacht into the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, he and Soviet dictator Josif Stalin were allies. At that time, the socialist tendency in America — housed also in the Democrat Party — was giddy in love with both Stalin and Hitler. They saw no contradiction whatsoever in being enamored with both of them.

So, Hillary comes by her sympathy for Nazis honestly.

Alright, alright… I used Clinton’s assertion that we should try to understand and empathize with our enemies as a convenient ploy to point out that Hillary’s very recent predecessors in the Democrat Party were very much Nazi sympathizers, and would have eagerly endorsed her idea about understanding and empathizing with our enemies, when we were battling the Nazis in World War II.

One final point: Hillary’s recent Nazi-sympathizer predecessors in her Democrat Party also make my point again that Hitler belongs on the ideological left, not on the right. This big government, statist, centralizing, racist, eugenicist, atheist, socialist(1) dictator bore no resemblance whatsoever to anything or anyone we properly understand as “right-wing.”

– xPraetorius

Notes:


(1)

  • The home of statism and statists? The Democrats.
  • Who are America’s centralizers? Democrats.
  • Who are the racists in American history? Yep: Democrats again — the home of the KKK, segregation, Jim Crow and the only meaningful opposition to Civil Rights legislation.
  • How about eugenics? You guessed it: the Democrat Party again.
  • Where are the atheists most comfortable? Of course, in the Democrat Party again.
  • Socialists? Yep. Still the Democrats

 

 

 

The Drudge Headline Says…


… President: Racism ‘deeply rooted’ in USA…

That’s just it. It’s not.

At least not as the President imagines it. And “imagines” is, I figure, the proper verb. Imaginary racism is deeply rooted in the USA. That’s still a problem, and a serious one; it’s just not the problem that Obama imagines it to be. Rule #1 about solving any problem is, though: you must identify the nature of that problem correctly.

By all indicators and measures and polls and analyses, white racism toward black people is at its lowest point ever … and continuing to diminish. There’s no need to detail all the legislation everywhere, the transfer payments, government program after program, business initiative after business initiative, and so much more. By all the same indicators measures, polls and analyses, the overwhelmingly dominant state-of-mind on the part of white people toward black people is one of generalized benevolence and good wishes, with a strong desire that black Americans prosper and thrive.

Also, by all of the above indicators, there are no more obstacles to prosperity and success in the path of black people, than there are in front of any other identifiable group.

The expression is: “Perception is reality.” If the vast majority of black people believe – perceive — that the United States is nothing more than a seething hotbed of racism barely concealed beneath the surface of black-white relations, then blacks will act as though they have no chance to succeed in America. This is the fault of the Race Grievance Industry who is doing all it possibly can to keep the fires of racial animosity raging.

The constant calls to ever more “racial conversations” are really calls to keep the RGI’s longstanding harangue going. What the RGI call a “conversation” is nothing more than a steady stream of accusations of racism directed toward white people, the vast majority of whom have done nothing whatsoever to harm any person, black, white or other.

However, another result of this now half-century long, one-sided screed is the forcible transfer of nearly 20 trillion dollars from working people to generally non-working people, of whom black Americans make up a disproportionately large percentage.

Read this well: with that record of success, there is no incentive whatsoever to do what it actually takes to solve the problems of black people.

What needs to be said by any leader of any legitimacy at all is what we’ve said many times in these pages before: if a black man or woman speaks well, obtains an education, works hard, works well with others, and presents him or herself more or less normally, there is no reason he or she can’t achieve success in America.

Note: these are the things, that we look for in all people of all colors. They’re not much; really basic even. They indicate that one is a serious candidate to be a serious worker at a given employer’s business.

Unfortunately, the most prominent member of the Race Grievance Industry is the President of the United States. The second most important member of the RGI is the President’s Attorney General. The above very straightforward message is the one message you can bet the farm they will never deliver.

Read this well: the people who suffer the most from the callous irresponsibility on the part of the President and his Attorney General are: black Americans.

– xPraetorius

 

 

Hillary Says We Should Have “Understood the Nazis”


Hillary says we’re supposed to “understand our enemies.”

Wow! Who would have thought that we were supposed to see the Nazis’ point of view wherever possible back in the 1940’s?

Between you and me, I can’t see what there was to “understand” about the Nazis’ desire to take over the world or to exterminate “inferior races.” But wasn’t Hillary, the now-uncloseted Nazi sympathizer, supposed to be by all accounts, the smartest woman in the world?

But, there you go — the consensus leading candidate for the Democrat Party’s nomination for the Presidency in 2016, Hillary Clinton, says that we should try to “understand the Nazis,” and apparently that we should try to understand ISIS as well. You know, the ones who crucify, behead, torture and rape everyone from young children to old men and women.

Hillary: No. I’m sorry (but not much), I have no desire to “understand” the Nazis or ISIS beyond what I know already: The Nazis were scum and ISIS are scum; bloodthirsty, murderous, sadistic, psychotic scum. Until they give us some compelling indication that they are not, that’s all the understanding that anyone needs.

– xPraetorius

 

Lord: Please, Take Me Back…


Thomas: You have seen and so believe…blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed.

Heavenly Father…please take me back. I am so sad when I am distant from You. I live only to be with You. Help me, I pray, never to be far from You again.

– xPraetorius

 

Obama: Incapable of the Truth?


– Recent Boast Doesn’t Conform with Reality — 

Recently President Obama crowed that America has “We’ve put more people back to work than Europe, Japan, and all other industrialized advanced countries combined.”

Oops!

Europe, Japan and the rest of the industrialized world have been shedding jobs for a long time. The rest of the industrialized world is very, very sick economically. If Obama’s efforts had resulted in just one job, he still could have made the same meaningless boast.

Europe is circling the economic drain, while Japan remains enmired in what has been called “The Lost Generation” — twenty years of economic stagnation. The rest of the industrialized world comprises parts of China as well as Russia (economy also circling the drain) and not much else.

The job numbers for the month of November, 2014 were excellent, but that particular statistic never tells the real story.

There is a very serious disease afflicting the American economy. It has several really bad characteristics: (1) The American economy has been generating part-time, low-skilled, low-paying jobs hand-over-fist(1) for a long time, (2) people have been despairing of finding full-time jobs that will allow them to support their families, (3) Americans have been dropping out of the economy at fearsome rates, (4) the skills of the American workforce — including those no longer looking for jobs — have been stagnating, as the populace separates itself into teeming part-time, lower-skilled workers and laborers, and a shrinking number of élite high-tech, finance and other positions requiring highly-skilled, highly-educated and -trained workers.

What is the real unemployment number, the U-6 number? That number is a horrible 11.6. More than a tenth of the American work force is either (1) out of work, and not even looking for work, or (2) just out of work.

Boasting is an unattractive thing for anyone to do, but never more distasteful than when when it’s done by someone who has nothing to boast about, or whose boasting is nothing more than thinly-disguised fakery. Obama, the accidental President, is a man of truly modest accomplishments, and apparently even more modest intellectual resources. With the worry, insecurity, anxiety and fear rampant in America and the world today, by no means is the President a man who should waste one moment boasting.

– xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) Obamacare is a large factor in this, as employers do what they can to avoid the onerous, and frequently fatal, requirements of this deadly law.

What a Missed Opportunity


The entire Obama Administration. We elect a black President, Barack Obama, who appoints a black Attorney General, Eric Holder, and neither one says anything meaningful about the disease that is black crime, anarchy in black precincts around the country… and demolished black families.

When Barack Obama was elected, many of our hearts fell. Here was a hard, hard leftist about to take over the most powerful post in the history of the world. But, we also had a tiny shred of serious hope. Here also was blatant, obvious, no-doubt-about-it, incontrovertible proof — if there were ever proof — that America’s racism was long dead and buried in the distant past. Surely someone would recognize that?

After all, we didn’t just wake our racist selves up one day and say, “Hey, I’ve changed my mind — and my heart — let’s just elect a black dude to the Presidency! Whaddya say?” No, as everyone in the country said after Election Day 2008, that particular moment was a long time in coming. Especially since said black dude emerged from the most racist political party in America’s history: the Democrat Party.

How did it happen? Simple: white liberal guilt. Democrats have been trying for decades to prove that they’re no longer the racist, Ku Klux Klan-founding, segregation-implementing and -defending, Jim Crow-promulgating party they so recently were. And that’s precisely how, and why, a black man emerged as the Democrat nominee for President in 2008.

Oh, they didn’t nominate an actual nominee. You know, a man or woman with a known record, known positions — someone about whom lots of people knew lots of stuff. No, the Democrats were simply hell-bent on nominating a black man. Joe Biden, in a rare lucid moment, said it perfectly: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

The Democrats knew with nearly 100% confidence that the reactionary, legacy, and really, cowardly, media would just leave him alone — as they did. Their confidence was well-placed, and the Democrats traded your future and mine for their ability to say, “See? See? We’re not the racists we once were!”

What could possibly go wrong?

So, here we are, nearly six years after the election of that selfsame black man, and the appointment of that black Attorney General, and what does the black American landscape look like? There’s just nearly no good news.

Blacks commit crime — violent and other crime — at a horrifyingly elevated rate per capita. Just as tragically, blacks live in high-crime, deadly neighborhoods at highly elevated rates. Vastly disproportionate to their numbers in the American population. The majority of the time, blacks commit crime against other blacks. However, this blights the entire land. These aren’t just blacks. They’re Americans.

Obama and Holder have done nothing more than repeat over and over and over again only that “we need to have a dialogue about race.”

Yet, that’s just about all we’ve freakin’ done in the last 50 years, and it’s done nothing to improve anything. Why? Simple. Because it’s never been a real dialogue, and it can never be a real dialogue, until people are allowed to be honest about race.

Political correctness and black touchiness — sharpened to hair-trigger hypersensitivity by racism addicted grievance cheerleaders — entirely prevent honesty.

These poisonous things result only in black charlatans and frauds like Al Sharpton(1) and Jesse Jackson, and Touré and Melissa Harris-Perry and so many others, screaming lurid accusations at whites in general, while whites shuffle their feet uncomfortably under the onslaught. Whites who have never had anything to do with any injustice whatsoever toward black people, or anyone else for that matter.

That’s not a dialogue, that’s a harangue. The people doing the haranguing, the “black leaders,” are really nothing more than the heads of a vast parasitical industry put together to suck a fortune out of other people, while keeping race animosities very much alive.

This is the thriving American Race Grievance Industry. This industry has been the model for other leech industries extorting billions from decent Americans: the Feminist Grievance Industry, the Gay Grievance Industry, the Poverty Industry, to name just a few.

It works. How many trillions of dollars have been siphoned out of productive endeavors to feed whiners in a futile effort to try to curry their favor?

Actually, it’s measurable. It approaches 20 trillion dollars in the past half-century alone.

No, we don’t need a greater “race dialogue;” the ongoing one we have now — the one that’s been going on incessantly for more than 50 years — is worthless. It’s really about time just to shutup for a bit about race. And we need to tell frauds like … Barack Obama — that he’s squandered and continues to squander a golden opportunity to help — really help — black people, and in this way become the President of all Americans, not just of the grievance mongers.

