Drudge Sampler (Edition X – 8/26/15)


Headlines in the DrudgeReport:


Our comment: See whether you can guess just how Obama “has meant nothing.” Yep. You guessed it. He wasn’t left enough for this half-wit moron of the left. A cursory reading of the moronic lovefest/article/mash note that one Jen Yamat of the Daily Beast wrote, shows this nearly immediately. Here’s the opener from the waste-of-electrons that is the Yamato piece:

Last week on Larry King Now, Morrissey sealed his place as one of popdom’s most incendiary [Editor’s note: and uninformed, ignorant, shallow and stupid] cultural critics by dropping unfiltered, unapologetic, and eloquently devastating truth bombs in the face of contemporary America—and he isn’t done critiquing everyone from President Obama to 2016 GOP hopeful Donald Trump.

Yeah. Okay.

One of the truths of which Obama is aware is that he was elected by… you guessed it: white people. It’s kind of awkward for him to pretend that this is a racist country, sitting in the most powerful office in the land, given to him by people he’s supposed to hate solely because of their skin color. At least, that is, according to this cretin Morrissey.

Later in the piece Morrissey claims that Donald Trump can’t be President “solely because of his name.” Welllll…there’s  a substantive reason to disqualify someone!

Yamato’s writing can be read as comedy, and through that lens makes sense. The funniest part of the whole thing is that poor, brainless Jen takes Morrissey every bit as seriously as a commentator on Things That Are Important as Morissey takes himself.

Here’s another snippet from Yamato’s nitwittery:

“Obama doesn’t see this, but if a white cop shot one of his daughters I don’t imagine he’d be willing to accept the exoneration of that white cop,” he said.

Set aside for a moment, Morrissey’s disgusting hypothetical(1), he’s absolutely correct. What Morrissey conveniently leaves out is that that’s the greatness of the American judicial system. Yes, in America, the cop would actually get his day in court. Despite Morrissey’s gruesome hypothetical, America still understands that even the powerful are not above the law: which says that, and read it well: if a cop were to shoot Obama’s kid, we’d try to find out what actually happened before doing anything at all to the cop.

This is unprecedented in world history. Don’t expect ignorant, uneducated morons like Morrissey, however, to understand that.

Want more from Yamato/Morrissey?

Morrissey, who projected images of police brutality and animal cruelty onstage and to crowds of gyrating millennials during his set at FYF Fest, denounced American police forces for targeting those without the means to fight back.

Presumably the barely literate Yamato meant: “cruelty to animals.”

And, what does he mean by “American police forces “targeting” those without the means to fight back?” What a stooooooooooooopid thing to say! Apparently for Morrissey it’s only okay if the thugs and looters and rioters and other scum are shooting back? Who do you think would be the first to whine when his tony digs were torched by armed hoodlums? Shouldn’t law enforcement then say, “But it’s okay because you said yourself that they should be able to ‘fight back!'”

Here’s more from this brainless twit Morrissey:

“The British government takes billions of pounds from the taxpayer in order to extend nuclear plans, whilst people die in British hospitals because there’s no money to fund their treatments. [Editor’s note: Wait…whuuuh? I thought the British NHS(2) was a smoothly humming model of a greatfree health care system for all the world to emulate. Not! See here, for example, for a truer vision of the NHS and of socialized medicine.] The scientists who devise nuclear weapons are the world’s most evil people, yet if I accidentally ran a child over I’d be sent to prison for six years. It’s funny how arbitrary the law is when it comes to killing. If you kill, for example, with political control as the result, then it’s thought to be OK. As long as political control is the final aim then you can destroy whomever you wish and it isn’t termed murder.”

That snippet is great for the reference to the NHS. We’ve exposed this horrible system for what it is, and for what the British are calling it now: the Death Pathway.

The rest of the snippet seems to indicate that if he, Morrissey, were in charge in any given country, why he’d just get rid of that nasty-wasty defense industry because it kills “with political control.” What’s funny about this is that they all — leftists, that is — always talk about peace this and peace that and wringing their hands about how we’re ever going to go about abolishing war?!?

Then, when the left takes full power, they set up the most aggressively militaristic systems ever.


A white Texas sheriff’s deputy is murdered in cold blood while doing nothing more than gassing up his cruiser. Surveillance video shows a black man approaching him from behind, coward-style, and shooting him in the head. Why the references to race? Well, don’t look for anyone to decry black violence that is epidemic throughout the land. Because, you see, the “Black Lives Matter” frauds have demonstrated to one and all that to them white lives do not matter.

Authorities have captured a suspect — a black man who appears to be the one in the surveillance video. Was he “inspired” by the “Black Lives Matter” scammers? We’ll have to wait and see.

Be that as it may, à propos of bullet #3 above, I agree with what most commentators say: the unhinged rhetoric of people like those in the “Black Lives Matter” movement is not responsible for the acts of lunatics(3). However, the rhetoric is not unrelated. A lunatic is a lunatic. He’s going to find some way to act out his lunacy. Where the “Black Lives Matter” fraudsters have responsibility is in providing a nice, neatly-packaged idea for the lunatics. That the idea — that there is an epidemic of white cops killing unarmed black men in America — is a lie, is what provides the real tragedy

If you were to fabricate some national grievance against left-handed midgets, then to kill left-handed midgets is the idea that would make its way into the lunatics’ brains. This is the very real danger of giving hoaxsters like those in the “Black Lives Matter” movement a microphone, as opposed to giving them the treatment they deserve: derisive dismissal.

Lunatics are lunatics. However, if they have no well-crystallized idea with which to shape lunatic acts, then they just might not act on their unhinged-ness.


 

Drudge Headlines:

People are just finding out now that the Democrats’ “Primary Campaign” is rigged? I doubt it. The Clintons — the most aw shucks ruthlessly machavellian political family ever to blight the American scene(4) — are not interested in anything resembling honest elections. They are interested in power.

The problem: Hillary Clinton has all the personality and likability of broken glass on the campaign trail. Now, look, I don’t need to love or even like my President, but I guess I’d rather not loathe him. Hillary Clinton comes off — at all times — as more slippery than Nixon, more dishonest than Obama, more willing to do whatever it takes to obtain power than Bill Clinton…

And she has shown nothing whatsoever in the way of accomplishments, character, courage, moral fortitude, actual beliefs, or anything resembling a reason why she should be President other than that she wants to be.

Remember: any single one of her vast array of scandals would have disqualified any single Republican candidate long ago.

The one thing the Clintons didn’t count on was the legs the e-mail scandal has — a testament to the growing power of the FOX News Channel. It’s because of the e-mail scandal that I predicted that Hillary Clinton would depart the race before even the Democrat Convention. I maintain that prediction.

If, however, I’m wrong, it’s because of one simple reason: the dishonesty of the media. If you look at the bullets above, you realize that the only reason there’s even the slightest possibility that, for example, Debbie (Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, head of the Democrat National Committee) could “shield Hillary from debate” is with the willing cooperation of the media.

The only reason there is some hidden “War at DNC,” and that you need to go to the DrudgeReport to learn of it, is if the media have purposefully ignored it. We all know that as soon as their is the slightest hint of a whiff of a wild rumor that there is the slightest, ittiest-bittiest disagreement among Republicans, the media pounce on it immediately with lurid headlines of “GOP CIVIL WAR!!!” and the like.


— xPraetorius

Notes


(1) – The man’s a disgusting hayseed, with the social graces of a cinder block. Wonder how he’d react if someone were to hypothesize about the possibility of someone shooting his kid. The gay Morrissey, doesn’t have any children. In other words, he’s just a brainless boob without anything or, apparently anyone, in his life that might offer any actual, real life perspective.

(2) – NHS: National Health System. Britain’s hellish socialized medical system, eloquently exposed in this brilliant and horrific cri-de-coeur essay.

(3) – I used to believe that the fraudsters of the “Black Lives Matter” movement were responsible for the acts of the odd lunatic out there, but was persuaded by numerous pro and con arguments. The cons won out because I realized that no matter what we are all responsible for what we do. There’s plenty of lying, and fraud, and scam and deception out there. Generally we’re pretty good at weeding out all the snorg in our daily lives. We all no less a very real responsibility to sort the wheat from the chaff — and to discard the chaff — from our worldview.

(4) – Huey Long, the Rockefellers, LBJ, the Kennedys, have nothing on these affable megalomaniacs. Though, admittedly, they’re close.

NPR Watch (8/26/15)


Yet another howler from the fake news(1) team at National Public Radio


They were introducing a commentator in China who was going to sum up for us rubes why the Chinese economy — having been such a huge success for many, many a year — now seemed to be heading south.

In the introduction (here), the anchor, David Greene,(2) said the following:

China has built a massive economy with its own special brand of capitalism: it is “centrally-managed capitalism.” Events of recent months have raised questions about the quality of the management.

I don’t know about you, but probably the very first thing I learned about capitalism was that it has one absolutely necessary component: a free market. The more you understand what a “free market” is, the more you realize that it means an unmanaged market, and most definitely notcentrally-managed one. If it’s centrally-managed, it’s not capitalism. If it’s capitalism, it’s not centrally-managed. Period. You don’t get to have your own “special brand of capitalism.” It’s either capitalism or it’s not.

Centrally-managed capitalism” is a complete nonsense term. In which case, one would expect that fake newspeople like those of NPR would use it as what they think is a clever euphemism for socialism. You see, “socialism” is still a word in some disrepute after the spectacular failures of every economy that’s ever been governed by its precepts for any length of time. The only reason the ideas of socialism aren’t completely discredited is because American university professors, completely divorced from on-the-ground reality, keep them alive in American universities

It requires a particularly economically illiterate reporter to allow the phrase “centrally-managed capitalism” to escape his lips, and NPR is stuffed to the gills with the uninformed, the uneducated(3) and the economically illiterate. “Centrally-managed capitalism” is like “constrained freedom” for a prison inmate. Call it what you will, the prison inmate knows he’s not free. Likewise, participants in the market know when they’re not working in a free market.

Further in the piece, the reporter, one Frank Langfitt passed along a few more howlers, wondering aloud whether the Chinese leadership had lost their economic mojo, their touch.

There is one thing on which you can bet your other bottom dollar: Central mangers of an economy have, by definition, no “touch” as far as economics are concerned. Anyone who is not economically illiterate knows that central management of an economy never “works.” The scare quotes are because central management of an economy is not meant to work, at least not in the sense that you and I understand “work” to mean.

When you and I think of an economy working, we think of people working, and living their lives in relative contentment, as things hum along without too many artificial highs or lows. We think of an environment in which it’s possible to advance until you achieve some kind of prosperity, and are kind of confident of a comfortable retirement. We think of an economy in which you can risk some and gain much from taking the risk. We think that when a risk fails, the rest of society has put together the institutions and structures necessary to help you until you get back on your feet.

That’s absolutely, definitely not what the central manager of an economy — a leftist, a Democrat in America — means by an economy that’s “working.” He means that the economy is structured such that he has maximum control over the population. That, for the central manager, is what it means when an economy is “working.” For the leftist the economy is nothing more than a tool to control the population. It’s “working” when he has maximum control over the population.

If the economy is failing, then, for the left, either the people are getting restless because they’re too poor, or they’re becoming restless because they’re becoming too wealthy, and have time on their hands to contemplate the corruption of their own ruling class.

It’s not easy to gum up an economy just enough so that the common ruck won’t be prosperous and hard to manage, but not so much as to send them to the streets in food riots.

That’s also what NPR means when they talk about a “working economy.” That’s what they mean also when they “report” on our own economy.

That’s precisely why, if you listened to them over the past week, their fake news programs were replete with cheerful stories about how the “fundamentals of the economy were still sound” even as trillions of dollars in wealth gushed into and out of the economy with the Stock Market’s recent craziness.

You see, for NPR, the simple fact that the vast majority of Americans are enmired in economic stagnation due to vast government regulation is a good thing. The Obama administration, and the previous Bush Administration will go down in history as the two most regulating administrations in American history, having done whatever they possibly could to squash the economic dynamism that made America the greatest, freest, most prosperous nation in the history of the world.

NPR is all about that.

It’s why they would allow an obviously nonsense phrase like “centrally-managed capitalism” to be heard on their program.

— xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) – I usually put the word “news” in quotes, because NPR doesn’t do real news — they do thinly-disguised left-wing editorials that they call “news.” Then I realized that I don’t have to do the scare quotes thing, but rather just label it what it really is: fake news. Just like Jon Stewart. When people used to bemoan the fact that many younger viewers used Stewart’s fake news as their sole source for information on the world, he’d say “Leave me alone, I’m just a comedian.” In other words, he had no intent to produce actual news. So, people began to refer to what he did as “fake news.”

That’s what I think should be done with NPR. They obviously have no intent to produce actual news, so let’s call it what it is: fake news.

(2) – Important fact about David Greene:

He spent a month in Libya reporting riveting stories in the most difficult of circumstances as NATO bombs fell on Tripoli. He was honored with the 2011 Daniel Schorr Journalism Prize from WBUR and Boston University for that coverage of the Arab Spring.

Daniel Schorr was the hard-core leftist NPR mainstay, much beloved of liberals for always getting it left, and never getting it right. He was at NPR because he was too transparently a leftist for even the dinosaur American media at NBC-CBS-ABC-CNN. Schorr did one good thing in his spectacularly mediocre career as a journalist: he was so clearly biased that he advanced the awareness of media bias in America by leaps and bounds. No network or media outlet could maintain any pretense of “objectivity” if it had Schorr on its staff. The only place where the otherwise unemployable Schorr could find something other than grocery-store bagboy work was NPR.

If NPR’s David Greene won the “Daniel Schorr Award” you can bet your bottom dollar that Greene was recognized for being as spectacularly leftist and witless as Schorr was.

(3) – Frequently the left is heavily laden with degrees from this prestigious institution or that — a Bachelors from this Ivy League university and a Masters from that — but they’re frequently uneducated. If you have a credential from such a college, that leaves you uninformed, or worse, ill-informed, then you’re not educated.