Here’s what I’d say if I were he, and I had the biggest bully pulpit the world has ever seen:

Yes, we’ve had it tough in the past, but the things that we say are holding our people back were defeated long, long ago. They haven’t been seen in any meaningful way in this country for more than half-a-century. It is simply true that if you work hard, get an education, learn to speak well, work well with others and present yourself more or less normally, listen well, you will have no more obstacles in front of you than anyone else has in America. In fact, in many cases, there are fewer obstacles in your path than for others.

But, if you choose to have five children by five different fathers or five different mothers; if you can’t string two coherent sentences together; if you cover your body with tattoos, wear your pants down around your knees and spend your time in and out of jail for petty larceny or worse, why on earth would you think that you would earn a good living in America — or in any country in the world for that matter?

We look at the white man who speaks poorly, has all sorts of tattoos, wears his jeans around his knees and we say of him, “What an idiot.” Yet, if he were to say the same about one of us who behaves the same way, we’d say, “What a racist.”

Even worse than this, if one of us is seen doing well in school, or dressing normally, or speaking well and pursuing a good education, we tell him he’s “acting white.” When all he’s really doing is acting smart. Are you really trying to tell me that white people are more intelligent than we are? Because I reject that. And so should you.

If you want to do better. If you want to be better, well then look around you. Do you really think you’re going to do better by doing exactly the same as those around you? No, of course you won’t … you’ll end up just the same as those around you.

Want to do better? Then do better. Be better. Do better than you did yesterday. Be better than you were yesterday. Every day of your lives. Give no one the slightest excuse to say of you that you’re anything less than a man or woman in full.

And if you do that, well just look around you — look at me — you’ll see that you really can do quite well in America.

Look, this is just a bit simplistic… there are obstacles facing us that don’t face others, but do they all add up to more than what others face? I don’t know, and I don’t care. Even if they were to add up to more, that doesn’t excuse us from acting like real men and women in full, endowed by our Creator with all the dignity, class and decency that all humans have from the moment they are born.

Ask yourself, “Are you acting with dignity, intelligence and class? Are you doing the best you can to obtain marketable skills so that you can get a great job? And so there’s no excuse not to hire you into a great job?  And, if you’re not doing what you know you should do, to be the best you can, then why are you complaining?

Oops. All that is what Martin Luther King, Jr. would have said. In fact, it’s a paraphrase of what Martin Luther King, Jr. did say. Dr. King is the most rejected man in black America today.

There are black leaders saying what I said above. Go here to see just a few. It’s sobering reading. Why do these people not have access to prominent microphones, as the whiners, grievance mongers and race addicts do?

If Obama had said it, he just might have gone down in history as a not-so-horrible-President. Yes, he’s still a left-wing ideologue, but it is not unreasonable to have expected Obama to harbor some small desire to do something good for black people.

Oh, I forgot. He’s never been anything more in his public life than a community organizer.

– xPraetorius


Notes

(1) …and Eric Holder and … Barack Obama

Being a Christian in America


Look: it ain’t ever going to be easy. There is one thing that we have to remember. God is God and America is America. You can love both, and you can serve both. However, to serve both as a Christian, you have to arrive at an understanding of just how you are going to do that.

Here’s why: Your Christian values, based on the perfect Word of God, might be inconsistent with existing public policy. Simple as that.

But, you still need to be a Christian.

– xPraetorius

NPR Watch (12/5/14) Just a Casually Tossed-off Simple Phrase


I was listening to National Public Radio this morning on the ride into work. NPR was “reporting” on the upcoming runoff election between incumbent Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and her challenger, Congressman Bill Cassidy.

The NPR reporterette on the scene was one Debbie “The Idiot” Elliott. Debbie obtained some quotes from soon-to-be outgoing (one hopes) Senator Landrieu, who trails in current polling by double digits. Warning: Polls can be wrong!

Landrieu opined that her current poor showing in the polls was due to the fact that the electorate were voting based on partisanship, not based on who the people were in the race. In other words, meant Landrieu, the voters were poised to vote for the Republican over the Democrat instead of Landrieu over Cassidy, as she thinks they should. Whatever, Mary.

Elliott then casually tossed off her finish, which prompted this post from me. “If the voters choose,” began Elliott the Idiot, “based on partisanship, as they did in last November’s election, then Landrieu will be defeated.”

Oh?

Really, Debbie? We voters jettisoned the corrupt, stupid, incompetent, moronic, race-baiting, socialistic, occasionally fascistic Democrats only from a fit of “partisanship?” We didn’t really throw out their useless, nitwitty glutei maximi because we wanted to throw out their useless nitwitty glutei maximi, but simply because we wanted to replace D’s with R’s?

Are you really that much of an idiot, Debbie?

Apparently, thinks Debbie the Idiot, the Democrats just needed more time to make things so great in America.

As we’ve pointed out several dozen times in these very pages, nothing anywhere on earth is better because of Barack Obama’s having been President and the Democrats having owned two-thirds of the federal government for nearly six years. Oh, and for two of those nearly six years, they owned three thirds of the federal government.

Debbie just thinks they need more time. She thinks that all that has mucked up everything in the world will just magically stop mucking up the world, and make it all better.

No, Debbie the Idiot, we tossed out their fat, lazy, corrupt, dirty, power-mad backsides because … they’re fat, lazy, corrupt, dirty and power-mad — and they’ve mucked up practically the whole world.

There’s a reason the animals and savages of the world are rampaging about in the world killing everything that moves and grabbing land and squashing lives and futures. It’s because the United States of America is, and has long been, the only thing standing between the world and a new Dark Ages worldwide. And sitting atop the United States of America is a namby-pamby, pantywaist, muddle-headed doofus who (1) doesn’t believe in the greatness — and the genuine goodness — of the United States, and (2) doesn’t care anyway. He’s too busy constantly obsessing over the ineffable greatness of his own self.

No, Debbie Elliott, we didn’t just “go all partisan” in the last election … we threw the bums out.

Idiot.

– xPraetorius

Eye-Opening Update! (NHS, Great Britain, Health Care and all That)


– From the Archives, but still very important –

As I mentioned in this post, Great Britain’s “free health care” system should be instructive for us here in the United States. This is even more important now, as Republicans prepare to take the reins of both houses of Congress.

I had located a blog that was a cri de coeur from a British blogger named Ladytaylor72. She told of her 15 months unemployed, accompanied by some pretty serious-sounding health problems, and of how the “free health care”* system treated her.

To say her treatment was shabby would be to put a kind spin on it. Her treatment was horrific, nightmarish, surreal. At all levels, she encountered nothing more than surly or indifferent incompetence. At the end of her harrowing account, she rushed to assure us that, despite it all, she remained an enthusiastic supporter of the “free health care” system. Further, she indicated that she really thought it was free!

I’m perfectly serious in saying: It would be truly difficult to find a more thorough condemnation of Great Britain’s health care system by a critic, much less an eager supporter!

Via this blog — the increasingly influential thinking of our increasingly influential think tank — I pointed our readers to her post. I took care to copy and paste her post to this blog as well — giving all necessary attribution, of course — because blog posts, and blogs themselves are notoriously transitory. I then added some additional commentary, calling out several passages that were, I thought, particularly illustrative.

Ladyt’s account was fairly well-written, detailed, impassioned, indignant, eye-popping … and deeply damning.

As you might have expected, my commentary met with some hostile responses, including Ladyt herself who told me that I had completely misunderstood her intent, and that I needed to cut it out, and stay away from her blog.

My respondents, Ladyt and I all went back and forth until they all bowed out with the usual leftist “You’re not worth my time” trick that says they’re out of ammunition. Of course, they had also passed through all the other lefty tactics as well: name-calling, personal anecdotes, changing the subject…all the usual assortment of things that say they have nothing really backing up their conclusions.

My last response, and the last response of all the exchanges, was that Ladyt should be grateful for the challenge to her ideas that I brought, and for the extra attention that my readers would bring to her blog. I told her that as long as she continued to post well-written, instructive content, I would continue to read it, and maybe point it out to my readers as well.

Ladyt had written two posts of particular interest: one detailing her travails at the hands of the “health care system:” First her cri de coeur, and second a letter she had written to Iain Duncan Smith (aka: IDS), currently Britain’s Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. He’s also a prominent Tory, having led the party from September 2001 to October 2003.

The letter was, to some extent a rehashing of her travails with Britain’s National Health System (NHS), and how she pretty much blamed all her problems on Smith. It, also, was well-written, detailed, indignant, impassioned, scornful and … an eloquent, if accidental, condemnation of the socialized health care system of Great Britain.

Read all about it in the essay linked at top.

– xPraetorius

  •  Quotes are in place because if you read her account, the only thing that Ladyt did not receive while undergoing her ordeal was actual health care. Kind of hard to label such a  system a “health care system.”

If You Wanted to Destroy America…


– From the Archives, but still important today — 

You probably couldn’t do better than the Democrat Party.

Here are some of the “accomplishments” of America’s dominant political party:

  • In the early 20th Century, important Democrats, including President Woodrow Wilson expressed the desire to destroy the black race. Now, with the near total annihilation of the black family unit, they are well along in that goal.
  • America was coming out of the economic downturn of 2007-2008, by virtue of natural business fluctuations. New President Barack Obama stopped that recovery in its tracks and has been garroting it for five years.
  • Obama’s policies have added millions of welfare users, of food stamps users. He has increased the sense of dependency among the poor.
  • The Democrats have destroyed once great cities: Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago. Look at the poor sections of all the large American cities. These are cities that the Democrats have owned for many decades.
  • Supporting nihilistic, moronic, senseless movements like pro-abortion, gay marriage, gun control, the Democrats have attacked all the basic foundations of American greatness. Those foundations have eroded seriously.
  • The obscene, byzantine tax code squashes innovation, initiative and economic mobility. It’s a mostly Democrat monstrosity. Sadly, though, the Republicans, who ought to know better have contributed to this vile thing.
  • The pitting of race against race, or class against class of sex against sex — all for the purpose of dividing the electorate in enough slices so as to be able to cobble together 51% of the vote in elections — has been the Democrat Party methodology for decades. It’s working.
  • Democrats invented “acceptable” race discrimination, called it “Affimative Action” and put it into law, guaranteeing that the “beneficiaries” would always be suspect in the eyes of potential educators and employers. And ensuring that there would always be some level of bitterness between races.
  • Democrats embraced the family- (therefore: civilization) destroying doctrine that is feminism, on the highly dubious pretext that women had things worse than men.
  • Democrats established weasel-speak, deception, the profusion of euphemism, and flat-out lying — aided by a compliant media cohort — as the language of political discourse. They cloaked in pleasant sounding terms — “Affirmative Action,” “choice,” “Welfare,” “Free healthcare,” “A hand up, not a handout,” “investment,” “lead from behind,” “Great Society,” New Deal,” and a million more — actions and policies they purport to loath and condemn.
  • Democrats raised to a high art the savage personal attack as opening political salvo, putting their opponents on the defensive before campaigns or debates even began. In this way, a sex-obsessed Democrat President (Clinton) survived actual predatory sexual behavior, while a Republican Congressman (Mark Foley) was drummed out of office for some suggestive e-mails.
  • Somehow, the Democrats turned a once vigorous media class into a sycophantic advocacy group. The “Fourth Estate” became a “Fifth Column” in willingly repeating substanceless nonsense, pure drivel, obvious opinion and out-and-out lies as “news,” or as “fact.”

– xPraetorius

Now, a FIVE-Minute Orgy of Just Plain Jazz Guitar Goodness…


Really, a tad more than five and a half minutes, and featuring the great, great Tommy Emmanuel and Stochelo Rosenberg, so you know it’ll be five and a half of the best minutes you can spend.

It’s Caravan, and the production values aren’t spectacular, but still it’s just wonderful.

– xPraetorius

Powerful, Influential People Read This Blog (Part 25)


Listening to Rush Limbaugh as I went to lunch. I get a half hour, so it’s good to hear some seriously intelligent analysis of today’s issues.

Love him or hate him, Limbaugh is a genius. He’s lasted what, 30 freakin’ years? as the leading voice in the entire Commentariat. Not just the right, but the left, right, center and back again. He’s been the leading voice on the airwaves for t-h-i-r-t-y   y-e-a-r-s!

There are government programs that don’t last that long! Global Warming didn’t last that long. Neither did Global Cooling, which was all the rage when Limbaugh was just starting out. Heck, Limbaugh’s outlasted all possible variations of freakin’ Climate Change!

Thirty years?!? Holy mackerel! And he’s not a phony, as Murrow and Cronkite and Rather and Jennings and so many others were, and some still are. These so-called “greats” hid behind the nonsense term: “journalistic objectivity” to make their names. Truth to tell: Walter Cronkite was a voice — avuncular and comforting — while Peter Jennings was a “package presentation” as much as anything. In Jennings, patrician handsomeness combined with a calm, reassuring voice to get him into bunches of living rooms each week night. But they were all blow-dried, manicured, phonies

Limbaugh? He’s neither cute, nor does he have the polished radio voice. But he’s not phony in any sense of the word. Don’t get me wrong, the niche that he hacked out of the phoniness-packed wilderness of American radio changed the very nature of what we call a “radio voice” today. Limbaugh was, is and probably always will be loud, self-assured, deeply well-informed and knowledgeable and … beloved by American Conservatives and even by Americans of all political stripes: the very iconoclastic left-wing lesbian, Camille Paglia, for example, loves him, and he returns the affection.

The genius of Rush Limbaugh is that he recognized that a ginormous segment of American society was completely unserved. When radio was (somewhat) deregulated, the death knell of the left-wing monopoly on American broadcast media sounded. But, someone had to recognize that and had to launch the program that would launch a thousand prominent Conservative careers. Hannity, Liddy, Ingraham, Reagan (Michael), Levin, even Savage, Grant, and hundreds and hundreds more jumped into the warm, welcoming water that was the market for Conservative commentary.

The someone who started it all was Rush Limbaugh.

There was a move to silence Limbaugh, as usual in the guise of “fairness” and “balance.” The Democrat-inspired, badly-misnamed “Fairness Doctrine” would have required radio stations that hosted the wildly popular Limbaugh to have “balancing” voices or lose their license to broadcast. That would have meant putting on some left-wing schlock for three hours, to “balance” the three hours that Limbaugh broadcasts each week day from noon to 3:00pm Eastern time. Talk about an assault on the First Amendment! Nothing surprising from America’s left, though.

The thinking, in what Limbaugh branded the “Hush Rush” movement, was that many of the 600+ radio stations that carry Limbaugh would be unable or unwilling to give up three hours of their precious broadcast day to “balance” him, and would drop the program. Limbaugh embraced the challenge gleefully, branded it “Hush Rush,” called it what it was, flogged it and beat it up one side and down the other, then kicked it and kicked it and kicked it again, and the more it whimpered the harder he kicked it … the move died aborning.

It was the biggest gift the left could have given Limbaugh. First, it solidified Rush’s audience behind him. He was right: the “Fairness Doctrine” was just a cheap, fascistic ploy to get Rush off the air. Furthermore, it was an out-and-out, naked announcement that the left was terrified of Limbaugh. Second, it was an opportunity for Limbaugh to paint the American left for what they are: petty, insecure, not-too-bright, neurotic would-be tyrants, whose only strategy to justify their thinking is to silence any and all dissenting voices. Limbaugh seized that opportunity with gusto, and utterly routed the movement to shut him up.

Again, regardless of your views on Rush Limbaugh, one thing that absolutely everyone agrees on — left, right or in the middle — he’s completely, relentlessly, unremittingly honest about what and who he is.

He’s an out, loud and proud Conservative in a country that absolutely needed just such full-throated, no-doubt-about-it, America-lovin’, family-respectin’, mom-dad-apple-pie-n’-baseball (KC Royals baseball, as it happens), lump-in-the-throat honesty as it never had.

In that sense, he’s the Ronald Reagan of the air-waves. The most powerful media personality there has ever been… by far — dripping with honesty and candor. His audience trusts him as they have trusted no one else since FDR’s fireside chats. Or since Reagan, the man whom Limbaugh openly, unabashedly, gushingly admires.

In his unapologetically loud, self-promoting, stratospherically confident  self-presentation, Limbaugh is the Babe Ruth of his craft. He calls his shot and then launches it even farther than he called it. When the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in 1994, they called Limbaugh “The Majority Maker,” because he contributed so mightily to the effort to replace the Democrats in Congress with Conservative Republicans.

Rush Limbaugh reads our blog. How do I know?

I know.

– xPraetorius

An Eight-Minute Orgy of Gypsy Jazz Guitar Goodness…


… and double-bass, violin and accordion. This will turn you into a gypsy, so watch and listen at your own peril. :)

Right here.

One of the comments: “I love how they look at each other’s solos with that ”Aw you son of a b**ch” -look on their faces. Brilliant.

– xPraetorius

Race! (Yikes!)


Race: Some thoughts you may not ever have read anywhere else

Someday someone actually has to deal with it. The dishonesty and vacuity that pervade today’s “debate” on race make that “conversation” just plain pathetic. And in the United States of America! Really? Are you kidding me? Are you freakin’ kidding me?

Everyone tiptoes around everyone else and no one addresses some really important questions that actually would allow a real debate to happen. And, just posing them also even might allow the debate to come to actual conclusions.

First some background-setting bullet points. These are statements of fact that no one disputes, or even could dispute.

Point 1. If  intelligence is measurable — it’s a BIG if! — then at any given moment any given race is more or less intelligent — on average — than any other given race.

Point 2. The study of “intelligence” is of recent vintage.

Point 3. There is no agreement on what “intelligence” means.

Some Elaboration:

On Point 1. This is obvious. If on your Race Intelligence Scale, one race scores an average of x then another race will score an average of y. Either x or y will be the larger number…for the purpose of this example, call it x. In this case, the race that scores x will be more intelligent — on the average – than the race that scores y. The important point: if that difference is substantial, then surely there are bound to be society-wide tensions, as the races grapple with inter-racial interaction.

On Point 2. The concept of “IQ” itself is barely more than 100 years old. The Benet-Simon and Stanford-Binet scales are all turn of the 20th Century innovations. All of this means that intelligence averages that purport to cover large, identifiable groups of people are nothing more than snapshots.

On Point 3. Put 100 people into a room and ask them to write down their definition of “intelligence,” and you’ll obtain 100 different answers. More important: put 100 psychologists in the same room and ask them the same thing, and again you’ll obtain 100 different definitions.

Now: some questions that should be brought up so that the “discussion” of racial differences could have some meaning, context and ummm…intelligence.

Question 1. One race is “more intelligent” than another. So what? Are they both still human? Ummm…I dunno, but if they have sex, do they produce a little one? If so, then that answer’s easy: Yes.

But…and it’s a big one: we speak honestly of, for example: dogs. German Shepherds are more loyal, or easier to train or this or that. Cocker spaniels are great hunting dogs, and, yep, we breed ‘em for that. St. Bernards are the best “rescue dogs.” Greyhounds are the fastest. Schnausers are the cutest. Mutts are the most family-friendly. I made these up, but you know what I’m talking about. No one even blinks if someone says, “Oh, I LOOOOOVE Golden Retrievers! They’re the BEST family dogs!”

And, we do this for all animal families: cats, horses, cows, birds, etc. In fact I point you to this entry in Wikipedia: “As domestic cats are little altered from wildcats, they can readily interbreed. This hybridization may pose a danger to the genetic distinctiveness of wildcat populations, particularly in Scotland and Hungary.

Anyone shocked by that entry? Of course not.

Now, substitute “human” where you see “cat” in that little snippet and read it to yourself. Here’s how it would read: “As domestic humans are little altered from wildhumans, they can readily interbreed. This hybridization may pose a danger to the genetic distinctiveness of wildhuman populations, particularly in Scotland and Hungary.”

Now how did that sound? More than a bit jarring, eh? Yet, we talk that way with no reluctance whatsoever when it comes to cats. Or dogs. Or horses. Or…name the species. Just not humans.

Question 2 (arising from question 1). Do we really think that the intra-species differences that we see in all other creatures are not present in humans?

Question 3 (arising from question 2). If we admit that the intra-species differences, both physical and mental that we observe in all other creatures are present in humans, then, again, so what?

Question 4. We all use the phrase “racial differences.” What are those differences? Are they physical, mental, moral, emotional, all of the above, none of the above?  Someone ought to provide a listing of the “racial differences.”

Question 5. Let’s stipulate that one race is more intelligent than another race. One could say also that one race is less intelligent than another race. Either way, let’s stipulate one of the above assertions. The first question is, of course, “so what?” The next question is what do we know about that relationship?

For example, what if the situation is as shown below? Note: the below is purely hypothetical. Say, from right to left, it’s a period of 2,000 years, from 1,000 AD to 3,000 AD, and the lines represent average IQ scores for two different races at different points in time. What could we observe?

Hypothetical relative average race-wide IQ scores for two hypothetical races.

Hypothetical relative average race-wide IQ scores for two hypothetical races.

Observation 1: Well, at any given time, except for a few very brief periods, one race is, on the average, more intelligent than the other.

Observation 2: at the year 2000, Race 2 has a significant intelligence advantage over Race 1. Here I’m making the assumption, in using the word “advantage,” that a higher IQ score is desirable.

Observation 3: In the year 2000, Race 2 is about to “peak” and then drop below Race 1, which never, in this hypothetical timeline, achieves the pinnacle that Race 2 achieves.

Observation 4: Race 2 starts and ends at a higher average IQ score.

Obervation 5: Race 1 spends a significant amount of time at a higher average IQ score than Race 2.

Observation 6: Things are looking dicey for Race 1 at the end of the above hypothetical…But, things occasionally looked dicey for both races throughout the period of the hypothetical chart.

Note: This is only a hypothetical, and I’m not positing that this is how things are or were… But, empirically speaking, I’ll bet things were and are like this. Just a question of the actual measurements and the actual lines. Makes sense, and no one can either prove it or disprove it. (Btw: these are really just two random, curvy lines I drew on a paper and scanned to a computer graphic.)

Question 6. Since no “snapshot” — which is all we have — of a given race tells even close to the whole story, what if, as is most likely, two different races are growing in intelligence at different rates? How should their relationship be? Especially if the race with the lower average intelligence is progressing less quickly than the race with the higher average intelligence.

One of my points: make any of these observations, pose any of these questions, even make any of these measurements or do any of this research and you risk being violently attacked as a racist. Even though you are doing the societal equivalent of, say, measuring, based on widely-agreed upon standards, the relative height of two different trees. When you state that one tree is taller than another, you state nothing more than an obvious, measurable, simple, non-debatable truth. And, yet, you will be branded: racist!