What Andrew Young Said


xPraetorius:

Worth repeating…

Originally posted on The Praetorian Writers Group:

It was: “Ninety-three percent of black people are killed… by other black people. So if ‘black lives matter’ then we have to start telling ourselves that our lives matter.”

Andrew Young is a black man; a liberal in good standing, who just said that — yesterday, I think — and people will listen or they will not, but what he said was true.

I said the very same thing, and I said it a long, long time ago. And I said it a lot.

But I was called a racist, and I was told to shut up, and I was told I was a liar, and stupid, and ignorant and uneducated and lacking in experience, perception, integrity, honesty. I was called evil, and it was said, indirectly, that those calling me all those things hoped that I would die gruesomely.

I was called all that by the Race…

View original 15 more words

REALLY Interesting Debate With Some HIGH-POWERED Leftists (Part II)


In this essay here, I told you of Kevin Williamson’s support for my comparison of Bernie Sanders to Nazis.

The most important thing to take away from that essay, though, was this line here at the end:

…the left has only emotion, a desire for power, and the fervent hope that you won’t investigate more deeply than what you hear on ABC-NBC-CBS-CNN-MSNBC-NPR-PBS.

In other words the left fervently hopes that you won’t pay attention.

Kevin Williamson committed the cardinal sin — for the left — of paying attention. More to the point, he then told us all honestly what he found while he was paying attention.

Anyone who actually pays attention — even for a little bit — can never be a leftist, and Williamson is not a leftist. As a result, he has no need for an agenda beyond trying to find stuff out.

It’s not easy to be a Conservative in America today, like Kevin Williamson. The vast fetid tide of stinking twaddle that assaults your eyes, ears and intelligence 24/7/365, is a veritable soundwall of leftist hokum emanating from nearly every corner. To be a Conservative today in America, you have to buck that tsunami of tsupidity and tsilliness, and dig deeper, and think it through.

And you have to be ready to take abuse. From the glitterati, the blitherati, the halfwitterati, and the IQ-of-a-potato-erati. In other words: the media A-List.

If you’re a Conservative in America today — especially one who’s as outstanding a writer as Kevin Williamson is — you say that you’re willing to forego the accolades that will rain down on you from all corners if you toe the leftist party line, and act and speak, and think — just like the sheep that most leftists are(1). You say that the truth, and your own integrity, are more important to you than fame and fortune, and guest spots on National Public Radio.

It’s our job, as responsible American citizens, to pay attention.

In recent posts (here, and here), I said that all we have to do is read what the left writes, or listen to what they say, to discern the contradictions that quickly show their “thinking” to be ludicrous. That’s all that Kevin Williamson has done in his essay. Nothing more than paying attention to what Bernie Sanders(2) has to say, then thinking about it a bit.

It doesn’t take too long before what the left says simply evaporates, leaving nothing but a steaming pile of embarrassingly moronic codswallop.

— xPraetorius

Notes


(1) – Those leftists who are not blind followers are also known as “Conservatives-to-be.” If, that is, they have the courage to continue to think independently.

(2) –  And Donald Trump

 

REALLY Interesting Debate With Some HIGH-POWERED Leftists


Recently I made a couple of statements that got me in serious trouble in some very high places. It’s because I made these same statements behind some closed doors with several people who have Secret Service protection.

I also made those same statements, anonymously, here on this blog as well.

The people who have Secret Service protection (doesn’t look like what you think it looks like) urged me to retract what I said, and I did not. In fact, I doubled down on it.

Here’s statement #1. In that statement I compared Bernie Sanders to a Nazi. It was a studied remark, and I thought about it before I made it. Sanders is of Jewish origin(1), and I knew that there would be many who would go purple with apoplexy when I said it. That’s precisely what happened. Doesn’t change the fact that the comparison is valid.

Here’s what I said in statement #1:

Avowed Socialist Bernie Sanders is an out and proud socialist, which is the same thing as saying an out and proud Nazi, an out and proud adherent to an ideology of mass murder, despair, devastation and misery. Obama’s a kook; Bernie Sanders is a kook’s kook. And he wants to be your President.

I’m not the only one to have made that statement. The great Kevin Williamson of National Review has also made the same comparison — and backed it up in detail. Here.

Williamson’s essay — entitled “National Fronts” — is extremely eye-opening, as is everything Williamson writes. I have made it a point to demonstrate how Hitler, Mussolini, et al were really left-wingers, and not right-wingers, as leftists who dominate the “community” of historians would have you believe. As leftists, why would historians want to be honest with history, an honest recounting of which would show the left to have been very big admirers of Mussolini?

Anyway — revenons à nos moutons(2): In his essay, Williamson makes the same point as I made, only better (I’ve added emphasis):

In The Duel, his account of the confrontation between Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill, the great historian John Lukacs explores one of modern history’s terrible ironies: that even as the national socialists were defeated in Germany, national socialism became the world’s predominant political philosophy, albeit stripped of the cruelty and hatred that animated its German expression. “We are all national socialists now,” he writes. Some models are a little more nationalist (Trump) and some are a little more socialist (Sanders), but both reject laissez-faire categorically. [Emphasis added] “Hitler was not the founder of National Socialism, not even in Germany,” Lukacs writes, “but he recognized the potential marriage of nationalism with socialism, and also the practical — and not merely rhetorical — primacy of nationalism within that marriage. . . . He also knew that old-fashioned capitalism was gone; that belonged to the 19th century.” [Emphasis added] Lukacs relates an episode in which Hitler was asked whether he would nationalize German industry. Hitler insisted there was no need: “I shall nationalize the people.” Senator Sanders has a rather wordier version of the same agenda, describing the goal of his campaign as inspiring mass political movement in which “millions of people stand up and loudly proclaim that this nation belongs to all of us.” (Scott Olson/Getty) There is a lot going on here. Part of this is traditional xenophobia, the habit of finding aliens to blame during times of political and economic anxiety, which is doubly attractive if those aliens are ethnically distinctive: When was the last time you heard Senator Sanders screaming about our trade deficit with Germany or Pat Buchanan bemoaning the thousands of illegal immigrants from Ireland residing in the United States? Part of it is legitimate concern about immigration that is excessive and chaotic, and detestation of politicians who are so easily mau-maued by suggestions of prejudice that they either refuse to touch the issue or pursue precisely the wrong policies.

But part of it is that John Lukacs was right, though we seem to be haunted less by the ghost of Adolf Hitler than by that of Benito Mussolini, whose economic ideas and executive-centered political model were so attractive to Franklin Roosevelt and to progressives of his era. [Emphasis added. The ghost, the ideas, of Benito Mussolini are popular to progressives in this era too.] It is not the case, as some libertarians suggest, that free trade implies free immigration, that laissez-faire implies open borders; that is a mistake made by those who neglect the fact that human beings have economic value but are not economic goods.

This last red highlight is Williamson’s excellent summation of the difference between socialist thinking, of the National Socialist/Sanders variety, and laissez-faire thinking. To socialists, like Sanders, individuals are nothing more than goods to be used or discarded depending on their value, their utility, to the collective.

To the believer in laissez-faire, free markets, the individual has intrinsic value, whether he can produce for the collective or not.

You will note: even though I’ve never once heard him pronounce on the subjects, I would bet my life and considerable fortune that Sanders is both pro-abortion, and pro-“right-to-die.” A believer in humans as commodities, as property — aka a socialist, or a top member of the Democrat Party — would be.

Here’s my statement #2:

The Nazis, simmering in their pools of lava in the bad place, must be wondering why everyone’s so irritated with them. Their “vision,” of superiors and inferiors, of Übermenschen and Untermenschen, is alive and well and thriving in the 21st Century’s equivalent of the gas chambers, right there at Planned Parenthood.

I got in big trouble for that one too. And, again, I doubled down on it. “Go ahead,” I said, “prove me wrong, and if you can, I’ll retract, and even apologize.” Needless to say, there was a whole bunch of harrumphing and hemmmming and hawwwwing and “be reasonable’s” and “but, can’t you see’s” — to which my response was, “I sure can see, and I’m really, really ticked off. And you would be too, if you had any semblance of a conscience.”

Planned Parenthood is a minion of the left. There’s not a Republican in sight who supports the idea of giving one more thin dime to this grotesque organization. However, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are out-and-proud supporters of the PP ghouls.

In both cases, with the Secret Service present, I calmly told those who were begging me to “tone down my rhetoric” to take a hike. In both cases, I had facts and history to draw on, and in both cases, I allowed the confidence of my convictions to govern my tone.

The arguments, such as they were, lasted about five minutes apiece. I had made my point, and those in attendance knew that I knew my stuff, and was not going to back down without a superior argument from them. That was something they were unwilling, and unable, to present.

We parted ways, with those who have Secret Service protection nervously shaking hands with me, and muttering the constant refrain of the left when they’ve been routed in debate: “Let’s agree to disagree and discuss it later.” To which I gave no quarter. “Nope,” I said, “you’re wrong, you all know it, and you all are on the side [I had saved my haymaker for last] supporting abortion and socialism, both of which will be regarded, in years to come, the same way we regard slavery now.” And I closed the door.

True story.

It happened approximately that way. Paraphrasing here and there, but the essence of the story — the arguments, the pleas to tone down my rhetoric, the rejection of those pleas, and the final rhetorical spanking administered to my interlocutors — all happened pretty much as I recounted.

I can tell you here and now that the minions of the left have nothing of substance with which to buttress their arguments, and when you bring actual substance to bear against them, they fold faster than a poker player with a pair of two’s.

I can tell you here and now that the left has only emotion, a desire for power, and the fervent hope that you won’t investigate more deeply than what you hear on ABC-NBC-CBS-CNN-MSNBC-NPR-PBS.

When it becomes evident that you are more informed than those on the left — it’s not hard: a lemon is generally more informed than a leftist — then you  can defeat a leftist in debate.

And you can set the agenda for a major media presentation coming to a media market near you very soon. :)

— xPraetorius

Notes


(1) Sanders’ Jewishness means nothing to him. He’s as secular as can be, which is why I had no qualms about making the accurate comparison between Sanders and a National Socialist — a Nazi.

(2) – Let’s get back to the subject at hand.

Did You Hear It?


Hear what, you ask? Why the clapping, of course! The applause and cheering. The high-fives and the whoops of relief.

No it wasn’t acclamation for the heroic Americans who acted so valiantly and courageously to foil the terrorist baboon who tried to shoot up the French train. It was the Hillary Clinton campaign and National Public Radio cheering for the nearly 600-point drop in the Stock Market as it diverted the news media’s attention from Hillary Clinton’s corruption.

On the way home I both heard it and didn’t hear it. I heard the applause, and I didn’t hear one word of coverage of Hillary Clinton. Yep. I was listening to National Public Radio’s fake news program, “All Things Considered.”

NPR joyfully, happily, cheerfully reported on the loss of nearly two trillion dollars in value by Americans in the space of a few short hours. They, NPR, are, after all, Hillary’s loudest cheering section, and it’s long been obvious that she’s as crooked as the business edge of a circular saw, and as phony as a three-dollar bill.

Those who were paying attention had long ago cottoned to the fact that NPR was becoming embarrassed by Clinton. Mind you, this is the network still pretending that the environmental movement is legitimate. It’s difficult to embarrass such reactionary nimrods!

Oh, by the way, which Americans lost nearly two trillion dollars in a few short hours when the stock market did its swan dive today? Why, households. You know, those every-day Americans Hillary pretends to love so much?

Watching FOX News now — Greta van Susteren — and still not a mention of Hillary Clinton and her corruption.

Finally, 36 minutes into her broadcast, Greta mentions Hillary. In the context of speculation on whether Joe Biden will run for President. Still nary a mention of the famous Clinton corruption in today’s news. If FOX didn’t mention it, you can be certain that the rest of the “news” world ignored it.

To sum it up: The happiest person in the world at the news that every-day Americans had just lost nearly two trillion dollars was … Hillary Clinton.

— xPraetorius

NPR Watch (8/23/15)


I found this on a site reporting on National Public Radio. The headline: “NPR to update ethics code, define when personal becomes political for show hosts

Here’s the opening paragraph of the story:

NPR is clarifying ambiguities in its ethics code about the role of talk show hosts after a flap over Diane Rehm’s participation in fundraising activities for a right-to-die organization.

That an NPR hostette — Diane Rehm — violated some kind of ridiculous conflict-of-interest guidelines(1) at NPR is not the story here. The story here is the same one we’ve been telling about for a very long time: Every time the left gets involved in some topic/issue, someone ends up dead. We said it here, and here. All the way back in 2013!

— xPraetorius

Notes


(1) – Ridiculous, because as much of a creature of the left as NPR is, they’re thoroughly corrupt, and any “ethical guidelines” they might say they have are meaningless. The left has only one ethic, one guideline: do whatever is necessary to obtain and keep power, and ethics be damned. However, they have to pretend they have ethics.

 

Just a Load of Fun


I have trouble not listening to this — loud. It’s here.

I’m an unabashed  Christian, and I love this kind of music for its message. However, it’s also a really pretty song. That’s what keeps me listening to a song. I can love the lyrics of a song, but if its melody doesn’t move me, I just move on.

Much of gospel got one thing very right: melody.

This song has a really pretty melody and I just can’t get it out of my head.

Not that I mind, though.

:)

— xPraetorius

I Rarely Use This WAY Over-Used Word, But This… Is…


Awesome!!!

Treat yourself to this: Stochelo Rosenberg & Joscho Stephan – Nuits de la Guitare 2015

Joscho Stephan is simply not human. His technique is so astonishingly crisp, articulate, precise, clear, that words fail me, and that’s rare.

Stochelo Rosenberg is very, very human, and that humanity lives in his jaw-dropping playing. He’s playful, funny, fast, smooth, laden, but not burdened, with passion.

Joscho Stephan is so good that one fears he will get lost in his own greatness, but he always manages to inject feeling and emotion into his fiery solos.

Each is an absolutely impeccable rhythm guitarist for the other. Both have vast, deep, wide and expansive musical imaginations, and they put on a breathtaking show in this recording.

When these two are on stage there is more talent in the room than in all of Hollywood.

Treat yourself.