That’s messed up.

Because a very simple, and again undeniable, truth is: of all characteristics that carry positive or negative meaning, all races possess them in greater or lesser average degree than all other races. So, intelligence, honesty, diligence, hard-workingness, laziness, niceness, cruelty, mercifulness, are present in all races to a greater or lesser extent than in all other races…at all times.

Name the characteristic, and someone has thought up some way to measure it. Now go measure it. Guess what: all races will score differently.

The BIG question: what to do about it?

Well, how about first admitting that it’s not actually a problem. Whenever it’s a problem, it’s because someone has fabricated a problem.

We’re all actually just human beings. How positively weird to feel obligated to say that!

“Race relations” are nothing more than a reflection of our feelings pertaining to thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of individual interactions between individual members of each race. That’s all. When we find a less intelligent, less accomplished, less this or that member of our own race, it’s not a big deal, so it’s not really a big deal when we find a less this or that member of a different race. Unless, that is, we choose to fabricate a big deal out of it.

People need to shut the heck up about race. A dialogue about race? That’s all we freakin’ do is dialogue about race! We need to give this stupid “dialogue” a freakin’ rest! Most of us don’t care the teentsiest-weentsiets, ittiest-bittiest jot about race. If you’re a good dude or dudette, then I don’t care if your skin is freakin’ purple, I’ll still like you. (Though I will notice it, find it odd, and wonder about it. When and if I get to know you well, I’ll ask you about it.)

When we all stop obsessing about race, you’ll see that it hasn’t really been a big problem in America for a very long time. Yes, it has been a problem, and there are pockets where it is still a big problem. But, nationwide? Nope. Not for a long time.

– xPraetorius

Hoping One Day to Retire Here…


– and have guitar stuff like this happening all the time

Here’s the link.

I’d play guitar with these guys all day long.

– xPraetorius

Sobering…


I’ve long said that the difference between a free market system and socialism is simple: In the free market system, there is social, financial and political mobility. This guy, Professor Gregory Clark of the University of California at Davis, says that while what I’ve said is true, it’s really rare that anyone actually profits from all that mobility to improve his lot beyond that of his parents.

You’ll note that I used the three terms: Social, financial and political. The UC Davis prof says only: “social mobility.” I’m assuming that he means all three aspects of mobility that I referred to.

Here’s a passage from the article about the pessimistic prof.:

“America has no higher rate of social mobility than medieval England, Or pre-industrial Sweden,” he said. “That’s the most difficult part of talking about social mobility is because it is shattering people s dreams.” [Editor’s Note: Key word: “rate.” In other words, while there may be all the possibility for social mobility in the world, Clark observes that people are not actually moving up at rates greater than in pre-industial Sweden or medieval England.]

Pretty bleak assessment. What good is the opportunity for social advancement, if nobody’s taking advantage of it?

Here’s a bit more:

UC Davis students CBS13 spoke to dismissed the findings.
“The parents’ wealth has an effect on ones life but it’s not the ultimate deciding factor,” Andy Kim said.
Clark has heard the naysayers before.
“My students always argue with me, but I think the thing they find very hard to accept, is the idea that much of their lives can be predicted from their lineage and their ancestry,” he said.
Stuck in a social status is no American Dream—Clark says it’s the American reality.

Then Prof. Clark reveals some “good news”:

“The good news is that this is coming from an economist, because economists are used to being unpopular, and so we are the right people to bear this message that the world is a limiting place,” he said.

Great. The good news is that an unpopular dude is delivering the bad news. Whew! What a relief!

But, wait — there is some good news! It’s:

There’s one caveat to the study, and that is for any one of us, there is always an exception to the rule.

And, as it turns out, that is the good news. You might be able to predict with a high degree of confidence, a person’s socio-economic status based only on his parent’s circumstances, but you are not sure. You and I can improve our lot over that of our parents.

In a socialist society, there is no chance of changing your circumstances. Remember: in a socialist society — a real socialist society — there’s no such thing as private property. And the government owns all the “means of production,” meaning the machines, equipment, tools and facilities necessary to start and grow a business… and improve your circumstances beyond that of your parents.

Without such a thing as private property, how do you measure individual social or economic progress? More to the point, what incentive is there to work hard to advance in society?

There’s a reason “Thou shalt not steal” is enshrined as one of the basic, fundamental rules for society. The commandment was not “Thou shalt not own.” The commandment presumes that there is ownership, and tacitly endorses it. If there is no ownership, then there can exist, of course, no possibility of theft, and no need for a commandment against it.

However, the professor’s assessment is a sobering reminder: If you want to have circumstances that are better than those of your parents, then you have to do two things: (1) something different from what they did, and (2) something superior to what they did.

I figure you also have to work hard.

More to the point, if society wants to progress… to do and be better than it was in the current generation’s parents’ time, then society has to do something different and something better. Only the free market allows for the possibility of the innovation (doing something different) that permits progress.

Important point: “Social mobility” means upward and downward movement. It’s not necessarily a bad thing if people don’t do better than their parents. If, for example, holding all other things equal — a middle-class family, and subsequent generations, stays middle class, that’s an okay thing. It is a bad thing, if a lack of mobility means that there is no way to advance out of poverty. That’s a serious problem for society.

What needs to be understood is both the strength and solidity of social mobility in a country, and the direction of that movement in any given country. If you understand that, then you have a rock-solid understanding of the economic direction of a country. The more upward mobility, the better the prospects for that country. Period.

None of society’s quintiles, from top to bottom, look the same as they did a year previously, but if most movement is downward, then your society is in deep trouble.

The service that Professor Clark renders to us is to make a strong, if indirect, statement in indictment of big government and in support of the idea that the only way for one to improve on one’s parents’ socio-economic circumstances is to live in a free market economy. What a vast, unspeakable tragedy that America is doing its level best to head toward a socialist economy that inextricably locks its underclasses into their poverty, while dispossessing all those who offer the chance at advancement — except, of course, a tiny élite few.

Lastly: in a socialist society, there is nothing, really, to prevent one from falling into worse circumstances. However, all the rules and laws of socialist society stand in the way of ever bettering yourself. Socialism is, by definition, at best a failing society, at worst a failed society.

– xPraetorius

More Spectacular Gypsy Jazz Guitar Mojo…


… with some additional tenor sax thrown in. Again, the great Rosenberg Trio, with guest sax player, Koen de Cauter. I’m generally not a great fan of all things saxophone, but I like this arrangement of the great song, Bossa Dorado.

Stochelo Rosenberg is, as usual, brilliant at lead guitar.

If you prefer just guitar, with one of today’s finest masters of Gypsy Jazz, go here.

As a longtime guitarist, I can’t get enough of this.

– xPraetorius

What To Do; How To Do It (From the Archives but more relevant than ever)


Jay Nordlinger saying what I’ve been saying: Bitterfest 2012

David French saying what I’ve been saying: Conservatives’ Terrifying Message

– xPraetorius

 

 

What’s Wrong


It’s simple. Money is the lifeblood of an economy. There may be plenty of money in the economy, as there is now, but if it doesn’t circulate — move from one business, or person or bank or other entity to another — then the economy is having a heart attack.

Remember when everyone was saying that Americans weren’t saving enough? An alarming percentage of Americans were going from paycheck to paycheck, and that meant they weren’t putting enough aside for “a rainy day.” All economists were deeply concerned about it.  Well, they found the way — in the person of Barack Obama — to get everyone to save from the sheer, well-founded terror that they were going to lose their jobs. Immediately, gobs and gobs of cash just stopped circulating.

Boom: instant economic heart attack,

Bottom line: there needs to be a proper level of spending/saving going on, or else the society is not economically healthy. This is why there’s no “recovery,” despite the unrestricted cheerleading of the American press. Americans still haven’t been able to balance their spending with their saving. And they’re still going from paycheck to paycheck… only now with even less security than before the recession.

That’s not a recovery.

– xPraetorius

More Great Gypsy Jazz Guitar Mojo (La Gitane) Part II


This time, it’s by the great and wonderful Rosenberg Trio. Again, it’s “La Gitane” (The Gypsy Woman) and it’s a truly wonderful version of it. Such feel, such life, such energy, panache and touch! the little change in mood and touch at 1:45 is just wonderfully well done.

The great Angelo Debarre would approve.

– xPraetorius

Fraud!


There’s a lot of it out there. Some random examples, and some pure fun media-bashing.

  • Item: I pay $20,000 per year to send my daughter to college. In her curriculum will be a whole boat load of c4@p. Tell me: Why should I have to pay one thin dime for anything falling under the heading of “feminist,” “gay,” “women’s,” “queer,” “pop culture,” “pornography,” “African-American,” etc., etc., et ad nauseum cetera…”studies?”  None of this is useful for anything. You know what I mean. There’s just a glut of sheer garbage courses that waste space, time, money and minds in our universities. We live in Obama’s new America, where every student must be maximally prepared upon his or her exit from college….in order to differentiate him- or herself from the mooing herds who studied the above-enumerated c4@p.  If my daughter doesn’t have real hard and real soft skills when she finishes her undergrad degree, she will be like the rest of her peers: workless, hopeless, penniless. 
  • Item: The dominant media have power. Real, serious, exercisable, and exercised, power. In 1974, they toppled a President. They wield their power capriciously and in support of an agenda that they deny having. This is fraud, pure and simple. Let them try to deny it, I can prove it. Easily. The phrase: “They toppled a President in 1974,” proves my point conclusively. One more phrase: “To obtain power, you must try to obtain power.” Power must be a goal. It doesn’t drop into your lap by accident, by happenstance. The media have power because they wanted power, and have always  pursued power. Why? Simple. Who wouldn’t want power?!?
  • Item: It’s a simple and obvious fact: anything in the actual center will appear very much right-wing to a leftist. Simple as that. The fact that Fox News can demonstrate that it is actually fair and balanced in its news coverage, means that, by definition, the left will whine about how “right-wing” and extreme it is. They know this, and simply refuse to comment on it. A genuinely right-wing network would be something like “National Review TV.” Now that would be a network I’d watch! The other media? Fraud!
  • Item: The government’s handling (meaning: non-handling) of “Super Storm Sandy” was waaaaay worse than for Hurricane Katrina, for which the media still excoriate George W, Bush. Not a peep about Obama’s responsibility in the Sandy context. Fraud!
  • Item: The impeachment proceedings for a Republican President – any Republican President — would have begun long ago over Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and especially, drone killings. All driven by a firestorm of media outrage. Not a single peep so far from the media toward the Obama administration. Fraud!
  • Item: President Obama is plainly out of his element. An apparently decent, fairly intelligent, horrifically naive, tunnel-visioned, intellectually stunted hick greenhorn, chock full of thoughts and ideas that are nothing more than moronic leftist nitwittery. Yet the dominant media protect him as if he were their child. Wait a minute…he is! Fraud!
  • Item: People like Madonna suck billions of dollars out of the economy, without producing anything of lasting value or use. Then they whine about the greedy rich who don’t pay their fair share. Yet, they are absolutely free to donate tens of millions — heck billions! —  of their ill-gotten gains to the government without demanding higher “taxes on the rich” that we all would pay anyway. Yet they don’t. Frauds! All of them! Disgusting, greedy, slippery, slimy, horrible, parasitic frauds.

When history does its autopsy on America, the greatest country that ever existed, will Clio name Obama as an important culprit? Or the American people who allowed this doofus to perform his nutjob experiments with the greatest country that ever existed? Or the cultural rot that allowed the American people to stop paying attention and allowed Obama to perform his nutjob experiments with the greatest country that ever existed? Or all of the above?

– xPraetorius

Can’t Overstate the Importance of This


Of this, that is.

It’s nothing less than the difference between the ability of a country’s population to engage in genuine scientific inquiry, versus Lysenkoism.(1)

The difference between victory for National review et al, and defeat, is also the difference between the potential for a continued successful society and a third-world, tinpot dictatorship.

In the article linked at top, Charles C.W. Cooke summarizes the status up to today of the lawsuit Mann v. National Review.

If you think this is some esoteric thing that has no effect on your life, you should read this article. It serves to remind us all that we are never more than a few ideologically corrupt judges, power-hungry politicians or megalomaniacal demagogues away from unthinkable tyranny in America.

– Praetorius

Notes:


(1) From Wikipedia: Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.[2]

If this doesn’t neatly describe environmentalism, nothing does.

Drudge Headline: “SONY HACK ROCKS SHOWBIZ; NEW MOVIES LEAKED”


Hackers, it appears, have hacked their way into Sony’s computers and swiped all manner of stuff, including movies before their release, as well as all sorts of personal information about movie stars’ compensation, movie and studio budgets and the like.

Some are thinking that the North Koreans are behind it. Others think that China’s behind it. Some think both.

The bottom line is that Hollywood could lose a lot of money if yet-to-be-released movies are readily available on peer-to-peer websites out there. Also, there could be some serious embarrassment in some of the financial details shown above.

Some group calling itself #GOP — “Guardians of Peace” — are claiming responsibility. Is this a clumsy attempt to tie Republicans to it? Could be. If so, it appears so clumsy that no one would ever believe it. Except, that is, Democrats… not known for being overly burdened by anything resembling intelligence, but legendary for glomming onto every possible fraudulent attempt to tie Republicans to wrongdoing of any kind.

If it turns out that the Chinese or the North Koreans are responsible for it all, guess what sub-group of Americans will turn overnight from the biggest bunch of lily-livered, scaredy-pants, pinko-commie, beret-bedecked, granny-glasses-wearing peacniks, into fire-eyed, load-‘em-up-and-nuke-the-dastards hawks. Yep. You guessed it: Hollywood.

– xPraetorius

Prayers and Support for Finland (Part II)


In this post here, we showed how this is a particularly dangerous time for Finland, with an expansion-minded Vladimir Putin at the top of Russia.

Coincidentally, I’ve been having a back-and-forth with a certain Finnish guy named “rautakyy” concerning all sorts of philosophical things. The exchange was quite long, and I’ll just point you to it, here, rather than try to summarize all we talked about.

In that conversation, rautakyy made the point that Finland didn’t use the American nuclear umbrella, never wanted it, didn’t like it, and, in point of fact, feared it. I made the counter-point that, even if all he said were true, a fortunate by-product of the American nuclear umbrella (protecting NATO-members Norway and Denmark) was Finnish independence from Russia, as well as freedom from the responsibility of maintaining a defense budget, standing armies of any magnitude, and a credible deterrent.

Finland readily accepted the American protection, maintained a negligible defense budget, and a non-credible deterrent capability. As so many other countries did, Finland also established a smothering, heavily centralized socialist welfare state, out of the deleterious effects of which they are only now beginning to dig themselves.

We Americans provided protection for seventy years for all of Europe.  Rautakyy huffed and puffed a bunch about how it was all so unnecessary and how, really, Finns feared America more than the Soviet Union and all that.

Now, however, I’m guessing, that behind closed doors in Finland, the country’s leaders are bemoaning the de facto removal of American protection, by dint of American retrenchment and feebleness all around the world. It’s looking in Finnish eyes, as though if there were ever a propitious time for Russia to invade Finland, it would be now.

The current world situation simply underscores several serious, and increasingly obvious points:

  1. For good or ill, no decent people anywhere in the world fear America, and they never have.
  2. Billions around the world, wish that American armed forces would visit their countries in the same manner as they visited Afghanistan and Iraq in recent times.
  3. More than ever, the election of Barack Obama looks like the ascension to power in Great Britain of Neville Chamberlain.
  4. All this is leading to something. Something really big. Can’t you feel it?

As Ukraine struggles to avoid total assimilation, these facts aren’t lost on any country bordering Russia. Or China.

Again, we offer our prayers and support to Finland, as we also hope and pray that I’m wrong on point #4, above.

– xPraetorius

 

Prayers and Support for Finland


Does the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, want to take Finland?  Of course he does.

Play a little thought game with me: If a genie were to present a magic button to Putin and say, “Push the button and you will be able to take Finland with very little effort and no negative repercussions beyond some ‘international community’ bluff, bluster and ineffectual sabre-rattling.” Do you think Putin would push the button?

Of course he would.

Here are four links that resulted when I googled “Putin Finland”:

Just some quick thoughts about all that. Russia, in the guise of the Soviet Union back as World War II was starting up, went down this path before. Stalin’s armies invaded Finland, and after spirited but ultimately futile Finnish resistance, took large parts of the country.

For most of the 19th Century, Finland was part of greater Russia, and we all know that Putin has been in a mood recently to reclaim what was once the territory of “greater Russia.”(1)

Look at the third link above: “No, Russia isn’t about to invade Finland and Sweden – The …” The Washington Post has an opinion piece from one Adam Taylor who says that it just wouldn’t be in the best interests of Russia to invade Finland or Sweden. This is just the kind of argument the “peace-in-our-time-niks” were making just before World War II about Nazi Germany. They were right, of course. Ultimately it turned out that Hitler’s invasion of Poland was not in the best interests of Germany. It didn’t stop him, though, from invading Poland and launching World War II.

Maybe we shouldn’t think of homicidal maniacs as the best arbiters of what’s in the best interests of their countries.

Look also at the fourth link above: “Putin envoy warns Finland against joining NATO …” Do you see the little teaser just beneath the link? It says, “Does Finland want to start World War III?” and is a qustion posed by Putin ally Sergei Markov in response to the idea that Finland might join NATO in an attempt to forestall a Russian invasion.

Interesting, isn’t it, how Finland’s contemplation of an obviously defensive alliance is presented as an act of aggression? This is how aggressors always position things before an invasion. “Well, you see,” they say, “we had to invade… to protect ourselves!” It’s how Hitler tried to justify his 1939 invasion of Poland, even though everyone knew there was no way under the sun that Poland was a threat to Germany. Just as Finland is no threat to Putin’s Russia.

We offer our prayers and support to Finland in this very worrisome time.

We offer the same prayers and support to the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia…also once part of “greater Russia.”

We have friends in very high places, and will speak with them. Our friends will occupy even higher places after early January.

– xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) Putin understands the territory of  defunct The Soviet Union to be, really, greater Russia, along with a a bunch of other once-assimilated territories. No less an international leader than Charles deGaulle used to infuriate the Soviet leadership of the late 1960’s by calling The Soviet Union, “Russie” (Russia). However, a look at the then Soviet leadership showed — Russians as far as the eye could see, so they tended to fume quietly when he did that.

 

Looks Like We Called It


We made the case that if you have health insurance with a high deductible, you don’t necessarily have health coverage. Here’s one of our posts on the topic.

Our point:

We’ve said it here, and on other pages many times: “Free” healthcare, no matter the quality, is perfectly worthless if no one can get it. You can paraphrase that a bit to tell the tale of Obamacare: “Healthcare insurance — no matter how ‘affordable’ — is perfectly worthless if you can’t get healthcare with it.”

We also said, here:

Oh, with Obamacare, you’ll have “insurance” alright, you just won’t be able to obtain medical care. In the most absurd of cases, like this one, you simply won’t be able to afford your insured medical care! We’re already hearing how depressingly freakin’ common this scenario already is.

Then, of course, as doctors leave their practices in droves, you can have all the insurance you want, but there won’t be any actual doctors around to give you medical care! No problem, right? If you survive this episode, maybe you can get actual medical care the next time!

It’ll be as if someone gave you $30,000 on the condition that you use it to buy a unicorn. Oh, and you have to pay a $6,000 deductible too for said unicorn. Looks as if that $30,000 just became useless, eh? That’s Obamacare. “We’ll cover you all the way up to $200,000, and all you have to do is pay $6,000 up front! Oh, and you have to find someone who’ll provide all that medical care also! Good luck!”

Read it well: Obamacare will deny medical care to people; Obamacare will ration medical care; Obamacare will kill people. Just a question of how many.

In this article in the Daily Caller, Sarah Hurtubise reports that Gallup is confirming what we said. Here’s a passage from the piece:

Thirty-three percent of Americans have delayed medical treatment for themselves or their families because of the costs they’d have to pay, according to the survey. Obamacare, of course, had promised that it would help make health care more affordable for everyone, but the number of people who can’t afford a trip to the doctor has actually risen three points since 2013, before most Obamacare provisions took effect.

The hardest-hit: the middle-class. Americans with an annual household income of between $30,000 and $75,000 began delaying medical care over costs more in 2014, up to 38 percent in 2014 from 33 percent last year; among households that earn above $75,000, 28 percent delayed care this year, compared to just 17 percent last year.

The lowest-income section, some of whom can take part in Medicaid and who are more likely to qualify for significant premium and cost-sharing subsidies on an Obamacare exchange, are less likely to delay care this year. Now, 35 percent of those who earn under $30,000 a year are putting off seeking medical care, down from 43 percent last year.

It’s a remarkable shift: after Obamacare’s redistribution of wealth, the middle class is actually delaying medical care due to high costs at a higher rate than the poorest section of the country, which is highly subsidized by taxpayers.

The growing problem could have serious consequences for the middle-class. Twice as many people (22 percent) have delayed treatment for serious illnesses than than for smaller problems (11 percent).

Here’s some more from the Daily Caller’s reporting:

Part of the problem is an ongoing shift towards higher deductibles and out-of-pocket costs, while health insurance premiums continue to rise all the same. The trend, which existed to some extent before Obamacare, increased in intensity with the onset of the health-care law. (RELATED: 4 Of 5 Companies May Hike Deductibles Due To Obamacare)

Some health policy experts argue that the trend helps cut down on wasteful health care spending. But those who already had health coverage, in many cases, are seeing their deductibles go up along with their premiums, making it more difficult than ever to afford medical care itself, on top of now-mandatory medical insurance.

Gallup’s results corroborate what many Obamacare supporters have confirmed about the health-care law: while it’s named the Affordable Care Act, its purpose was to increase the number of Americans with health insurance, not to make it more affordable for everyone.

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, admitted this week that congressional Democrats should not have passed Obamacare in 2010 because it didn’t benefit most of the middle class. (RELATED: Chuck Schumer: We Shouldn’t Have Passed Obamacare In 2010)

Or, as we said at top: All the insurance in the world, no matter how “affordable,” is perfectly worthless, if you can’t use it to obtain medical care.

This may fall in the broken record department, but you can read about the real-life, concrete results of so-called “free healthcare” in action, here: Obamacare in the Very Near Future — This is Deeply Frightening!