— xPraetorius

Yep…That’s Just What We Do


8/22/15

The Drudge Headlines:



Another psychotic muslim gunman intent on bloody massacre takes out an AK-47 on a high-speed train in France, and cranks off a few shots. People dive for cover and that first hail of lead has no result(1). The lunatic runs out of bullets in the AK’s magazine, ejects it and reaches for another.

At that point three audacious Americans, two servicemen and one civilian  — young Alex Skarlatos of the National Guard, young Spencer Stone, an Air Force flier, and even younger Anthony Sadler, a long-time friend of Skarlatos’  — ummmmm… well they Brought. The. Dirtbag. Down.

Skarlatos said to Stone, and I quote: “Go get him.” Stone went and got him. It’s another Todd Beamer Let’s Roll moment, and one hopes it will be remembered as such in coming years.

Spencer Stone then, it seems, sprinted some 10 or so yards to tackle the psychotic, unaware of whether or not the thug’s gun  was working. It was not. If it had been, Stone would be a dead man today.

Stone tackled the gunman, and disarmed him, or so he thought. The wacko managed to get some kind of knife-like instrument into his hands and attacked Stone, cutting him in several places. By this time Skarlatos and Sadler had joined Stone, and the three Americans and a Brit “neutralized” the crazy man.

I gather that “neutralized” means something like, “grabbed the AK and started muzzle thumping him in head.” Well. I guess that would neutralize most crazed muslims intent on mayhem — and, apparently, it did.

Final death toll in a muslim terrorist attack on a high-speed train in France: zero, zip, zilch, rien, nada, bupkus, ничего, لا شيء (<– that’s Arabic :) )  … with just a couple of minor injuries.

And how did it happen that a lunatic muslim launches a bloodthirsty rampage and not a single, solitary soul dies? Well, here’s a hint: it wasn’t from Americans “leading from behind.”

Americans, real Americans saw an urgent problem and … Solved. It.


A matter-of-fact observation: It’s a good thing that these were American servicemen. Nothing whatsoever against American servicewomen — I’m the daddy of one — but there are a bunch of Frenchmen today thanking their lucky stars — thanking God if they’re smart — that there were three American servicemen aboard that train on that fateful day. Why? That’s just what they do.

Those three — those three American heroes — are men in every great and glorious sense of the word.

Stone went to the hospital to get his minor wounds tended to, and is going to be just fine. [Update: 8/22/15 – 9:10: Stone has been released from the hospital.]

Stone

Spencer Stone

skarlatos

Alex Skarlatos

SadlerSkarlatos

Anthony Sadler on the left, Alex Skarlatos, center, and Brit Chris Norman who assisted in subduing the crazed lunatic would-be mass-murderer. They’re holding medals for bravery that France awarded them.

Many think that America’s finest days are behind her, but with young Americans like these just out and about, doing what has to be done when it needs to be done, who can doubt that America needs only clear-eyed, intelligent, America-loving vision to turn her around and leave no doubt that her best days are coming.

If we can toss aside the enervating whining, the cringing, sniveling, pathetic, self-obsessed, pouting and navel-gazing, that have gripped our country this millennium, we can turn it around in the space of half a year.

If we embrace that vision, then we will restore America to greatness.

If.(2)

— xPraetorius

Notes


(1) – You can almost see Winston Churchill smiling down on it all. He said, “There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at with no result.”
(2) – It’s a big “if.”

A True Must Read


For anyone who wants a greater understanding of the current context, here and around the world, you need to do at least two things: (1) Read anything that Kevin Williamson writes, and (2) read this particular essay by Williamson.

Some remarks about the piece, operating from the assumption that you’ll read it. (or that you have already! :) )

  • I love the word problems! Williamson walks you through the theories, and realities, of economics with some simple word problems about elementary school kids and their teachers. They’re hilarious, and instructive.
  • The essay’s title is: “Welcome to the Paradise of the Real.” In the column, Williamson demonstrates conclusively that the whining and complaining that many of our fellow Americans do is … kind of pathetic. He provides that absolutely vital thing that so many need so desperately: perspective. The poorest among us live like kings compared to (1) most others in the world, and (2) our own country just 30 years ago. Did you know that?
  • Here’s a fun passage. It contains the answers to Williamson’s opening word problems:

Forty is forty is forty, 10 times 4, 8 times 5, 6.32455532034 squared, 23 plus 17. You can set the trading ratio of apples to oranges however you like, but if you have 20 of each, you have 40 pieces of fruit at any price — and the only way to bring more of it into the world is to plant trees, cultivate them, and pick the fruit.

Which is to say: Reality is not optional. [Emphasis added]

  • If you read and assimilate the following two paragraphs, you will have gone a very, very long way to understanding why the Democrat rhetoric about “income inequality” is nothing more than flapdoodle. And why you should want more income inequality in society.

Measured by money, things look relatively grim for the American middle class and the poor. Men’s inflation-adjusted average wages peaked in 1973, and inflation-adjusted household incomes for much of the middle class have shown little or no growth in some time. The incomes of those at the top of the distribution (which is not composed of a stable group of individuals, political rhetoric notwithstanding) continue to pull away from those in the middle and those at the bottom. The difference between a CEO’s compensation and the average worker’s compensation continues to grow.

But much of that is written into the code. If, for example, you measure inequality by comparing the number of dollars it takes to land at a certain income percentile, with a hard floor on the low end (that being $0.00 per year in wages) but no ceiling on the top end, and if you have growth in the economy, then it is a mathematical inevitability that incomes at the top will continue to pull away from incomes at the bottom, for the same reason that any point on the surface of a balloon will get farther and farther away from the imaginary fixed point at its center as the balloon is inflated. [Emphasis added] This will be the case whether you have the public policies of Singapore or Sweden, and indeed it is the case in both Singapore and Sweden.

So, why would you want more income inequality? Simple: that means there’s more income in society itself… and more opportunity for you to earn more of it.

  • Here’s yet another paragraph in Williamson’s extremely readable tour-de-force that you should read, in order to obtain much-needed perspective on the world around you:

The physical economy — the world of actual goods and services — looks radically different from the symbolic economy. Measured by practically any physical metric, from the quality of the food we eat to the health care we receive to the cars we drive and the houses we live in, Americans are not only wildly rich, but radically richer than we were 30 years ago, to say nothing of 50 or 75 years ago. And so is much of the rest of the world. That such progress is largely invisible to us is part of the genius of capitalism — and it is intricately bound up with why, under the system based on selfishness, avarice, and greed, we do such a remarkably good job taking care of one another, while systems based on sharing and common property turn into miserable, hungry prison camps. [Emphasis added]

  • And:

None of this should be taken as minimizing the problems faced by the poor, in this or any other country. But let’s stay in the realm of the real for a little while: What is it, in terms of physical goods and services, that we wish to provide for the poor that they do not already have? Their lives often may not be very happy or stable, but the poor do have a great deal of stuff. Conservatives can be a little yahoo-ish on the subject, but do consider for a moment the inventory of the typical poor household in the United States: at least one car, often two or more, air conditioning, a couple of televisions with cable, DVD player, clothes washer and dryer, cellphones, etc. As Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield report: “The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs. Poor families certainly struggle to make ends meet, but in most cases, they are struggling to pay for air conditioning and the cable-TV bill as well as to put food on the table.” They also point out that there’s a strong correlation between having boys in the home and having an Xbox or another gaming system. In terms of physical goods, what is it that we want the poor to have that they do not? A third or fourth television? [Emphasis added]

  • Guess what: the problems of the poor are political, not economic. Did you know that? Williamson explains how that is, here:

What is it the poor actually need? In general, they do not have access to very good education. But our problem with education is not that we spend insufficiently on it. Rather, the problem is that our K–12 system is organized as something between a monopoly and a cartel. Medicaid, the health-care program for the poor, is designed similarly, and, no surprise, the poor receive inferior health care. If they are not often materially deprived, they are very often materially insecure, with little in the way of savings or assets. Even after a lifetime of full-time work, many poor people have retirement options far inferior to those enjoyed by wealthier people, despite having their paychecks garnished to the tune of 12 percent or so for — this should start seeming familiar — participation in a government-monopoly retirement program. None of those problems facing the poor — and they are the key problems — is an economic problem. All of them are political problems. For progressives, the obvious solution to that is less economics and more politics. The possibilities of economic division will always be limited by what there is to divide — so many houses, so many cars, so many apples and oranges, so many SweeTarts. Progressives don’t care what’s in the bag, so long as they get to be in charge of it. It is no accident that they talk about the “distribution” of wealth and income as though those things were literally distributed, like candy out of an Easter basket, by the distribution fairy.

  • Here’s possibly the most important passage in a column overstuffed with important passages:

For the conservative, people are an asset — in the coldest economic terms, a potentially productive unit of labor. For the progressive, people are a liability — a mouth to be fed, a problem in need of a solution.(1)[Emphases added] Understanding that difference of perspective renders understandable the sometimes wildly different views that conservatives and progressives have about things like employment policy. For the conservative, the value of a job is what the worker produces; for the progressive, the value of a job is what the worker is paid. Politicians on both sides frequently talk about jobs as though they were economic products rather than contributors to economic output, as though they were ends rather than means. The phrase “there aren’t enough jobs” is almost completely meaningless, but it is a common refrain.

  • Ditto the previous intro for this paragraph:

The farther away we move from the physical economy into the manipulation of symbols through public policy, the more progressive ideas make apparent sense. And symbolism is more comfortable for progressives in general, owing to a disinclination to literally get their hands dirty. There is, for example, no environmentally clean way to produce energy, and the really productive ways of producing energy — like fracking for gas in Pennsylvania — give them the fantods. There is no environmentally clean way to build a man a house, either, or provide him with clean drinking water, or to heat that house, or to grow a crop of wheat, or to make that wheat into bread. If you think you can have health care and electric cars without steel mills and oil refineries, you are mistaken. But actually expanding physical production within our own political boundaries, for instance by building more pipelines to connect petroleum producers with petroleum refiners, scandalizes the progressives. Every smokestack is another Barad-dûr to them — even as they bemoan the loss of “good factory jobs,” the largely mythical former prevalence of which provided their political forebears with a deep bucket of solutions to throw at the problem of potentially bumptious poor people. They detest the economic use of undeveloped lands, whether for energy or timber or grazing cattle — as though beef comes from Trader Joe’s. They refuse to understand that if you want more oranges and apples, you have to plant some trees — maybe even cutting down some other trees to make room for them, or, angels and ministers of grace defend us, harassing a tortoise in the process. [Emphasis added]

  • Williamson concludes with a one-two-three … ninety-two flurry of punches that ram home the central theme: government is not a help to people’s prosperity and happiness, but rather a generally malign obstacle.  The more government, the greater the difficulty in procuring either prosperity or happiness:

Though there are many exceptions, the closer a man’s occupation takes him to the physical economy, the more skeptical he is of progressive central-planning ambitions. You do not meet a great many left-wing corn farmers, copper-mine operators, oil drillers, or house builders. You do meet a fair number of progressives on Wall Street and Silicon Valley and on the campus of Harvard utterly failing to teach the likes of Mr. Carrillo the fundamentals of economics, prose composition, or anything else. Follow that road to its terminus and you end up at the place in which the secret to national prosperity appears, self-evidently, to be stimulating demand, as though the nation could grow wealthier by wanting more rather than by making more, as though we could consume that which has not been produced.

As though Bobby and Jenny could shuffle around their 40 pieces of candy until they became 50 pieces of candy. Politics is parasitic. Even at its best, it produces no goods of its own; it has only that which it takes from what others produce. For about 200,000 years, human beings produced almost nothing — the per capita economic-output curve is nearly flat from the appearance of the first homo sap. until the appearance of Jethro Tull and Eli Whitney. We’ve had politicians since before Hammurabi, but we didn’t escape the shadow of famine until a few thousand years later when somebody discovered that the wars fought over dividing up the harvest could be prevented by making that harvest bigger — and then figuring out how to get that done. Politics is a footnote — the inventory in your local Walmart is the headline.

Whew! Eye-opening.

As I might have mentioned before, it’s worth it to read this, and to re-read it, until you’re familiar with it. It is economic reality explained.

— xPraetorius

Notes


(1) – If you didn’t know all this before, and you finish reading this by understanding only this last bolded passage, then you will have improved immeasurably your understanding of America and her politics today and through the last two centuries.

 

The Post I Wanted To Write About Planned Parenthood


It’s here.

Here’s a key quote:

Will Americans see these videos? I have learned not to assume that what is familiar to us in RightWorld is familiar to Americans at large. If people do see these videos and yawn — we’re goners.

Instead, though, I wrote this one, because the great Jay Nordlinger had already written the one linked above.

One quick remark about Jay. He’s possibly the readerfriendliest writer around. You can’t read anything by Nordlinger without liking the guy. His writing is simple and non-confrontational, yet he has a point-of-view about which he makes no bones.

His writing, resulting obviously from an irenic state-of-mind, is a gift.

So’s the irenic state-of-mind.

— xPraetorius

More Monsters Among Us (Warning: Not for the faint of heart)


8/22/15

The latest video on Planned Parenthood shows a “technician” saying something like, “Hey, want to see something cool?” She then taps the heart of a seemingly dead baby lying on a table in front of her.

The baby’s heart begins to beat.

At that point, the “technician” instructs the person to whom she just showed that “cool thing” to saw through the obviously living baby’s face so she then can extract the living baby’s brain, for sale to someone else, for the purposes of “research.”

You see if the baby is actually alive, then the brain is fresher … or something. That’s what the ghoul on the video was saying.

Many things have struck me over the past few weeks, as these horrible, horrible videos have surfaced, one after another, after another, after another:

  • The lack of uproar in the public at large. Only those paying attention to the full array of news sources have watched and reacted to these freakish things.
  • The gruesome shows on television — the zombie movies and shows, the worldwide disease apocalypse movies, the nuclear war movies– are a lot less gruesome than these Planned Parenthood videos.
  • I said it before, I’ll say it again: I’m anticipating a line of lampshades from Planned Parenthood as a way to increase revenues. Can’t you just see the marketing already?