– xPraetorius

Great Gypsy Jazz Mojo – La Gitane (The Gypsy Woman)


These guys — apparently playing in someone’s living room — completely do justice to this great, rollicking gypsy jazz song. If you are not yelling at the end of it, there just might be something wrong with you. :)

They’re using a traditional serbian instrument called a “tambura.” Looks a bit like a cross between a guitar and a mandolin. Sounds quite nice.

Here is my idea of the definitive performance of “La Gitane.” Of course by the great Angelo Debarre.

My interpretation was, in my humble opinion, quite good, but Angelo Debarre is the quintessential gypsy jazz guitarist. Whereas my heart and soul are often in gypsy Rumania as well as the rest of Eastern Europe, I’ve been in America for so long that I can never be as authentic as Angelo.

Oh, well… he can’t do an “America the Beautiful” like I can.

– xPraetorius

 

Here’s A Problem


I’ll bullet this out to make it easier to follow.

  • “Joe” takes a job making widgets
  • With the skills he has, and the equipment at his disposal, Joe is able to make 10 widgets per week for which he is paid $50,000 per year
  • Joe becomes better at his job and gets to 15 widgets per week. It’s a 50% productivity improvement.
  • Joe gets a 10% raise to $55,000. Both Joe and the company make out on the deal.
  • Now Joe is making 15 widgets a week for $55,000
  • Joe looks at his work equipment, and what he does to produce those 15 widgets per week.
  • He says, “I can improve both my equipment and how I do my job,” so he does, and Joe’s company implements Joe’s improvements company-wide.
  • Joe now makes 20 widgets per week. Joe’s colleagues’ productivity improves also, due to Joe’s improvements.
  • As a result, Joe’s company has a serious competitive advantage and starts to do better than its competitors? Why? They are able to produce more widgets for less money due to the increased productivity. Other companies notice and adopt similar improvements. Soon the market levels out, and the new level of productivity is the norm.
  • Joe gets another 10% raise up to $60,500. Again, both Joe and the company make out on the deal.
  • Now the company upgrades its equipment…better equipment now means that Joe can make 25 widgets per week.
  • Joe is making 25 widgets per week and earning $60,500 annually. After a short time, the company absorbs the cost of the new equipment and begins to do really well.
  • Again the market figures it out as well, and everything levels out at the new productivity level. 25 widgets per week is the new normal.
  • This cycle continues. Eventually Joe and his company are both making good money.
  • Important Note: there is a limit beyond which Joe simply cannot make more widgets in a week, and still be Joe. *
  • Let’s say, as time goes on, that Joe is now making 50 widgets per week and being paid $100,000.

Now, here’s the problem:

You and I can both envision the above scenario, and yet at no point in that scenario did the idea that Joe could make the same amount, but work fewer hours per week come into play. I guarantee that Joe would occasionally have welcomed the opportunity to take his raise in the form of time off. Guarantee it. Yet, the simple idea of manipulating that 40-hour work week is almost never an option when it comes time to think of compensation, raises, etc.

– xPraetorius

  • Of course, the multiplier can continue indefinitely during Joe’s lifetime, given the possibility of multiplying Joe’s equipment continuously, and adding to Joe’s abilities to manage more equipment, and so forth. That’s why I said “and still be Joe.” Continue the improvements to Joe’s equipment, capabilities and processes, and, of course, Joe’s productivity will continue to increase over the span of his career. Needless to say also, if Joe continues simply to improve all these things, the smart company will move him into management, where he will bring his secrets for continuous productivity improvements. For the purpose of this essay, however, “Joe” is an archetype who remains a line worker throughout.

If It Weren’t So Pathetic…


…it’d be kind of funny. It’s not. Funny, that is.

Every time scum-sucking, dirtball, slack-jawed, drooling terrorists kill civilians in some hellhole in the Middle East, our moronic administration comes out with some stern statement about how the attack “doesn’t comport with Islam’s high ideals.”

The statement is meant to show the muslim world (1) just how much we really love and respect Islam here in the enlightened, but essentially atheist, Obama Administration, and (2) how expert and knowledgeable we are in everything Islamic.

Because, you see, if we’re telling the world that a terrorist attack isn’t consistent with “the high ideals of Islam,” then we’re saying that, ipso facto, we know — and can speak intelligently — about what specifically are the “high ideals of Islam.”

Look, this administration does know about the transformation of American society around the ideals of the community organizer. Their mode is that of the common scold. They’re busy re-shaping America around the “ideals” of the whining, self-obsessed likes of Lena Dunham, Sandra Fluke, “Julia” and “Pyjama Boy.”

But, this administration does not know from faith.

With the recent announcement that the Obama Administration is going to try to manage American society all the way down to the neighborhood level, they’re saying, that they will “help” us all to be the Americans that Obama thinks we ought to be. As opposed to the Americans we think we ought to be.

In our wonderful, “progressive” Obama Administration, no one gives a teeny, tiny hoot that America was founded on the fundamental premise that we all ought to be free to determine what kind of Americans we think we ought to be. It’s hard to overstate just how revolutionary that premise actually is. Apparently, though,  it’s way too advanced a concept for our Obama Administration to be able to understand. Obama views himself as transformative, as revolutionary…but, he’s nothing more nor less than the most regressive possible of reactionary throwbacks.

Is there anything less progressive, less revolutionary, than a hugely powerful, central élite cadré that considers itself smarter than you or I, as it acts, “in our best interests,” to model society in its own vision? The answer is, of course: no. That kind of government has been in place since the beginning of time.

Furthermore, our Obama Administration overlords do not know from faith. This is the ultimate secular administration. Their hostility to the incredible selfless decency that is Christianity is astonishing. Christians, using Christianity as their sole “weapon,” have helped more people out of poverty, despair, helplessness and hopelessness than any government in the history of the world. But, Obama and his henchmen have done their level best to impede, harass, block and oppress Christian organizations and individual Christians.

Even worse, Obama and his gang of “community organizers,” don’t know from Islam.

In the perception of this administration — which honestly would prefer never to have to deal with all these ridiculous, religious rubes in the first place, but Islam is just so darned jam-packed with ‘em that we have to take these superstitious idiots seriously — Islam is good because it it implacably opposed to Christianity. Hence, Islam simply must have “high ideals” that would preclude, of course, things like terrorist attacks against civilians. Needless to say, this “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” viewpoint is moronic and naive.

The Obama Administration is about to make the same really stupid mistake for which they so loudly jeered the Reagan and Bush (41) administrations: If we subtly or overtly take militant islamists’ side against enemies like Israel, American Conservatives, or anyone else, then the islamists will love us. But it was the Carter, Clinton and Obama Administrations that took the appeasement to the ridiculous heights where it is now. Remember: It was Carter who threw the shah under the bus, in favor of Ayatolloh Ruhollah Khomeini. We continue to pay for that idiocy in spades today.

What our Democrat “leaders” don’t know is that while most “rank and file” muslims are slack-jawed, drooling idiots, their leadership — their puppet masters, or their “shepherds” :) if you will — is clever and crafty. They know that Obama and his administration are largely atheists. Muslims hate atheists more than anything else. However, the islamists are dangling the “we just might be your friends” carrot in front of the hopelessly out-of-its-league Obama Administration, because (1) it serves their purposes perfectly, and (2) it works. Can you say: “Nuclear Iran?” Oh, and how’s that rollback of “ISIL” going?

If Obama holds off on attacking the islamist dirtbags, then most of the “battlefield” — be it real or in the media — is wide open for them. Of course, Obama and and his slack-jawed, drooling, Democrat morons are stepping enthusiastically into the trap.

For these brain-dead nitwits — the ones ruling the United States of America — there is no more dangerous or evil enemy than Conservative or Christian Americans. Our “leaders” are perfectly willing to sacrifice the security of the United States of America — the greatest, most decent, most “progressive” country, in any way you could possibly define it, in history  — to try to defeat these vicious Conservative and Christian enemies.

Elections do have consequences. Democracy can produce scumbags, morons, idiots, sleazeballs and doofuses like those who dominate the Obama Administration today.

Can you tell I was bit torqued off here?

–  xPraetorius

The Drudge Headline is…


BARONE: Beginning of the end for Pelosi?

America, the Democrats, and you and I can only hope that we will soon see an end to the reign of inanity, vapidity and air-headed insipidity that has characterized the tenure of Nancy Pelosi atop the Democrats in the House of Representatives.

Nancy Pelosi is one of the great, towering, massive, astronomical … mediocrities … on the American political landscape. Her longevity is a testimony to the exhaustion of the Democrat Party itself. Long out of ideas that are not long-discredited hippy pap from the 1960’s, the party has been reduced to bribing as many identifiable segments of society as they can, in order to get a vote of 51% in any given national and local elections.

Each of these societal segments then acts like a trichina worm. It lives, feeds and reproduces in its host, all while weakening and eventually killing it.

Nancy Pelosi has been a prime architect and influential champion of the parasitic nature of her party for many years.

Like any leftist, she has clung to her seat of power atop her colleagues through thick and thin. Neither success nor failure, nor even cataclysmic failure, as in the last election cycle, has diminished her authority in her party. This is one of the reasons for the intellectual bankruptcy of the Democrat Party. When they fail — even when they fail massively, as in the last election — the leadership stays on.

When Republicans have bad election results, their leadership resigns, and new blood, new thinking, comes in. Democrats share the principal characteristic of the left: they crave power. When they don’t have it, they do everything in their power — legal or illegal, ethical or unethical, decent or indecent, honest or dishonest — to win it. Then, when they have power, they fight tooth-and-nail not to relinquish it.

Look at the Senate. Harry Reid still sits atop Senate Democrats. Can you imagine that? Obama-Pelosi-Reid are the triumvirate of Tweedle Dum, Tweedle Dumber and Tweedle Dumbest atop today’s Democrat Party. Nancy Tweedle Dumber Pelosi is tottering, but Dumb and Dumbest remain.

This is why, even though the Democrats will win elections, they’ll never be a serious party until they get rid of the intellectual dead weight that is their left-wing; the wing that comprises their leadership.

– xPraetorius

The Easy, Breezy, BREATHTAKING Arrogance of the Left


Watching a panel consisting of three Supreme Court Justices: Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor. While, Thomas and Alito have been modest and self-deprecating, Sotomayor has spoken of the vast gifts she, and the others, of course, possess. She told how she (and the others) were also great lawyers, and could quite easily “write the best arguments for both sides of each question.”

Alito then, in typical Conservative, self-deprecating fashion, told of how he had made a decision on an appellate court that was reversed 9-0 by the Supreme Court. It was a really graceful puncturing of the crowing balloon that the supremely self-confident, but none too bright, Sotomayor so casually tossed off.

Listening to Thomas… Again, modest, self-deprecating. Almost sweet.

Sotomayor shoots right back with nonsense. Rarely talks about the law — the only thing the Supreme Court should concern itself with — and frequently talks about feelings and life experiences and the like, all of which are perfectly irrelevant to their “job” as a Supreme Court justice — interpreting the law. Interesting how crashingly ignorant a Supreme Court justice could be about what she’s supposed to do in her job. And, then how arrogant she could be in talking about herself.

Typically the most ignorant are the most arrogant, and the most confident in their views. And usually the most far-out, off-the-mark, waaaaay-out-there-in-left-field … wrong.

– xPraetorius

I Only Call Him a Doofus


Jonah Goldberg calls Obama a troll!