“Soft as a baby’s bottom! ‘Cause it’s made from a baby’s bottom!” [Cue attractive, smiling woman, showing lampshades and speaking admiringly of the soft, smooth texture](1)

Lampshades

Look at the pretty lampshades!

  • In the Planned Parenthood videos, the heartless, soulless, cold, calculating, baby-hacking, baby-eviscerating, baby-dismembering, baby-disemboweling ghouls have all been … women! I guess all that “gentler sex” stuff was just a myth.
  • I just can’t wait for the matriarchy to take over! I’m sure it’s going to be ever so much kinder, and gentler, and ever so much better! And ever so life-affirming!
  • We’ve arrived in America at a place where we all understand — and accept! — that boys will be boys, and girls will be ghouls, and apparently that’s just hunky dory.
  • These Planned Parenthood videos are all you need to understand how “it” could happen here.(2) This in answer to all those people who long have wondered rhetorically just what it was that went so very wrong in the early thirties in Germany, that led to Hitler and the Nazis. Easy: It’s this very same purging of any semblance of humanity from the culture.
  • The Nazis, simmering in their pools of lava in the bad place, must be wondering why everyone’s so irritated with them. Their “vision,” of superiors and inferiors, of Übermenschen and Untermenschen,(3)  is alive and well and thriving in the 21st Century’s equivalent of the gas chambers, right there at Planned Parenthood.

We saw it, and still see it, in the Soviet Union — now Russia — in China, Vietnam, North Korea, ISIS, Cuba… the idea that people, if they’re not a productive tool for the collective, or if they’re somehow inconvenient, then they’re less than people, and can be eliminated.

Furthermore, those who do not believe in the sacredness of human life, of all human life, those who do the eliminating of the “less-than-people” people, are absolutely right to wonder why you’d be upset when they gas them, or starve them, or machine gun them into mass graves, or grind their bodies and incorporate them into the walls of canals, or make those great, soft, new Planned Parenthood lampshades out of them.

Seriously: if we can’t do at least the really freakin’ glaringly obvious, and get rid of public funding for Planned Parenthood then who, or what, are we?

One last thing: Who are we? We who sit here and tut-tut, and tsk-tsk at the awfulness of it all, and who do little or nothing about it?

Who are we?

What are we doing to stop it?

— xPraetorius

Notes


(1) – Don’t you dare get on my case for this! If you haven’t seen the videos, then you don’t know what you’re talking about! They’re one whole helluva lot more gruesome than my reference. Something needs to shock us! If our new-found understanding of the abattoirs of Planned Parenthood doesn’t, then let’s abandon any pretense that we’re worthy, as a society, of anything like polite speech.

(2) – What is “it?” Nazism, Communism, Socialism, Feudalism… any primitivist society that has so little regard for human life that it can do the horrors with which we’re all familiar. The horrors that the ghouls of Planned Parenthood do every day.

(3) – Übermenschen: “supermen” — members of the Master Race; Untermenschen: undermen, sub-men, subhuman.

— A Brief Timeout For The Most Important Things In Life (Part II) —


Here, I published some prayers that I pray for my own children. It was a sweet little post, devoid of any political meaning whatsoever.  I cribbed the prayers from this very sweet post here. The lady’s post, from which I cadged the thoughts, has nothing of the political whatsoever in it. It’s just a collection of the tender wishes of a mother for her young son, as he goes off for his first day of school.

However, you know me. I see things (no, not dead people).

I just see things that others might not. So, I saw the deeper political meaning in the original post as well. Or, more to the point, I saw the deeper societal context in which her irenic post resides.

Interestingly, the prayers I unashamedly cribbed came from a mother of at least two boys. I think she has just two boys. However, the mother, any mother, of young sons in America is, by definition, an extremely interesting person! She has been steeped, whether she likes it or not, in the feminist culture that rules America today with an iron fist. America tells her every day that her sons will grow up to be exploiters and oppressors of women, and she recoils at this thought. These are sweet little boys!

I know this; I have a son of my own, and he’s now fourteen-years old. He’s a smiling, sweet, gentle, strapping lad of 6’4,” of beanpole, slim, sheer male power. He wouldn’t hurt a fly, much less a girl … or anyone else for that matter. One of the first lessons I ever told him was: “Son — you’re going to be a big man. You need to learn to be a gentleman and a gentle man.” It’s the same lesson my father taught me.

Yet, society tells him every day that simply because he’s a boy he’s an oppressor. A snarling, unthinking, unfeeling, cruel, cold, caged rapist, waiting only for the disappearance of restraint to victimize some unfortunate girl. I’ve taught him to say — nicely, gently and respectfully — “Hogwash!” to anyone who tries to tell him that.

But he still hears it, and it still hurts him. He hears it in the innumerable feminist-driven classes governed by the feminist-dominated curriculum that rules American academia, and that is, largely, hogwash.

So, he and I do our best to laugh about it, and I don’t let him get down about the fact that society will hold him to a much higher standard than that to which they hold his older sister, who, in any disagreement with a man, will be adjudged automatically right, even if she’s not. He knows that the reverse will be true for him, and he’s wondered aloud to me what he did to deserve it. He wonders also whether he needs always to be on his guard around women. I haven’t been able to tell him otherwise; only that the woman he chooses to wed should make him confident enough just to be himself. Because he’s a really wonderful kid, and he’ll grow into a really wonderful young man.

I’m a very lucky daddy. I have a daughter and a son. And I know the difficulties that face each one automatically, merely because of the accident of their birth.

My daughter will be told — has been told! — that, no matter what, she is something more than what she is; that she’s more capable than she might really be; that she’s more noble, intelligent, intuitive than she might actually be; and all simply because she’s a woman. She’s also heard that she’s a victim, and that men want nothing more than to exploit her and to use and take advantage of her. Just because she is a woman. And heaven help anyone (read: any man) who might suggest to her anything other than that … all because she is some mythically great creature, merely because she is a woman.

She has said to me, “Why can’t people just be honest with me?” It’s a good question. I’ve taught her to reject the opinions and thoughts of the uninformed, who would force her to be their image of “a woman,” and just to be herself. But it’s difficult for her. She wants and likes to be liked, but she utterly rejects society’s demands that she be their vision of a woman.

My son will be told, merely by the accident of his birth, that he’s a rapist-in-waiting, that he’ll abuse, oppress and harm women, merely because he’s a man, and can’t help himself. He’ll be told that without vast, humiliating, mind-numbing “training” he’ll spend all his days being stupid, retrograde, backward, primitive, and a slave to his basest urges, merely because he’s a man.

Both narratives are lies. Neither is helpful, or healthful, for either one.

For my daughter, how will she live up to the image of the colossally powerful super-woman figure that society says she is? Because she’ll know…she’s only who she is. Oh, that’s nothing to sneeze at, but she’s not Rhonda Rousey, or Kara Wolters, or Mother Teresa, or Clara Barton, or Florence Nightingale, or Phyllis Schlafly, or Mia Love, or Helen Alvare, or the great Ann Coulter, and she has no desire to be any of these other legendary women… she’s just who she is, and that’s way more than enough.

I’m her daddy, and I can’t think of a more spectacular young lady in the world, but we do her no favors in pretending that she’s automatically anything at all. She’s just who she is, and I let her be who she is. Period.

For my son, how will he react to being told that he’s the barely-controlled violent predator that society says he is, merely because of the accident of his birth? He looks into his own heart, and understands that he wants only good for everyone, yet he’s being told he’s at best a jerk, and at worst a beast. Just because he’s a man (in a few years). How should he deal with that garbage? Easy, I guess: Understand that it’s hogwash.

Maybe not quite that easy. My son likes to be liked too. All fourteen-year old boys do. He’s a particularly handsome young man, and has had no end of young ladies pursuing him. I’ve told him that he can’t date for two more years; until he turns 16. I’ve told him that he gets only one shot at being a kid, and that he doesn’t really want to waste it in trying to be a grown-up, and he understands that. Still, some of the girls he’s gently rebuffed (I heard him, when he allowed me to listen in on a conversation he had with one of them) have been unbelievably immature and manipulative. One threatened to harm herself if he didn’t “date her.” Even as he told her directly that I wouldn’t allow him to date yet.

Back to the topic of this post. The author of this post here is the mother of two boys, and I suspect she has already felt the contradiction between her overwhelming love for her sweet young sons, and what society tells her they are going to become. Every mother of sons is aware of this terrible contradiction. Just ask, for example, Christina Hoff Sommers.

Sommers is a feminist and the mother of a son. It didn’t take her long to realize that the two things are incompatible, and that one has to go. Sommers chose her son and his happiness, over the horrid, cold emptiness of feminism, with its hatred of men and, by extension, of her son.

Possibly the greatest threat to the grotesquerie that is today’s feminism is the mother of sons.

The writer of this beautiful post faces that same struggle, and I wish her and her sons all the very best, while praying the same prayers for her, that she prays for her beautiful sons.(1)

— xPraetorius

Notes


(1) – One more quick note. The author of the post from which I copied the prayers for my children is an outstanding photographer!  Go here to see some breathtakingly beautiful vacation pictures.

— A Brief Timeout For The Most Important Things In Life —


I found this here. I stole it unashamedly. I don’t think the proprietress will mind. It’s just a wonderful collection of thoughts, and I do pray these prayers for my children all the time. I particularly appreciate that she, the person from whom I stole this, placed Salvation first. A good rule for life is: learn to prioritize! :)


I’m praying specifically for my children’s:

  • Salvation
    Lord, let salvation spring up within my children, that they may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory. Isaiah 45:8; 2 Timothy 2:10
  • Growth in Grace
    I pray that my children may grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 2 Peter 3:18
  • Love
    Grant, Lord, that my children may learn to live a life of love, through the Spirit who dwells in them. Galations 5:25; Ephesians 5:2
  • Honesty & Integrity
    May integrity and honesty be my children’s virtue and their protection. Psalm 25:21
  • Self-Control
    Father, help my children not to be like many others around them, but let them be alert and self-controlled in all they do. Psalm 19:10
  • Justice
    God, help my children to love justice as You do and act justly in all they do. Psalm 11:7; Micah 6:8
  • Mercy
    May my children always be merciful, just as their Father is merciful. Luke 6:36
  • Respect
    Father, grant that my children may show proper respect for their selves, others, and for authority figures, as Your Word commands. 1 Peter 2:17
  • Biblical Self Esteem –
    Help my children to develop a strong self-esteem that is rooted in the realization that they are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus. Ephesians 2:10
  • Faithfulness
    Let love and faithfulness never leave my children, but bind these two virtues around their necks like necklaces and write them on the tablet of their hearts. Proverbs 3:3
  • Courage
    May my children always be strong and courageous in their character and in their actions at school. Deut. 31:6
  • Purity
    Create in my children a pure heart, O God, and let that purity of heart be shown through their actions. Psalm 51:10
  • Kindness
    Lord, may my children always try to be kind to each other and to other children at school, as well as show kindness to their teachers. 1 Thessalonians 5:15
  • Generosity
    Grant that my children may be generous and willing to share, and so lay-up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age. 1 Timothy 6:18-19
  • Peace-loving
    Father, let my children make every effort to do what leads to peace, and to live a life of peace with others, as much as it depends on them. Romans 14:19
  • Joy
    May my children be filled with the joy given by the Holy Spirit, may their joyfulness be catching, and may I as their mother create a home where joy abounds. 1 Thessalonians 1:6
  • Perseverance
    Lord, teach my children perseverance in all they do, and help them especially to run with perseverance the race You have marked out for them, without giving up, and with confidence that they can do all things through Your strength. Hebrews 12:1; Philippians 4:13
  • Humility
    God, please cultivate in my children the ability to show true humility toward all by displaying a gentle, peace-loving attitude. Titus 3:2
  • Compassion
    Lord, please clothe my children with the virtue of compassion. Colossians 3:12
  • Responsibility
    Grant that my children may learn responsibility, for each one should carry his own load. Help them to become mature adults. Galatians 6:5
  • Contentment
    Father, teach my children the secret of being content in any and every situation, through You who give them strength. Philippians 4:12-13
  • Faith –
    I pray that faith will find root and grow in my children’s hearts, that by faith they may gain what has been promised to them. Luke 17:5-6; Hebrews 11:1-40
  • A Servant’s Heart
    God, please help my children develop servant’s hearts, that they may serve wholeheartedly, as if they were serving the Lord, not men. Ephesians 6:7
  • Hope
    May the God of hope grant that my children may overflow with hope and hopefulness by the power of the Holy Spirit. Romans 15:13
  • Willingness & Ability to Work
    Teach my children, Lord, to value work and to work at it with all their heart, as they are working for You and not just for men or their teacher. Colossians 3:23
  • Passion for God –
    Lord, please instill in my children a soul that “followeth hard after thee,” one that clings passionately to You. Psalm 63:8
  • Self-Discipline
    Father, I pray that my children may acquire a disciplined and prudent life, doing what is right, just, and fair. Proverbs 1:3
  • Prayerfulness
    Grant, Lord, that my children’s lives may be marked by prayerfulness that they may learn to pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers. 1 Thessalonians 5:17
  • Gratitude
    Help my children to live lives that are always overflowing with thankfulness and always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Ephesians 5:20; Colossians 2:7
  • A Heart for Reaching Out to Others –
    Lord, please help my children to develop a desire to see Your glory declared among the nations, Your marvelous deeds among the peoples. Psalm 96:3

 

— xPraetorius

Hillary: It Hasn’t Been “Drip-Drip-Drip” For a VERY Long Time (Part II)


Just one quick thing to add to my previous post (here). I compared the heap of scandals that have accompanied Hill-Billy(1) to the steaming trail of garbage that follows an overstuffed garbage truck as it makes its way down the road.

However, that image is instructive in another sense as well: Most of the garbage is still in the truck!

If we’ve seen this and that over the years from the Clintons — all adding up to a pretty impressive stink-heap — imagine what we haven’t yet found out!

Trust me, there’s more — a lot more — in the Clinton garbage heap. It just hasn’t been uncovered yet.

— xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) My affectionate nickname for the two-bit hick duo that is Hillary and Bill.