He’s right, of course. In a typically brilliant and insightful column, Goldberg says that Obama is “trolling Republicans” with his unilateral — and illegal — act to document undocumented aliens.

In so doing, he also manages to eviscerate the idea that what Obama did was legal, all while laying bare Obama’s true motives: (1) goad Republicans into over-reacting, and (2) make Hispanics permanent, dependent, members of the Democrat Party coalition.

Here are some illustrative passages:

I don’t like the president’s executive action on immigration. I think it’s constitutionally dubious — for exactly the reasons Obama has insisted more than 20 times in the past. “I’m not a king. My job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law,” Obama told Telemundo in 2013. “When it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws, we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law.”

If all King Obama was doing was opting not to deport some immigrants here illegally, he’d be on safer ground. But his new proposal would allow an estimated 3.5 million “undocumented Americans” to get all sorts of documents — Social Security numbers, work permits, drivers licenses, etc. That’s not prosecutorial discretion, that’s a rewrite of existing law.

Needless to say, for the President to make, write, or re-write law is completely illegal, and a naked menace to our democratic form of government, based as it is, on the clear enumeration and separation of powers.

With the arrival in early January of a new Republican Congress — both the Senate and the House of Representatives — we will enter a new period of serious constitutional crisis. Obama has been usurping power for his entire term, and the one man who has allowed that to happen is Harry “Obama’s Lapdog” Reid. The criminality of which Harry Reid is guilty, for allowing Obama to be credibly accused of trying to be King Obama, is breathtaking.

Goldberg doesn’t mention Reid in his column, but he’s aware of Reid’s perfidy. When historians write the post mortem of the chaotic, rudderless, pernicious Obama Administration, Reid will go down in history as one of America’s great villains. Up there with Benedict Arnold.

Quick Prediction: After Obama, there will be at least a brief, if not longer than brief, period of “re-construction” or “re-alignment,” as Congress and the Presidency struggle to re-implement a normal power relationship after the Obama-Reid disease.

In the meantime, Barack Obama’s efforts have well earned for himself several dubious titles: (1) King, (2) Troll, and, of course: (3) doofus.

– xPraetorius

Truly Wonderful Guitar Mojo


Here is Stochelo Rosenberg and his trio. This is truly great guitar stuff. It’s one of the styles I play, but no one does it as well, with such joie de vivre, and such a rapport with the audience as Stochelo and his cousins with their trio.

– xPraetorius

Full Circle


In proving , once and for all, that socialism is the reactionary movement that I’ve been saying it is, we’ve all heard the “newsies” say that Vladimir Putin is trying to bring us all back to the bad old days of the Soviet Union.

Yep. You heard it right. The “bad old” days. But, but, but… wasn’t the Soviet Union the very pinnacle of all that was fresh, and progressive, and forward-thinking, and new, and shiny, and futuristic? Of course it was!

Wasn’t it?

Well, that was what the left said it was. For freakin’ decades they said it. From the 19-tens to the 1990’s!

Forget the tens of millions murdered to get to where the Soviet Union was, when it … just sort of folded, or collapsed(1). That was back when our media and academia and Hollywood were all worshiping at the altar of the sheer greatness of all leftist/Soviet things. Now, they still do it, but they’ve long since jettisoned the old Soviet Union as uncomfortable baggage whose sullied reputation stands in the way of further leftist and socialist “progress.” Never mind that the Soviet Union — for seventy-five years — was world socialism.

How interesting now to see the comparisons of Putin — the man trying to bring back the “glories” of socialism to Russia — with Hitler.

When the inevitable conflict with Putin — or his hand-picked successor — comes around, watch how quickly Putin, the one hungering for a communist revival becomes re-defined as a “right-winger.”(2) Now that Putin’s acting increasingly like a leftist — consolidating central power, expanding state power, repressing any dissent, controlling the press — look for him to be labelled a right-winger by all leftists.

The big, fat, stupid, brain-dead, leftist idea has long since toppled due to the weight of its own internal contradictions on every possible issue. Only the American media, Hollywood and the most reactionary group of all — American academia — keep the old corpse on life support.

– xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) Has anyone stopped to ponder publicly on that colossal tragedy? Seventy-five years of blood, death, mayhem, disruption, torture… for what? Oops? Just a big oops? That’s the left for you. Stalin said: “The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic.” He meant it.

(2) I can even tell you the “forensic evidence” the “historians” will use: “George W. Bush said he could ‘see the man’s soul,'” in indicating that he liked Putin, after meeting with him. Never mind that Bush subsequently denounced Putin. Leftist “historians” are nothing if not selective in their views.

 

What If’s…


I’ve been having an argument with a dude in Finland, named “rautakyy.” I’m a Conservative Christian, and he’s an atheist socialist. He and I have gone back and forth, and he has said what I’ve heard so often: what about the ones who say, “God told me to do it,” after having killed her kids? “You see,” says the other dude, “Christianity can lead to violence and mayhem. Christianity must be evil.”

Our discussions ranged far and wide. We even covered Hitler’s supposed “Christianity.” Rautakyy says that, since Hitler called himself a Christian, then he was a Christian. I said Hitler was not a Christian, but rather an atheist. We went back and forth on that a bit, with me countering rautakyy with four main points: (1) rautakyy believed Hitler, hardly a “reliable source.” (2) Hitler did nothing that resembles Christianity (3) There’s nothing in Christianity that could possibly be used to justify Hitler’s behavior. (4) rautakyy believed it when Hitler said he was a Christian, but not when Hitler called himself a socialist.

In vain, for the atheist, will you say that the person who shoots her children, or murders millions, is just crazy. No, says rautakky the atheist, the woman who killed her children was a Christian, because she said she was. And Hitler was a Christian because he said he was. Never mind that any Tom, Dick and atheist can call himself a Christian anytime he wants, whenever he decides it’s convenient, and for whatever reason. You and I know they’re not Christians, but the atheist is all about the supposed “Ah, hah!” moment.

But, says, rautakyy, Hitler was not a socialist because, well, because rautakyy didn’t want to believe that Hitler was a socialist.

So, I thought I’d try something else.

  1. What if a guy who calls himself a socialist decided not to kill people, and began to support policies that would allow the poor to improve their circumstances? You and I both know the dude would not be a socialist. He’d be a fake. A charlatan.
  2. What if a leader of the Democrat Party in America decided to tell the truth about the likely consequences of his policy prescriptions? Whoooaaa! I know, I know… pretty improbable! However, play along with me for a bit. If a Democrat were to tell the truth, then you and I both know that would be no Democrat. That would be a right-winger of some sort.
  3. What if a leftist were to start supporting policies that removed the governmental boot from the throat of the working class? Again, every other leftist in the world would sneer, “That’s no leftist, that’s a closet right-winger who’s come out of the closet!”
  4. What if a Democrat Party leader were to begin to advocate policies that respect black people as people in full, not as little babies needing leftists to take care of them… and take their votes? Again, every Democrat party leader in the land would leap forward to denounce the guy as a phony Democrat, a DiNO (Democrat in Name Only), a turncoat and traitor.
  5. What if a Democrat decided not to bribe people for votes? Yep. You guessed it. Thrown overboard and under the bus by all his former left-wing friends. What would they say? “That’s no Democrat,” they’d say, “and he never was!”

Socialists and Democrats do what they can to divide populations on whatever lines make it easiest for the left to take power. They lie to the people to manipulate them into letting them have power. They take from others and give to still others in order to manufacture political support. They gather and accumulate and collect and concentrate power to the central government, so that when they assume power, they won’t have to relinquish it again.

Then, when the occasional leftist steps slightly away from the orthodoxy, all other leftists circle the wagons, and toss the offending former leftist out in the cold. “He was, really,” they say, “never a real leftist, and we never knew him. Heck we’ve barely heard of him!”

Remember the treatment that Jonathan Gruber got when he accidentally told the truth about how Obamacare was passed? Pelosi, Obama, et al. shoveled him right quick under the ol’ Greyhound parked out front for the purposes of collecting leftists who stray from the reservation.

For some international/historical perspective on this, go with me to Czechoslovakia in 1968. A guy named Alexander Dubček is pretty much running the country. It’s a socialist hellhole, as all unabashed socialist countries are. Then Dubček decides to stop oppressing the people so much. He liberalizes markets a bit, allows some free speech, some freedom of association, some freedom of movement, some other freedoms, and he calls it: “socialism with a human face.”

Now why, do you think, that he had to recharacterize socialism that way? I thought that socialism was supposed to be, you know, the humane governmental system! Isn’t socialism all about, you know, equality, and justice, and power to the people, and all that supposedly great stuff?

Well, if you remember, also in 1968, the leadership of the then Soviet Union understood perfectly well that they couldn’t have people running around suggesting that (1) socialism didn’t have a “human face,” and (2) in giving a “human face” to socialism, Alexander Dubček had to grant to the population basic freedoms that you and I take completely for granted.

The 1968 Soviet leadership realized that Dubček (3) had inadvertently let the socialist cat out of the bag, so the Soviet army invaded Czechoslovakia and made sure that Dubček went away. Dubček, you see, had actually tried “What if’s” #’s 1 and 3, above. And he had suffered exactly the same defenestration that is the left’s prescription for anyone who strays.

It has always been this way with the left.

The expression is: “Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” This means that, at some point, Christians have to act like Christians, in order to be Christians. In this increasingly secular world, it’s increasingly difficult to do that, but it’s still true. The second half of that expression indicates that when Christians act like Christians, then there are good results… the figs (good things) that you gather from fig trees (Christian behavior), not from thistles (non-Christian behavior).

So, it shouldn’t be all that difficult for leftists and atheists to understand how when a guy like, say, Hitler, does nothing in his life that even slightly would indicate that he’s a Christian, but calls himself a Christian, we say he’s not a Christian.

Got it? (Shouldn’t be all that tough…really)

:)

– xPraetorius

NPR Watch – The “P” Word – 11/21/14


Just finishing up this draft from a few days ago –


I was listening to National Public Radio that morning on the way to work. It was their morning “news” show, “Morning Edition,” hosted today by Steve Inskeep and Arun Rath.

They were, of course, covering President Obama’s announcement that he’s going to stop enforcing immigration laws for a significant number of people here in the country illegally. There’s so much to say on this topic, but I have to meet with some people in a few minutes, so I’ll keep this brief.

One thing, among many, that struck me was the very, very, very obvious fact that this action — love it, hate it or something in-between — was purely political.

Obama knew it would hurt election chances for vulnerable Democrats in November’s mid-term elections, and he knew that he would lose complete control of the Congress when Mitch McConnell becomes the Senate Majority Leader in early January of next year. So he did this thing during the “lame duck’ session of Congress.

Before that, from Obama it had been six years of delay and “I can’t,” and “It would be wrong,” and “It exceeds my authority,” and ‘The Congress needs to do this,” and “It would be against the Constitution.”

Now, though, it’s all: “I have to do it! And I have to do it now.” and “Of course it’s legal,” and “It’s obviously within the scope of my authority,” and “I must act now.

Obama does nothing based on something like cherished principles. Everything he does comes from his answer to the question: “What will get the most votes, or lose the fewest votes?” This is what Democrats do.

Remember John “I was for it before I was against it” Kerry? Remember Obama on gay marriage? Firmly opposed to it until it was no longer a politically tenable position to have in his party.