Hillary: It Hasn’t Been “Drip-Drip-Drip” For a VERY Long Time


Many, many in the punditocracy and the commentariat have been wondering aloud whether her Hillariness can survive the “drip-drip-drip” that has been taking the air out of her campaign for the Democrat Party’s nomination to run for President.

Look — let’s speak plainly. It hasn’t been “drip-drip-drip” for a very long time. The Clintons have been an open-hydrant-in-August-in-the-Bronx, spewing runny, fetid, depraved, degenerate corruption and moral sewage for decades.

Since long before Bill Clinton assumed the Presidency.

Many also say, “But how bad was all that, really? I mean, they weathered all those storms. It must not have been all that bad.”

Wrong.

The Clintons’ willing accomplices in the media — just as corrupt as the Clintons themselves — carried them through all the revelations of Bill’s horn-doggedness and Hill’s corruption (remember the cattle futures, and the billing records, and the White House kitchen staff and on, and on, and on…) The media spent years ignoring, and denying, and not covering, and lying about who and what the Clintons were… and are.

They’re still doing it. Except, that is, for FOX News, the only news network with any real credibility in the country anymore. FOX News is the only real difference in the media since Bill’s arrival in the Presidency.

To give you an idea of the staggering, mind-boggling irresponsibility of the Billy half of Hill-Billy, just think of the prodigious power held by … yep, Monica Lewinsky, before the story of her dalliance with Bill. Think of how things could have gone if she had had a brain, as well as a serious desire to harm this country!

That she was as much of a hormone-crazed airhead as Bill, is scant consolation for those among us who take the security of this, the greatest country that has ever existed, seriously.

Hillary’s use of the server, and the recent revelations of who was managing it, represent the same level of jaw-dropping irresponsibility as Bill setting himself up to be blackmailed by Monica “Mata Hari” Lewinsky.

Quick comment about all that: What

C o M p l E t E

I d i O Tt TTt TTttTt ttttt tttttt tttttttttttttttt(1)

advised Hillary — that it was a good idea to have a private server, and to house it where they did? Aren’t the Democrats supposed to be these technologically-savvy geniuses who put those silly Conservative dinosaurs in their place?

If you or I were the technology dolt, ass, nitwit, slack-jawed nimrod, half-wit, moron, idiot, fool, simpleton, rookie, pathetic, sniveling wretch numbskull, with used banana peels for brains, trying to pass himself off as an I-freakin’-T dude, who suggested to the freakin’ Secretary of the freakin’ State that she should have a private server housed in a bathroom in east Podunk, Colorado, we’d have been fired so fast that Bill chasing after 10 naked interns wouldn’t’ve been able to catch up.

Or, did her advisers have more nefarious motives? One of them is, after all, Huma Abedin, noted sympathizer with Palestinian terrorist scumbags, as well as other virulent America haters (Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Bill Clinton, George Stephanopoulos, Dan Rather).

Look, I have to give this disclaimer: I know all about this stuff. I’m an expert in many areas of IT. In particular, I know e-mail. I know that everyone in my “community” is laughing at the silly questions:

  • “Can they find the e-mails?” (Yes, easily — “they’ve”(2) already found them — all of them.)
  • “Can they find the phone records?” (Yes, easily — “they’ve” already found them — all of them.)
  • “Can they reproduce the communications threads?” (Yes, easily — “they’ve” already done it.)

I know, I know… “they’ve” already found “Top Secret” e-mails that went out on her private server. Seriously? That’s freakin’ news?!? Did you ever really doubt it? Remember: the Clintons figure that the media will always cover for them, and they, the media, have been trying manfully.

The only question is when?

When does she leave the race? ‘Cause she will. And the media will do a wonderful job of covering for the real reason for her departure: It’s all partisanship. It’s all misogyny. America was just not ready, just too backward still, for a woman President. And they’ll play that flapdoodle over and over and over and over again until, it’s The Narrative. But, it’ll be just another part of the grand, the gigantic, the Big Lie.

The Truth? Simple: Hillary is, and has long been waaaaaaayyyyyy too corrupt, even for today’s Democrats.

However, give ’em a decade or so. Remember: this is a party that is seriously considering a drooling, slope-headed, knuckle-dragging, neanderthal  half-wit named Bernie Sanders to run for President. Somehow their trajectory brought them to that.

One last thing: The cattle futures would have sunk any Republican as soon as it came out in the early 1990’s. More to the point: Every single one of the vast number of scandals that have followed Hillary like trash from an overstuffed garbage truck would have sunk any Republican all by itself. If, that is, we were fortunate enough to have an honest press corps in America.

One more last thing: she’s out of the Presidential race. Just a question of when. Even the media, as invested as they are in the substanceless hack that is Hillary, are sick of covering up for her.

— xPraetorius

Notes


(1) – My attempt to write with spittle-flecked indignation. How’d I do?

(2) – Computer experts in various agencies and departments — NSA, DIA, CIA, State Department, etc. You can “wipe the server” all you want, it’s still all out there, and easily obtainable.

 

A Thought Exercise I Found Today


I was surfing the web today while eating lunch, and I found the following list of statements. I agree with almost all of them, and have highlighted in red the one area where I have a disagreement.

It’s awkwardly expressed, and simplistic, but it’s a good catalog and summary of recent events, and also of muslim beliefs that the world should be aware of.

I’ve done a tiny bit of formatting for additional readability. Otherwise it becomes fatiguing just to read it straight through.

If you read all the below items, they do bring certain things into focus.

Here it is:


The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bafi Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Muslims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims’

Think of it:
Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Baha’is = No Problem
Baha’is living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Baha’is = No Problem
Baha’is living with Christians = No Problem
Christians living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem
Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
Muslims living with Christians = Problem
Muslims living with Jews = Problem
Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
Muslims living with Baha’is = Problem
Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
Muslims living with Atheists = Problem
MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM

**********SO THIS LEAD (sic) TO *****************
They’re not happy in Gaza
They’re not happy in Egypt
They’re not happy in Libya
They’re not happy in Morocco
They’re not happy in Iran
They’re not happy in Iraq
They’re not happy in Yemen
They’re not happy in Afghanistan
They’re not happy in Pakistan
They’re not happy in Syria
They’re not happy in Lebanon
They’re not happy in Nigeria
They’re not happy in Kenya
They’re not happy in Sudan

******** So, where are they happy? **********
They’re happy in Australia
They’re happy in England
They’re happy in Belgium
They’re happy in France
They’re happy in Italy
They’re happy in Germany
They’re happy in Sweden
They’re happy in the USA & Canada
They’re happy in Norway & India
They’re happy in almost every country that is not Islamic! And who do they blame? Not Islam… Not their leadership… Not themselves… THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!! And they want to change the countries they’re happy in, to be like the countries they came from where they were unhappy and finally they will be get hammered
!!!!

Islamic Jihad: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
ISIS: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Qaeda: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Taliban: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hamas: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hezbollah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Boko Haram: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Nusra: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abu Sayyaf: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Badr: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Muslim Brotherhood: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Lashkar-e-Taiba: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Palestine Liberation Front: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Ansaru: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Jemaah Islamiyah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abdullah Azzam Brigades: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION

AND A LOT MORE!!!!!!!

Think about it……..  20 signs that psychopath Muslims do:
1] Kill anyone who insults Islam or Mohamed-mad. (Koran.33;57-61).
2) Kill all Muslims who leave Islam. (Koran.2;217/4;89/Bukhari.9;84-57).
3) Koran cannot be doubted. (Koran.2;1).
4) Islam is the only acceptable religion. (Koran.3;85).
5) Muslims must fight (jihad) to non-Muslims, even if they don’t want to. (Koran.2;216).
6) We the non-Muslims are pigs and apes. (Koran. 2;62-65/Koran.5;59-60/Koran.7;166).
7) We the non-Muslims cannot be friends with Muslims. (Koran.5;51).
8) We the non-Muslims [are] sworn enemies of Muslims and Islam. (Koran.4;101).
9) We the non-Muslims can be raped as sex slave. (Koran.4;3 & 24/5;89/23;5/33;50/58;3/70;30).
10) We the non-Muslims [are] the vilest of creatures deserving no mercy. (Koran.98;6).
11) Muslim must terrorized (sic) us (non-Muslims). (Koran.8;12 &59-60/ Bukhari.4;52;220).
12) Muslims must strike terror into non-Muslims hearts. (Koran.8;60).
13) Muslims must lie to us (non-Muslims) to strengthen and spread Islam. (Koran.3;28?16;106).
14) Muslims are allowed to behead us (non-Muslims) (Koran.47;4).
15) Muslims are guaranteed to go to heaven if they kill us (non-Muslims). (Koran.9;111).
16) Marrying and divorcing pre-pubescent children is OK. (Koran.65;4).
17) Wife beating is OK. (Koran.4;34).
18) Raping wives is OK. (Koran.2;223).
19) Proving rape requires 4 (four) male Muslim witnesses. (Koran.24;13).
20) Muslims are allowed to crucify and amputate us (non-Muslims). Koran.8;12/47;4).
Now a muslim has destroyed America .

As mentioned in the beginning, I highlighted in red the part where I disagree. Barack Obama is not a muslim; he’s an atheist. Furthermore, America is not destroyed. Badly damaged, but not destroyed.

I found the exercise here, where it was definitely off-topic. Fascinating, but off-topic.

— xPraetorius

Seven National Crimes


Also by William J. H. Boetcker:

  • I don’t think.
  • I don’t know.
  • I don’t care.
  • I am too busy.
  • I leave well enough alone.
  • I have no time to read and find out.
  • I am not interested.

I was interested in these, because the above characteristics perfectly encapsulate the modus vivendi of the American left today.

As a result, leftists are:

  • Stupid – they don’t think. They feel, or they parrot.
  • Profoundly ignorant – They don’t know, and they don’t think, so they don’t bother to find out.
  • Unfeeling, cold, soulless, cruel – They don’t care. Their purpose is to obtain, then maintain, power. Whatever serves that purpose is okay by them, no matter how many people are harmed, or how they are harmed. Am I too harsh on them here? Study up a bit on abortion, or black-on-black murder rates, or the horrific conditions in American cities, and you soon realize that the left truly does not care whether you, or anyone else, lives or dies. Except for themselves, of course.
  • Aggressively, purposefully ignorant – because they’re too busy. Too busy doing the mindless, ignorant, unfeeling stuff the left do as a result of their stupidity, ignorance and cruelty. The laziness is intellectual laziness. Everyone has to get through 24 hours each day, so “laziness” is kind of a nonsense concept.
  • They leave well enough alone, ie they assume that what they do is good, so they leave it alone. Without ever thinking about it, knowing more about it, or caring. As a result, they either leave bad things in place (welfare, affirmative action, black murder rates) so that they only get worse, or they  make good and bad things even worse (Obamacare, welfare, regulation, leftist racism, more)
  • Ignorant and misinformed, because they have no time to read and find out.
  • Ignorant and misinformed — and lazy — because they are not interested. Not interested in thinking, which would cause them to research deeply, which would help them to know, which they would want to do if they really cared to know. But they don’t. It takes work, hard work, to become informed, to learn, to stop being ignorant, and the left is not interested in real work, because they know that it will challenge their basic belief system, and they might have to admit they’re wrong.

The left are insecure, immature, childish, cowards. It’s a profound act of courage to challenge one’s own beliefs, to expose those beliefs to arguments and viewpoints that might show them to be weak or wrong. Leftists don’t become, or remain, leftists by continuously challenging the overwhelmingly leftist atmosphere in America today.

Challenging the messages of today’s society, thinking, reasoning, studying, researching is how you make new Conservatives.

I knew all this stuff already, because I take the time, and make the effort, to argue and debate with the left. I always win, because of the above characteristics of the left, that we on the right … don’t have. William J. H. Boetcker summed it all up quite nicely, though, with his “seven national crimes.”

— xPraetorius

 

The Ten Cannots


The 10 “cannots” (By William J. H. Boetcker) that Leftist politicians ignore:

  1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
  2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
  3. You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
  4. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
  5. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
  6. You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
  7. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
  8. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
  9. You cannot build character and courage by destroying men’s initiative and independence.
  10. And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

These things strike me as 100%, on-the-mark, over-the-top, on-the-nose, through-the-roof … true.

Found here.

— xPraetorius

Powerful, Influential People Read This Blog (Part 28), or: “Black Lives Matter, Right? (Part 2)”


In many, many previous blog posts, from long, long ago, we pointed out what the great John Hawkins, at Townhall.com blog, points out in this post. The headline: “The Biggest Idiots in Politics: The #Blacklivesmatter Protesters

Hawkins is a bit less politic about it than we’ve been — we didn’t call the Blacklivesmatter doofuses “idiots” (though I guess we just called them “doofuses :) ) — but we did point out (here) that to the “Blacklivesmatter” clodpoles, black lives don’t actually matter a hill of beans, and we explained why we had thus concluded.(1)

The “Blacklivesmatter” buffoons don’t care about black lives. We pointed all that out, and so does Mr. Hawkins.

“Blacklivesmatter,” as a movement, is based on lies and fraud, and Hawkins shows that… with numbers. No matter, though… so long as the majority of the media continue to collude with the left, lies and fraud will continue to be the main vehicle of communication for the left.

I’ve reproduced below the parts where Hawkins points out what we’ve been saying, either for years, or more recently about unfolding events:

  • Well, first of all, despite the name, the group doesn’t care about most #blacklives.
  • On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted PER DAY in the United States. Many of those innocents are slaughtered via Planned Parenthood, an organization founded by a woman who wanted to use abortion to help control the population of black Americans because she believed, simply, that blacks are inferior. [Editor’s Note: we noted Margaret Sanger’s racism a long time ago. She was devoted to wiping out the black race — due to her belief in black inferiority — using eugenics. A big admirer of her point-of-view was one Adolf Hitler.(2)]
  • The #blacklivesmatter protesters don’t care about those black lives. They also don’t care about the staggering number of black Americans murdered by other black Americans.
  • Roughly 8,000 to 9,000 black Americans are murdered per year and per the FBI, from 1980-2008, 93% of black men who were murdered, were murdered by other black men.
  • Those numbers dwarf the total number of Americans killed by police in more than a decade according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Per the CDC from 1999 to 2011, “2,151 whites died by being shot by police compared to 1,130 blacks.”
  • So, if you’re really interested in saving black lives, the most important thing you could do would be to make abortion illegal. Failing that, if you could at least make it much less prevalent, you could save more black lives in a month than the police will kill in 10 years.
  • Beyond that, addressing out of wedlock births would dramatically reduce the number of murders in black communities. In fact, if the out-of-wedlock birth rate from black Americans dropped from 72% to the same 30% rate that white Americans have, the difference in murder rates between whites and blacks would largely disappear.
  • Assuming nothing is done about the out-of-wedlock birth rate, the only other thing that seems likely to significantly reduce the number of black men who are murdering each other would be a dramatically increased police presence in black neighborhoods.The #blacklivesmatter protesters don’t care about abortion, they don’t care about the out-of-wedlock birth rate and they don’t care about reducing the number of black men killing each other.

Hawkins’ essay spans two “pages” and the second page elaborates on the points Hawkins made on the first. The point is not really that “Powerful, Influential People Read This Blog” (they do), but that our points of view are getting out there, and we are making advances.

— xPraetorius

Notes


(1) – It’s really important to note that whenever the left says something, you should immediately look for the real truth. This goes back to as far as the left has been in existence. It’s a crucial truth to understanding them and their motives: Their motives are to obtain power, and they will do or say absolutely anything, bribe, beg, borrow, lie, steal, plead, whine to, cheat, hoodwink, bamboozle swindle anyone they can in order to come up with 50% plus one votes in a given election.

For example:

  • “Choice” means sucking up to the growing numbers of single women who have decided that she, and her children, need a government check more than they need a man around.
  • “Investment” means taxing from workers to give to non-workers.
  • “Compassion” and “fairness” mean the same thing as “investment.”
  • “Media objectivity” means: accepting what the left says as truth, or “news,” while subjecting everything else to skeptical, automatically hostile, scrutiny.

“Blacklivesmatter” is a creature of the left, therefore you can be sure that the phrase and the idea that black lives actually matter is perfectly meaningless to the left. It is — you can bet your life and fortune on it — a smokescreen for something else. In this case: further cementing the stranglehold the left has on the black vote, by ensuring their continued dependence on “free” stuff from “the government.”

(2) – Also, it should be pointed out: Marcus Garvey, Josef Mengele, William Shockley, Nikola Tesla, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill

 

 

What Just Happened? (WARNING: Baseball post)


8/15/15: Strange doings at Fenway Park


  • Item: Yesterday’s score, Red Sox vs. Seattle Mariners: Red Sox 15, Mariners 1.
  • Item: Today’s score, Red Sox vs. Mariners: Red Sox 22, Mariners, 10.

Ummmmm… Uhhhh… Huh???

Well!

Holy Mackerel! Red Sox fans across Red Sox Nation are wondering, where the HECK has THAT been all year?!?

That is all.

— xPraetorius

Dems as Caricatures


I wrote a reply to the great Mike, and realized that it deserved to be its own post. Something I’ve long thought and, of course, wondered about.

Did you ever notice that the Democrat candidates (and possible candidates) are all basically caricatures of actual people? (with the possible exception of Jim Webb)

Bernie Sanders is the prototypical union thug/street rabble-rouser, all bluff and glib bluster, and no brains. Is Sanders or is he not a perfect fit on the Bolshevik side of the barricades in tsarist Russia in 1915? He’s Ed Asner with a funny accent, but every bit as addled and dumb.

Hillary Clinton, the hyper-spoiled, hyper-coddled, hyper-insulated, hyper-entitled patrician, desperate to show her “every woman” creds, and just never remotely able to pull it off. A mediocrity’s mediocrity, she along with her trashy hound-dog of a husband would have been drummed out of town by an honest press corps all the way back in 1991! Too bad we’ve just never had an honest press corps in America.

It’s long struck me that Hill-Billy are much better-suited to fill the roles of the ridiculous, clueless presidential couple in a two-bit Norman Lear sitcom. When someone informed Bill Clinton that it wasn’t really the DemoFrat Party, it must have been quite a rude awakening. Clinton wasn’t, as Toni Morrison had suggested, the first black President, but rather the first white trash President. You can easily see Hillary as Bill’s long-suffering, but air-headed First Lady. They are the Al and Peg Bundy of Presidential politics

Martin O’Malley, the deadly earnest, wonky, Steve-Carrell-in-The-Office type, who is absolutely certain of his convictions, and wrong — stupidly, earnestly, ridiculously wrong — every time. He honestly thinks that what he did in Baltimore was good stuff, but simply not enough. Yeah. The country really needs even more of all that great stuff that O’Malley and the Democrats have been doing to the cities for the past seven freakin’ decades!

Lincoln Chafee? Hah! The man’s a walking, talking sitcom-type! He’s the kind of sitcom-type who’s so dumb, so caricaturishly a nitwit, that critics would grouse about his lack of believability in the show. Not even the left takes this sincere, earnest, brainless lefty seriously. He’s that transparently clueless. He’s kind of the Ted Baxter of politicians. Wikipedia says of the fictional Ted Baxter: “the Baxter character is a broad parody of a vain, shallow, buffoonish TV newsman.” To say that Chafee and the others are broad parodies of vain, shallow, buffoonish people is to be unnecessarily cruel to  vain, shallow, buffoonish people.

John (Lurch) Kerry? Same thing as the Clinton duo. An honest press corps would have drummed him out of public life all the way back in the ’70’s! He’s absolutely clueless, sounds as if he’s just said, “Wait’ll you hear this impression of a zombie!” — every time he talks. He’s like Hill-Billy Clinton: the coddled, entitled, hyper-rich patrician über-snob who simply can’t remotely pull off “every man” and looks like a blithering idiot every time he tries. Which is every time he opens his mouth.

• Then, there’s: Joe Biden – Holy mackerel! It’s a completely open “secret” that Biden’s a through-and-through buffoon. There’s something very, very wrong with a Democrat Party that allows Joe Biden to get to the pinnacle of power in the party and in America, where he’s been for more than 30 years. Yet there he is, and Democrats embrace him, and even take him seriously.

You can read the description of Hillary Clinton, and apply it to Joe Biden with just a few tweaks. In my hypothetical sitcom, he’s crazy, garrulous Uncle Joe, who comes to your place, says a whole bunch of stuff and leaves you scratching your head, saying, “What did he just say?” Or, just as often, “Did he really say what I think I just heard him say?!?” He’s the other Ted Baxter-type of Democrat politicians.

The Democrats are hardly at a loss for Ted Baxter-types. In fact they’re practically overrun with ’em. John (Lurch) Kerry is another, and Hillary Clinton is a female version. The problem with Kerry is he looks, acts and sounds so much like Lurch, that you can’t call him a Ted Baxter-type at the same time. You have to decide, and the Lurch image is just too on-the-nose, and … funny. NoteDennis McDonough gives Kerry a serious run-for-the-money in the “Lurch-imitator” department.

Jim Webb? Last and very much least in the Democrat field. When was the last time you heard anything about or from him? Yep. Not for a looooooong time! Yet, yes, he is running for President. The reason you haven’t heard anything from him is because he’s one of those rarest of creatures: a normal, sane Democrat. I know, I know… “normal, sane Democrat” sure seems like a contradiction in terms! There are some, but they are rare.

The party of Obama-Clinton-O’Malley-Gore-Kerry-Sanders, however, is not in any way interested in normal, sane people. Webb is the normal person in the sitcom, who looks around himself, sees nothing but nitwittery, and realizes that he has to accommodate himself to this strange reality. The only question about Webb is: how is it that he’s a member of the Democrat Party? He appears to be a patriotic, America-loving person. He’s a bit like Kirsten Powers, of whom we said (here  in the comments section) that she’s a Conservative-to-be.

Not a one of them, though, has any actual beliefs or principles whatsoever, beyond what he or she has to do to beg, borrow, cajole, lie, bribe or buy, in order to get one-half plus one of the electoral votes in November, 2016. The one honest one in the pack is Bernie Sanders, and he’s certifiably crazy. Again with the possible exception of Jim Webb, who doesn’t have a chance to win the Democrat Party nomination.

— xPraetorius

You Heard it Here First… (Part IV)


Something I left out of the previous post: Hillary won’t go to jail. Of course.

She should, but she won’t.

But she is … out of the Presidential race. Just a question of when. Time to put the office pools into high gear.

Will she exit before the new year? After the new year? Before Christmas? As a Christmas present to the American people? :)

— xPraetorius

You Heard it Here First… (Part III)


In recent posts we predicted that Hillary wouldn’t make it to the Democrat Convention. That, tarnished by the tsunami of scandal and corruption that follows her like fruit flies around rotting fruit, she’d drop out long before.

We still maintain that prediction. However, now it appears that she may not even remain at liberty to pursue a Presidential bid!

There’s a growing drumbeat of people and pundits — even many on the left(1) — wondering how she can stay out of jail after it became clear that (1) there was top-secret information on her private e-mail server, and (2) that she has done everything she can to obstruct justice by wiping the server.

General David Petraeus was convicted of a felony for a lot less, it is being said. Which is absolutely correct. Also, a submarine sailor faces a possible 20 years for apparently taking pictures aboard a submarine with his cell phone. And he turned himself in! (I believe… the story is breaking and I’m recalling what I heard as I ran out the door this morning.)

— xPraetorius

Notes


(1) – Don’t worry — the left are not having any of their astonishingly rare fits of conscience or honesty. More and more, they’re seeing Hillary as a thoroughly tarnished candidate whose increasingly obvious corruption could cost the left the White House. Now, they’ll begin doing whatever they can to buff up the images of the execrable Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley.

Rudeness is Not a Conservative Principle (Part II)


In this post, here, I pointed out that, no, rudeness is not a Conservative principle, but that it most definitely is a leftist principle, and even a common tactic, which they use in discourse of all kinds.

I do little thought exercises all the time, and one of them is to tabulate, roughly, the time that a Conservative speaks compared to the time a liberal speaks, in any forum where they’re debating informally.

I don’t recall ever having seen a time when the Conservative took more time than the leftist. Ever.

Example #1:

National Public Radio does a little “Point-Counterpoint” thing every Friday in which E.J. Dionne, leftist, and David Brooks, sort-of-rightist, “discuss” the week’s events(1). The session is supposed to be NPR’s nod to giving Conservatives a teentsy-weentsy voice at their extreme-left network.

In that little session, which I’ve heard dozens of times, I’ve tried to estimate the comparative times each commentator takes. It’s rarely close. Dionne takes at least 55-60% of all the talking time, and when they disagree, he always inserts a last rebuttal to something Brooks has said — even when the host or hostette has indicated that they need to move on to the next topic.

Example #2: 

Remember the Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates the last election go-round? The media tabulated it and in the Presidential ones — there were, I believe, three — Obama always took more time than Romney. In the one Vice-Presidential debate, Joe Biden took a lot more time than Paul Ryan. Even the media remarked on it. Mind you, the times each took were supposed to be the same, give or take a few seconds.

Example #3:

A personal story that illustrates what I’m trying to say. I have a “friend” — more like a pal — a woman who is a hard leftist. She and I go at it from time to time, and our exchanges are characterized by one overriding trait: I rarely if ever get a thought completely out before she has interrupted me, and prevented me from saying what I was going to say. Numerous times, I’ve said to her, “Now let me finish this thought,” and begun to talk, always to no avail. I never get to finish the thought.

Her interruptions take the form of talking over me, meaning she not only jumps in when I’m speaking, she does it more loudly than I’m speaking, so that the only way to re-take the floor would be to talk over her, at which point it would quickly degenerate into a shouting match, and you will see in Example #4, below, why that simply won’t happen.

One time, I was having a debate with her when we — my “friend,” my then wife and I — were going home from the beach. She sat in the back seat, my wife was in the front passenger seat, and I was driving. We were discussing abortion, and it was a context in which I had to speak loudly to overcome the engine noise and the open windows. The result was that she couldn’t talk over me. If you saw me, you’d understand why. I’m quite large, and my voice ummm… projects. The topic was abortion, and I beat her handily. Very, very handily.

Another time, after a short (15 mins. or so) debate, I began to tell her that, “You know? You never allowed me to complete even one thought during our entire discussion here, and I’ll bet you think you ‘won the debate.'”

I got about as far as “You know? You never allowed…” before she interrupted me to let me know that she considered the debate over.

You other Conservatives out there, you know —  personally — what I’m talking about here, don’t you.

Example #4:

Not really an example, but try it yourself. Anytime there is some kind of “point-counterpoint” kind of exchange on any of the media outlets, use a couple of stopwatches or just make a rough estimate, and time the lefty and the righty to see who takes more time. See who interrupts more. See who is allowed to get his or her entire point out. It never fails. The lefty will interrupt more, take more time, and become indignant if she is interrupted.

While rudeness is a leftist principle, even a leftist value, politeness is a Conservative principle. However, politeness can’t be used as a tactic, particularly against those for whom rudeness is a well-honed and refined tactic. It’s why we Conservatives tend to “lose” the informal debates, and to mop up the floor with the left in structured debates that have well-enforced rules. It’s hard, though, to win a debate if your thoughts aren’t heard.

So, with FOX News’ new found clout after the Republican debate, I have a modest suggestion. Presumably, through clenched teeth, the Democrats will accede to either Presidential, or Vice-Presidential, or both, debates on FOX. It’s the only way for their candidates to be seen by the public.

Here’s my suggestion: The network should insist on one simple rule. The time limit is the time limit, plus the time necessary to balance out the time for each candidates. To be granted in the final statements.

Here’s how it would work: Let’s say that Democrat nominee Martin O’Malley(2) is debating Ted Cruz. Let’s say that after the allotted time is up, O’Malley has taken four minutes and 22 seconds more than Cruz. Cruz then gets four minutes and 22 seconds more than the usual time allowed for his final statement.

If the usual time is two minutes, then O’Malley gets his two minutes, and Cruz then gets six minutes and 22 seconds for his final statement. Furthermore, the one who takes more time must give the finishing statement first, which will give his or her opponent not only more time for a closing statement, but a greater chance to rebut as well.