Politics is power. Obama is all about politics. That’s his prime directive; his principal principle. He’s about the power. He was never about anything else.

– xPraetorius

What I STILL Haven’t Heard from Ferguson


No one has asked any of the professional race-baiters stoking the flames of racial hatred and violence in Ferguson: “What if the officer actually didn’t commit a crime?” Then, there’s the obvious follow-up: “Is it still okay to riot?”

There are a bunch of questions to the rioters and their leaders that come from that simple, logical question, and it’s follow-up:

  • How do you know that a crime was committed against Michael Brown? What real evidence do you have? Sean Hannity asked that question to one of the Brown family lawyers, who said that the trajectory of one of the bullets “proved” that Wilson shot Brown from above. Yet, it was easy to see that the trajectory of the bullet described by the lawyer could have been observed in the case of a “football-style,” head-down charge as described by the officer. In other words, the only piece of actual evidence brought forth publicly by the people siding with the rioters… did not indicate guilt.
  • Is it at all problematic to you that no evidence has been made public that strongly indicates that the officer committed a crime? Remember: it’s lawful for a police officer to use deadly force if he believes his life to be in peril. Are you absolutely positive, not a shadow of a doubt, that Michael Brown was not imperiling Officer Wilson?
  • Do you really not see the irony in the strong resemblance between your attempts to convict Wilson without due process and lynching?
  • Would you like it if the races and roles were reversed — black cop shoots unarmed white teenager — and hordes of white people were crowding into the streets to call for the indictment and conviction of the cop? With no evidence or due process?
  • What kind of “justice system” would that be — where people are convicted of crimes, or not, based on their race?
  • Is that really a “justice system” you would want to live under?
  • Under what legitimate reason would you not allow at least some investigation to take place before you riot, threaten the life of the cop, call for his trial, etc.?
  • Why were there no riots after the acquittal of O.J. Simpson?
  • A commonly-viewed slogan in the riots was: “Black Lives Matter.” Okay. Doesn’t your insistence that Officer Wilson be charged with a crime before an investigation, constitute your declaration that white lives don’t matter?
  • If so, culturally speaking, should white people just sit back and accept that from you? Or — and it’s a big one — are you not actually justifying, or at least causing, prejudice against you?
  • Don’t you find it ironic that you almost never hear about it when a black person commits a crime against a white person? Yet it happens quite a lot.(1)
  • Are all acts of hostility by a white person against a black person automatically crimes?
  • Are all acts of hostility or violence by a black person against a white person justified?
  • Things done by white people, that would normally be crimes, are they not crimes if done by black people?
  • Same question in reverse: Things done by black people that are not crimes, are they then crimes when done by white people? Same example as above: Imagine the races of the two people in Ferguson were reversed. It’s pretty obvious that if a black Darren Wilson had shot a white Michael Brown, outside of Ferguson we’d have heard nothing of it.

The reason the answers to these questions are important is: they show the difference between third-world, tinpot dictatorships — in which certain groups are overtly favored to the detriment of others — and real countries that offer their populace real opportunities for freedom, security and prosperity.

In vain can you point to segregation, Jim Crow, slavery, racism and discrimination against blacks, and say, “See? See? The United States was a third-world, tinpot, dictatorship! According to your own words!” Nope.(2) Those unsavory aspects of our past — developed, and vociferously defended by, or widely prevalent in, the Democrat Party — were perpetrated by an élite, but fringe, government faction — Southern Democrats — against a small minority of the population.

Such things were all, plainly, illegal. There was no legal justification for any of them, and they were doomed to go away — which they did — as soon as people focused on them for more than a moment or two.

When Republicans first began to propose Civil Rights legislation all the way back in the Eisenhower Administration, it was to end discrimination against a small minority. In third-world, tinpot dictatorships, it’s the reverse: a tiny, illegitimate minority imposes its will against the vast majority of the people.

It’s for this reason that racism is a staple of socialism, since the principal characteristic of socialistic countries is: a tiny élite imposing its will on the people.

Sure enough, our country’s accelerating trajectory toward socialism has accompanied a steady worsening in race relations.

– xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) According to the great Jason Riley: “…liberals spend their time spotlighting white racism, real or imagined, and touting it as an all-purpose explanation for bad black outcomes.

Ferguson helps further that agenda in ways that Chicago does not. Hence, the left posits that the Michael Brown shooting is the norm, even though the data show that it’s the exception. And if black criminal behavior is a response to white racism, how is it that black crime rates were lower in the 1940s and 1950s, when black poverty was higher, racial discrimination was rampant and legal, and the country was more than a half-century away from twice electing a black president?

Racial profiling and tensions between the police and poor black communities are real problems, but these are effects rather than causes, and they can’t be addressed without also addressing the extraordinarily high rates of black criminal behavior—yet such discussion remains taboo. Blacks who bring it up are sell-outs. Whites who mention it are racists. (Mr. Dyson accused Mr. Giuliani of “white supremacy.”) But so long as young black men are responsible for an outsize portion of violent crime, they will be viewed suspiciously by law enforcement and fellow citizens of all races.

Pretending that police behavior is the root of the problem is not only a dodge but also foolish. The riots will succeed in driving business out of town, which means that Ferguson’s residents will be forced to pay more at local stores or travel farther for competitive prices on basic goods and services. Many Ferguson residents today can’t go to work because local businesses have been burned down.

Even worse, when you make police targets, you make low-income communities less safe. Ferguson’s problem isn’t white cops or white prosecutors; it’s the thug behavior exhibited by individuals like Michael Brown, which puts a target on the backs of other young black men. Romanticizing such behavior instead of condemning it only makes matters worse.”

(2) These late, unlamented things are indeed important characteristics of third-world, tinpot dictatorships. Their disappearance proved that the United States was not such a country. More to the point, their disappearance was evidence of the way a healthy society deals constructively with damaging parts of itself. No society is perfect. The way to gauge the health of a country is to observe how it deals with its imperfections over time

At Some Point It’s Just Theft


Obama has said, time and time again, that the “rich ought to ‘pay their fair share.'”

This despite the fact that the wealthy already pay the vast majority of all taxes.

– xPraetorius

A Daddy’s Prayer for His Children


Daughter/Son: — my sweet loves, my heart, loves and happiness of my life — I don’t care if you blame me, for whatever, if and only if you choose to be better than I am.

I’m an older man, and I love you more than I can ever say. But  I never felt that I was able to convey that latter thought into your minds.

I did try to make sense. If you have values, I hope and pray that some of them are good — really good — and that if I’m lucky, they came to you as a result of what I was able to give you. Truly, though, I pray that Jesus has had free reign in hour heart all your life.

I hope I gave you an abiding love for honesty and integrity. I hope I gave you a thirst for knowledge, as well as a hunger for real, true knowledge.

Most importantly, I hope I gave you a hunger to know God.

I pray that I was able to show you how it is absolutely right to love everyone, without exception. Jesus commanded us to do that, but here’s an important insight that comes only from having lived and loved a few years on Earth: a few extra years are important… and meaningful. Love everyone. Especially the jerks and dolts and numbskulls we encounter. Even Obama. No exceptions.

An anecdote: I was the Grand Knight as of my local Knights of Columbus council, and I mentioned that Christ commanded us to love Osama bin Laden and his comrades, as we love our neighbors and our selves.

My Brother Knights — whom I love today as I loved them then! — looked on in stunned silence. Love Osamsa bin Laden?!? You’re kidding, right? What the heck was that all about?!?

Well, you tell me: “What does ‘you need to love your enemy'” mean, if not loving bin Laden in some way, hmmmm…?”

– xPraetorius

So Disheartening


The Tsarnaevs, Kermit Gosnell, George Tiller, sex-selection abortion, late-term abortion,  euthanasia, the horror show in Cleveland…so many people — some of  them our neighbors! —  treating the safety, the health, the well-being and happiness, the very life of others, as so many trinkets to be toyed with, or crushed, as their whim urged them.

Each time one of these ghouls raises his head, we look at the circumstances that surround him and conclude gloomily that there must be more — dozens? hundreds? thousands? — just like him all about.

Surely, we think, there can be only one Kermit Gosnell! But, what was it that allowed Kermit Gosnell to become Kermit Gosnell? Easy: a decades-long ownership of the cities by the “pro-choice” Democrat Party.” Decades-long! Think there are no more Kermit Gosnells out there? Think again. I’ll bet there’s one on every corner in Detroit, in Chicago, in Seattle, in Los Angeles, in New York, in Boston.

In my state? I’ll bet there’s one around every corner in Hartford, in Bridgeport, in New Haven…

Think there’s only one Gosnell? Think again.

And how many Tsarnaevs could there possibly be?!? Oh, I dunno…how difficult is it to get into this country through, say, the Mexican border? Or across the Canadian border. How toiugh would that be? Do ya think some of  ‘em might find it easy to sneak across? Heck, sneak? They can just saunter in and latch onto the free money the Democrats keep taking from you and me!

“Hi! I’m here from a country chock full of people who can’t wait to kill you Americans! I’ve come for the free money and the free housing and the free food  and the free education! Where do I sign? Oh, and can you point me to the nearest place where I can find materials that would let me make a bomb?”

Think there’s only one Tsarnaev? Thing again.

How about the ghouls in Cleveland? How about them? Surely there can’t be anymore of them! Think again.

Remember when the police almost caught Jeffrey Dahmer when one of the young boys he was going to abuse sexually — then eat — escaped briefly? Remember that? The police didn’t want to interrupt Dahmer because, you see, they knew full well that if they bothered a homosexual, as Dahmer was, then they risked catching it from the politically-connected and politically correct gay crowd. Best to leave that one alone! So they did, and more young boys got caught, sexually abused, murdered … and eaten. Dahmer was caught in the act — apparently the only way the police might actually investigate him — in 1991, almost 22 years ago.  Do you think that political correctness has improved since then?

In the 911 call that Amanda Berry made to let police know that she had escaped, she let slip that the name of her kidnapper was Ariel Castro. Oops! Uh oh! I guarantee you the police had a quick meeting before responding to that call!

Have to tread lightly with that case! This “ten years of abuse” thing? Could be just a “cultural quirk!” What if this ummm…”unusual” living arrangement chez la famille Castro is just a manifestation of how they do that kind of thing…

How soon will it be before Ariel Castro — the one who’s been charged so far — finds a lawyer who’ll call the whole prosecution racism! How dare you arrest and prosecute this fine Hispanic man just because of his sexual orientation?!? It’s his choice to have sex in this manner! Who are you to say how and with whom he can have sex!?! You and I both know it: someone’s going to say it, and, worse: someone’s going to believe it!

Think there’s only one, or at least just a very few, Ariel Castros out there? Think again.

Way back when, there were these monsters too…but they didn’t have the fake ways out of paying for their depredations, and they didn’t have the dominant political party in America — the Democrat Party — working hard to bring others just like them into America, there to prey upon the innocent. And they didn’t have that same political party insisting that as soon as we identify a common characteristic of these monsters, we can’t use that crucial knowledge to protect Americans from future such predators.

In other words, before our modern age of political correctness, when there were such monsters — such as here and here and here — they were lone wolves…almost by definition. Now, however, our imbecilic state-of-mind, imposed on us by that selfsame Democrat Party — practically guarantees that such scum will be part of a larger group of similar scum.

– xPraetorius