Let’s see if the Democrats would go along with actually making the debates opportunities for actual equal time. You know: like the rules say.

By the way, FOX should practice this with all such forums they have. You know those times when they show the anchor in the middle, the liberal on the left and the Conservative on the right. Those times.

— xPraetorius

Notes


(1)David Brooks is kind of the pet “Conservative” at the New York Times and NPR. He’s hardly a Conservative, but at least he’s to the right of E.J. Dionne. That’s not saying much; so’s Trotsky. Dionne can be counted on always, no exceptions, to toe the Obama Administration line. I’ve never heard Dionne say the slightest thing negative about any initiative of Obama’s, or of any other leftist. Whereas Brooks agrees with Dionne about half the time, and the other half advances nothing more than tepid disagreement. It should be noted that the great, and definitely Conservative, Ramesh Ponnuru fills in for Brooks from time-to-time. I’m not sure how that ever got through the NPR top brass, but it did.

(2) – My current prediction for the nominee of the Democrat Party. The scandal-plagued Hillary Clinton, I’ve also predicted, won’t even make it through to the Convention. And the only Democrat running who’s not a complete nutcase is Jim Webb, hence he’s out. After all, the last four Democrat nominees have been, respectively, Obama, Obama, Kerry, Gore… This is not a party inclined to nominate normal people; people who are not complete nutcases. They just keep topping the previous nutcase with an even nuttier nutcase. Hence, O’Malley, the father of the current “success story” that is Baltimore.

Rudeness is Not a Conservative Principle


In a recent essay, the indispensable Jonah Goldberg said, maybe stating the obvious: “rudeness is not a conservative principle.” (link here) It was in response to a crude remark that Donald Trump, a man legendary for crude remarks, made to Megyn Kelly during the debate.

We all have super powers(1). One of Jonah Goldberg’s is the pithy phrase, well-written, well-placed and on-target.

One of mine is seeing the second half of, or the follow-up to, the pithy phrase; the follow-up that tends to flesh out and give context and additional perspective to the original phrase. An example: Margaret Thatcher once said, “The facts of life are Conservative,” and I found that to be a wonderful summation of a basic truth of life.

Unfortunately, people with a solid understanding of the facts of life are rare in the media, academia, or pop culture — the “MAP Complex(2) — at least in America.(2a) Hence, the follow-up that I recognized really needed to be added: “…but society’s white noise is leftist.” Society’s “white noise” is the aforementioned “MAP Complex.”

Back to Jonah Goldberg’s phrase: “Rudeness is not a Conservative value.” The follow-up that needs to be added: “…but rather a leftist tactic.”

The wording of both parts is important. If rudeness is not a Conservative principle, then it can’t be used by Conservatives as a tactic either. And it isn’t. If someone — or someones — is/are using rudeness as a a tactic, then that means it, rudeness, is also a principle, or a value, of the one using it. In other words the intentionally rude person considers that he is doing nothing wrong by being rude.

A sneering, condescending, pre-adolescent rudeness is so baked into every aspect of leftist discourse that they’re no longer even aware of it, and they certainly don’t consider it a bad thing.

Did you ever notice that when a leftist goes way, way, over the line and gets called on it, he always seems surprised, almost mystified, that he’s being called on it. As if to say, “But I said what I said about really bad people! You know, right-wingers.” And, “You let a lot worse than that go through uncommented on all the time! Why’re you picking on me?!?(3) Their subsequent apologies are always forced, non-apology apologies of the “I’m sorry if anyone was offended” type.

That’s because rudeness is, absolutely, definitely, no doubt about it, a leftist principle, a leftist value. To such an extent that they don’t even consider it rudeness, except if directed at them, at which point they get instantly into high dudgeon, and all, “How dare you?!?” about it. Fully and blissfully unaware that they themselves are constantly guilty of what they so indignantly decry.(4)

— xPraetorius

Notes


(1) – Super powers — in the plural. Everyone has many super powers. Okay, okay… aptitudes and talents, which if honed and refined, would be quite strong. The trick is in identifying them and exploiting them for one’s own betterment, and for the betterment of all mankind. It’s not all that difficult, really, and one should do it. We call the ones who don’t correctly identify their super powers: poor.

(2) – To coin a phrase…

(2a) – As a result, people with a firm grasp of the facts of life are rare in government.

(3) – Which is absolutely true. They are absolutely right to be mystified by the media’s occasional, and rare, pangs of conscience regarding the rude and crude, the unacceptable and the offensive.

(4) – This last phrase itself is a neat little summation of the American left. You almost could say only that — that the left are “fully and blissfully unaware that they themselves are constantly guilty of what they so indignantly decry.” — and not need to say anything else, and you would have described them entirely.

Think It Through


Should be a lesson for life.

You know how you believe about an issue. Name it: gay marriage, death penalty, abortion, taxes, immigration…

Want to arrive at a conclusion regarding an issue — any issue — that has a chance of being the right conclusion? You know, something that has a good chance of being true?

It’s not too difficult. Simply be sure to do, or be, the following:

  1. First: think it through.
  2. Next: don’t be afraid to be wrong.
  3. And: never be afraid to discard a belief that doesn’t stand up to your scrutiny.
  4. Then: remember that nothing is “settled.” You got to where you are now by taking on and then discarding beliefs you were confident were correct.
  5. But: remember, you do have to believe in something. Some really basic beliefs can be “settled” in your mind.” Those things that are “settled” in your mind are the standards against which you’ll measure all your other beliefs and thoughts.
  6. Finally: Do stand — firmly and resolutely — for things.

Item 1 — Think it Through:

This means that you need to consider your belief, your view, your point-of-view from numerous different standpoints. Argue against yourself. Reasonably. In other words, seek out serious arguments against your beliefs, and take them seriously.

Assume that the person with the countervailing belief holds that belief sincerely, and that he is intelligent and and reasonable. Note: all that may not be true, but you should assume it until you have reason not to.

Only robust challenges to your beliefs are going to allow you to grow, because you  cannot become stronger, more intelligent, more informed by arguing against idiots or the ill-informed. I play a mean game of ping pong, but I can’t improve unless I find someone who really challenges me.

Note: finding serious challengers to your beliefs — or your ping pong abilities :) — becomes more and more difficult as you grow stronger. However, that just means you’re growing and becoming more intelligent, which should be a goal of every man.

Item 2 — Don’t be Afraid to be Wrong:

You will be wrong from time to time. Recognize it, embrace it, and never come to the conclusion that you alone see things clearly enough that there could be no possible disagreement with what you believe. You must be humble enough to admit you’re wrong, when it becomes or seems evident.

Don’t forget: the goal is not to win a debate, but to grow, to become more intelligent as a result of the debate.

Item 3 — Never be Afraid to Discard a Belief that Doesn’t Stand up to Your Scrutiny:

Be glad, be delighted to discard erroneous beliefs. After all, it’s a double victory for you: (1) you get rid of a wrong thing, (2) you getnew view that has a better chance of being correct.

Each time you discard a wrong belief, the new belief has a vastly greater chance of being correct. We should all embrace those chances we all get to discard erroneous beliefs and views.

Item 4 –Remember That Nothing is “settled”:

One of the greatest, most dangerous, most pernicious enemies of growth of any kind is the idea that something is “settled.”

We all want to know something. We want our beliefs to be correct. No one wants to be wrong. So, we all have a tendency to argue as if our own belief is the be-all-end-all. It’s not. It’s just another viewpoint among many, many others.

Be ready to challenge long-held, even cherished beliefs. Remember, though, the challenge has to be a serious one. When a challenge demonstrates a lack of seriousness, you can properly ignore it.

How can you tell a challenge is serious? Pretty easy. An unserious challenger will lapse quickly into irrelevancies: insults, evasions, questions about you, not your belief, and other ways to avoid revealing the weakness of his beliefs.

Item 5: Remember, You Do Have to Believe in Something:

If you question all your fundamental beliefs, you’ll never move forward with anything. For example: if you question your faith that you won’t get hit by a meteor if yo go out the door, you might never go out the door. There are fundamental assumptions that are not necessarily worth questioning, at least not in the context of growth in the area of understanding societal issues.

It’s not worth, for example, going into deep introspection about whether you exist, or not, whether everyone else exists or not, if you are trying to understand racism in America. The issue itself implies certain assumptions: I exist, you exist, America exists — with laws, customs, beliefs and points-of-view, problems and all. It’s when you get to assumptions that are much more subjective that you will need to scrutinize your assumptions. However, you do need to believe in something, or else there’s no point in debating.

Item 6: Do Stand — Firmly and Resolutely — for Things: 

Find what you can reasonably conclude is good and right and decent and stand firmly for it. If you don’t, those who have not thought things through will win the day. You know: shallow, superficial, immature people, like the current President, and the current front-runners in the Democrat Party for nomination to be the next President.

You can never be absolutely certain that what you believe is correct — after all, nothing is settled(1) — but you can give yourself the best possible chance of being correct.

The more important the issue, the more you should challenge yourself to think through the issue, and to seek out evidence that challenges your beliefs and understanding.

You just have to think it through.

— xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) – The truth, or “reality” if you prefer, is settled, but your ability to perceive or to understand reality is imperfect, hence your understanding of the truth, or of reality, should never be settled.

 

More Deep, Dark Sadness… (Part III)


— WARNING: Straight talk about Planned Parenthood, Nazis and other noxious, malodorous things — absolutely not for the faint of heart —

In this post, we told you how there were, and are, monsters among us.

The law that Planned Parenthood obviously broke says that the remains of snuffed-out babies should be treated with just a teentsy-weentsy, tiny bit more respect than the initial cold, cruel snuffing out.

But, why?

You allow people to kill “it.” But, then demand that the killers treat “it” with respect and reverence? Surely you’ll excuse society if they might find that just a tad confusing. Because that’s freakin’ insane! 


 

It was the same question I posed when American soldiers were caught relieving themselves on the bodies of Taliban goons whom they had just killed. I suggested that those soldiers just treated the living Taliban fighters with the ultimate contempt — fighters who were trying to return the favor, I hasten to add — and The Yanks are supposed now to treat the bodies with solemn respect?

I further suggested that if you were to poll those now dead Taliban before they got on the ol’ express down elevator to their place in the lake of lava, to a man they would have said, “go ahead — piddle on me, but don’t kill me!” Martyrdom or no martyrdom. Islam or no islam.

I even further suggested that we should publicize the fact that we’re going to treat Taliban bodies in precisely the way that would guarantee, according to islamic belief, the victim’s trip straight to hell. It actually might be the ultimate kindness, by deterring other impressionable youngsters from joining the Taliban.

You don’t actually have to  do it, to treat dead Taliban bodies with contempt… just say you’re going to. Then, you give the dead Taliban a Christian burial, so that he doesn’t actually go to hell. We should do this with ISIS fighters. Tell them we’re going to sprinkle the bodies with pig’s blood, and that we’re going to piddle on them before we bury them.

Then, when leftist nitwits in America whine and complain about it, as they inevitably will do, tell them where to go.


 

Back to the topic.

I imagine that most babies in the womb, even without having the words to express it, would have much the same feeling as the living Taliban fighters: “Don’t rip me apart, just treat me with some kind of disrespect, then go away.”

However, after being butchered, dismembered, crushed — whether in a “crunchy” way or not — and ripped apart, I suspect those same babies don’t then give one tiny hang what you do with their remains.

We live in a weird world, in which we discuss, over red wine and crumpets, the dismemberment of what are clearly living human children, and what their body parts will cost, and then we get all upset over what we do with those same mangled children.

To understand that this happens is to understand how it can be that your average Nazi concentration camp guard used to go home from a busy day of gassing Jewish men, women and children, then cry bitter tears over the news that the family dog has died.

In America we rip unborn babies apart, then howl and shriek that the people who suggest that maybe we shouldn’t rip unborn babies apart are somehow monsters, and  oppressors, and cold, cruel people.

Cecile Richards — head of Planned Parenthood — spends each day presiding over an organization that rips babies apart for fun and profit, then goes home and weeps bitter tears over the passing of the family dog.

I’m reminded of what I read in a Mark Steyn essay somewhere: “Does 30 years of calling babies “blobs of tissue” have no effect on the culture?(1)

— xPraetorius

Notes:


(1)Here’s Steyn’s use of the quote. And here’s the quote in the original.

 

Black Lives Matter, Right?


 — Nope. No, they don’t. Not to the Left, that is —


Or, evidently, even to other black Americans.

After all, if black lives really mattered wouldn’t you go to where those lives are being snuffed out wholesale? Wouldn’t you try to put a stop to the killing? I mean, do black lives matter to you or not?

Yet, when people point this out, the cries of “Racist!” are deafening.

Black lives don’t matter to Democrats — of any color.

If you examine American cities, where black Americans die in obscene numbers, it is Democrats — the American left — who have owned the cities for more than three generations. They’ve turned American cities into killing fields for black Americans.

Even worse: It is black Democrats who have run those cities for huge portions of that time. In Chicago, in New York, in Los Angeles, in Baltimore and all the other killing fields of America. Black Democrats overseeing mass killings of other black Americans… and doing nothing about it.

These are undisputed facts. It’s hard to imagine how black lives matter to Democrats. To any Democrats… white or black.

Do you see any push on the part of the left, or of black Americans, or of “activists” to change the policies that have overseen and contributed to the slaughter of tens of thousands of black Americans over the past decades? Do you see any real push on the part of black Americans to demand that Democrats actually do something of real substance that would earn the votes they get?

Nope. There are no such large-scale movements in black America today. Just things like “Black Lives Matter.” A nice-sounding, widespread movement, based nearly entirely on fraud.

Black lives matter, but not to other blacks in American cities.

Another undisputed fact: Any black man, woman or child is safer in the hands of a white policeman than walking through just about any city neighborhood populated by members of his own ethnicity. Everyone knows this now. After some relentless, clear-eyed reporting from the American right, it’s finally seeped its way into the global American awareness.

Another undisputed fact: More white people are killed by policeman than black people — by far. The media know this, but they report as if it’s only black people being killed under any circumstances in interactions with the police.

If black lives mattered to the media, wouldn’t black Americans demand that the media report on the issue honestly?

If black Americans cared one hoot about other black Americans, then they wouldn’t immediately shout down people calling attention to known facts.

Black Lives Matter — just not to most of the media.

Black Lives Matter — just not to most of the media, particularly the old media. However, FOX News has been reporting honestly on this for some time now — in their news reporting and their opinion shows.

Don’t pretend that the Right, or Conservatives, have had anything to do with black problems. We on the right haven’t held real power in the country since Reagan.  Do you doubt that? Okay, four words for you: Obamacare and Gay Marriage.

If the right-wing were really wielding power behind the scenes, these two country-destroying, and soul-impoverishing, horrors wouldn’t ever have seen the light of day.

The Right hasn’t had real power in the cities for more than 60 years. The Right hasn’t been represented in the old media for more than ninety years.

Want some more words? To illustrate the culture we live in? Democrat Bill Clinton gets away with proven accusations of actual sexual harassment, and credible accusations of rape, while Republican Congressman Mark Foley can’t get away with suggestive e-mails. Gay e-mails at that! All that happened 20 years ago.

Look up Barney Frank and Gerry Studds sometime to see what Democrats can get away with. Routinely. Look up “Obama, Barack” to see an example of the breathtaking corruption Democrats get away with today.

Black women don’t think that other black lives matter either.

Black women don’t think that other black lives matter. The overwhelming majority of those in child-bearing years nowadays produce babies for whom the absolutely vital presence of a father — of the child’s father — is rare to non-existent. They thereby steal absolutely necessary components of life from their children, and from their children’s fathers.

If black lives mattered, wouldn’t black women want to do the very best for their children? It sounds pretty elementary to me.

Black lives don’t matter, to black men either.

Black lives don’t matter, apparently, to black men either.

If “black lives mattered” to black men, why would they put up with such nonsense from black women? From any woman? Are black men that completely dominated by their basest urges? Are they so lacking in self-control that they just can’t help themselves? Are they so lacking in self-respect that they are willing to generate, and then confirm, the very worst stereotypes about them?

I refuse to believe it. Blacks are people, not animals. Animals can’t prevent themselves from responding to their basic urges. Black people can. The only conclusion that a rational person can take from all this is that black people choose not to care about other black people.

Democrats and the RGI are busily denouncing the only ones who actually treat black Americans like real people.

If black lives mattered, where are the black men and black women demanding that black men and women do and be better? Oh, they’re out there alright, but the Race Grievance Industry, the RGI, and Democrats and the rest of the American left are busy denouncing them as sellouts and Uncle Toms and house n*ggers… and shouting them down whenever they get too uppity.

If black lives mattered, why do black people continue to give the vast majority of their votes to the Democrat Party, the political wing of the left, that is killing them wholesale?

The only people to whom black lives actually matter are Conservatives

The only people to whom black lives actually matter are Conservatives, the ones whom blacks and the left are also denouncing as racists. The only ones to have treated black Americans as Americans-in-full, as people-in-full; fully endowed with all the same rights and responsibilities as all other Americans; as all other people.

So, do black lives really matter? Are black lives of any value at all? Are black lives precious and miraculous and indescribably meaningful and important?

Yep. Sure they matter. Of course they do! Sure they’re important and precious and miraculous and all that. But only to the one group of American people blacks have rejected and have accused of the vilest of motivations. Only to American Conservatives.

Black Lives Matter? The left, and most black Americans, don’t give a damn.

The left, and most black Americans, don’t give a damn. Black people are not the animals that the left and other blacks make them out to be. Just don’t say that out loud, or you’re a racist.

— FreeThinker

 

Some Quick Observations on the Debate


• Ben Carson had the lines of the night with (1) the “half-a-brain” remark and (2) “operating on what makes people what they really are,” and (3) “I’m the only one to have separated Siamese twins…”

• Quietly, Ted Cruz won it. So quietly that no one noticed that he’d won it.

• Rubio did very well, and just as expected. He’d be a whole lot better than Obama or Clinton, or — heaven forfend — Sanders or O’Malley. On the other hand, so would a walnut.

• Cruz’s final statement was the best with the “things I will do on day one as President.”

• Of course, Carson’s final remarks were the most fun. Carson is a brilliant, decent, really good man. I don’t care what the results of the upcoming primary and election tussles are: someone needs to find a way to get that man front-and-center on a regular basis.

• Cruz pledged to get rid of Dodd-Frank. Excellent! And there’s much more to get rid of too: Sarbanes-Oxley, Mark-to-market… Obamacare.

• Based on the precedent that Obama set, there are numerous things a President Cruz could do to make Obamacare unworkable and “kill it on the vine.” The Democrats would have nothing to say about that, since they supported the obviously unconstitutional executive orders that Obama has been doing. Not that that would prevent them from howling to high heaven though.

• Would I want a President Cruz to do the executive order thing to roll back the disaster that is Obamacare? Dunno. I have to think about it for a bit.

• On that topic: no man in history has been more destructive to the principle of “balance of powers” than Obama. You and I both know that what he has done is illegal, certainly immoral, absolutely unconstitutional, and he has done it because any substantive opposition will come under a torrent of abuse from Obama’s lackeys in the media. In other words, he did it because he knew he’d get away with it.

• The Republican field is amazingly deep. The list of candidates who gave thoughtful, substantive replies to questions numbers exactly: 10. Yes, even Trump, when he wasn’t being ridiculously bombastic, gave some interesting responses… responses that proved that, indeed, he is smart, and decisive and possessed of a clear vision, and … slightly … possessed.

• I wish others would be as plainspoken as Trump is about the opponents. He called Hillary Clinton “incompetent” and a bunch of other unflattering things. I wish the rest would be as honest about her. The “thinking” of the left is ugly, divisive, stupid, racist, destructive, substanceless, soul-sapping and cretinous. It needs to be discredited forcefully and forthrightly. We won’t be able to discredit such abominable thinking while giving credit to the ones thinking it. At some point you have to call the ones holding really stupid ideas… stupid.

• The previous item bears repeating: Take off the gloves with Hillary. Call her what she is: corrupt, not too bright, incompetent… a failure. When you’re called “sexist” tell the accuser to grow up, get a life, and stop being a whining crybaby. Heck, tell the accuser to “man up.” I’d love to hear someone accused of sexism turning on his accuser like that!!!

• Something else that bears repeating: “The “thinking” of the left is ugly, divisive, stupid, racist, destructive, substanceless, soul-sapping and cretinous.” It’s true — couldn’t some one or two — or more — of the candidates just freakin’ say it? Trump would — if, that is, he believed it, which is not a sure thing.

• Now, Carly Fiorina… That’s how a real woman candidate should be: highly intelligent, articulate, obviously accomplished, yet approachable and gracious and graceful.

• Three more who deserve — if one examines real, objective accomplishment, and brains — to be in the top tier of contenders: Fiorina, Jindal, Perry. No doubt about it.

— xParetorius

You Heard it Here First… (Part II)


In this post, we called it… and we’re calling it again.

Hillary Clinton is out.  Before the convention.

Gone.

History.

She’s too stupid. Too boring. Too corrupt.

She’s unable to answer a question honestly, because, simply: every single honest answer she could ever give shows her either to be stupid, or incompetent, or a complete cretin… or it shows her to be a criminal.

  • The reason she can’t answer questions on the stump? Too stupid. The media can protect her from her own silence only so long.
  • The reason she can’t answer questions about Benghazi? Too incompetent.
  • The reason she can’t talk about her e-mail server? She knows it was illegal, and she’s corrupt.
  • The reason she can’t talk about what she’s done? Everything she’s ever done has turned to poop. She’s an incompetent nitwit.
  • The reason she can’t talk about the Clinton Foundation? It’s a  criminal organization masquerading as a charity.
  • The reason she can’t talk about anything? She has no accomplishments, nothing to point to, nothing she has done that has ever succeeded. What is she going to talk about? Her tenure as Secretary of State? How’s the world doing?
  • There is literally nothing she can say that doesn’t have a withering, devastating, contradictory retort.(1)
  • Finally, because she’s such a horrible candidate, there are people in the Democrat Party taking the idea of a Joe Biden candidacy seriously. If you’re making the hyper-buffoonish, gaffe-tastic, super-groper Joe Freakin’ Biden look appealing…

Where does she go from there?

She’s gone.

Just a question of when.(2)

— xPraetorius

Notes


 

(1) – This is the one that will get her pushed from the race. The leadership of the Democrat Party is psychotic, racist, power-mad and thoroughly corrupt… but they’re not stupid. They know that she has and is nothing of substance to offer to the electorate. And transparently so.

(2) – The only — only — caveat: if the thoroughly corrupt American media let her get away with being the stupid, incompetent, idiotic criminal that she is.

 

More Deep, Dark Sadness… (Part II)


In this post, we discussed the monster Kermit Gosnell, now languishing in prison for ripping apart new-born babies, and running an abattoir in Philadelphia, PA.

In related posts, we indicated that Gosnell the butcher was not alone, and that there were more, probably many more, monsters among us.

Our assertion has been massively confirmed over the past couple of weeks, as we watched “doctors” employed by Planned Parenthood discuss the killing and dismemberment of babies for fun and profit, over tasty viands and red wine.

There are more monsters among us, and they work for Planned Parenthood.

They also work for the Democrat Party, whose top leadership leaped to the defense of the nightmarish goons of Planned Parenthood.

— xPraetorius

Democrats – This is a Test (Part II)


— How Will You React to the Ghouls of Planned Parenthood? —

I await the new Planned Parenthood line of designer lampshades. Surely they’ll be expensive, because of how expensive it is to “produce?” the materials.

Oh, don’t get all sanctimonious on me. If you allow the cool, calculating, nightmarish fiends of Planned Parenthood to kill babies, to do so “creatively,” or in a less “crunchy” way, why on earth would you expect that they would treat the  babies’ remains with respect? Law or no law. Why should they?

The law is itself a bit weird. Are the law’s writers trying to tell me that the baby upon whom someone has visited the ultimate indignity — being coldly, unceremoniously killed — somehow then deserves respect and dignified treatment? After they freakin’ killed “it?” Kind of ridiculous if you ask me.

However, let’s pursue all that for just a moment. Do a little thought exercise with me:

  • Let’s say that Planned Parenthood comes out with their line of lampshades, made from genuine “uterine contents,” and the price for them is way up there, so that Planned Parenthood makes lots of cash.
  • Of course, the Obama “Justice” Department will let them get away with it, and the media will abet that crime — the crime of inaction in the face of monstrousness — as well.
  • After a while, things being as they are, the controversy dies down, and Planned Parenthood makes the new UC Lampshades line a permanent fixture of their “business model.” You and I both  know that’s not at all far-fetched.

Now that I’ve set the stage, stay with me; the thought exercise isn’t over yet.

  • Years from now, things change and the once-profitable UC Lampshades line fades away for something else.
  • Scientists uncover a UC Lampshade and examine it.
  • Here’s the question: What do you think they will call the “material” it is made of?

I know the answer to the question. You do too.

Those future scientists will recoil in shock and horror, as they realize that the lampshade is made of human skin.

The scientists will ask themselves, “What sick, twisted society could possibly permit the barbaric practice of turning human skin into lampshades?”

But: There will be no doubt in their minds: the lampshade would be made of human skin.

What’s the point , you say, of that rather gruesome thought exercise?

Simple.

Get past the euphemisms, the politics, the passions, the heated rhetoric, the lies, fraud and deceit, and you come to the inescapable conclusion that what you are so casually dismembering, disemboweling, crushing, squashing, and/or sucking the brain out of(1) is … a human being.

Try all you want to turn “it” into anything else, but you can’t.

So, Democrats, this is a test. This is only a test. If you had been an actual human — a living, breathing person with a soul and a  conscience — you would have reacted with nauseated horror.

Did you?

— xPraetorius

Notes


(1) – If, that is, you’re not hoping to sell that selfsame brain for profit

 

Democrats – This is a Test


— How Will You React to the Ghouls of Planned Parenthood? —

All indications are that you have already failed… miserably.

Whatever happened to your humanity? Whatever happened to your conscience? At long last, have you, Democrats, no shame whatsoever?

The Planned Parenthood videos are the clearest depiction of ghoulishness seen since those grainy newsreel videos of the Nazi Concentration Camps liberated by the Allies at the end of World War II.

I haven’t heard a single, solitary, blessed one of you respond with nauseated outrage — the only possible, decent, sane … the only human reaction.

The only reason we don’t have yet another equivalent ghoulishness to add to the Nazi-Planned-Parenthood axis of evil, is that I’m aware of no videos showing the Khmer Rouge’s killing fields in ambodia.

Oh, yes… I forgot. ISIS is out there, too. Yep, you heard it right here: Khmer Rouge-ISIS-Planned Parenthood and their defenders, the Nazis(1), are all in the same bloody, grisly, putrid stew.

For those of you who insist, “Oh that [fill in whatever unimaginable barbarity you can imagine here] could never happen here!” you should understand that it is happening, and has been for some time.

The Democrat Party — the party of segregation, of the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow, is also the party that supports the sale of dismembered baby body parts. The more intact the better. The less “crunchy” the means of “producing” those body parts, the better.

— xPraetorius

Notes


(1) – Elizabeth Warren, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton. Let’s call this cabal of soulless monsters “KR-ISIS-Na-PP” (pr.: “CrisisNap“) and, of course, their defenders.

You Heard it Here First…


Well, not really, but the below is all true.

Just some quick, stream-of-consciousness observations and predictions about the upcoming presidential primaries and election.

I’m trying to enter  these as quickly as possible, because people are arriving at these same conclusions quickly:

  • Hillary Clinton — what a doofus!  — is out. Too stupid, too boring, too corrupt, too old, too obviously lacking in any substance or accomplishment, outside of being her doofus husband’s wife.
    • Out well before the Democrat Party convention next year.
  • Bernie Sanders — what a troglodyte! — is out.
    • Too stupid, too fun, charismatic and extroverted. He’s like a game show host. You always feel, after watching something about him, as though you need to take a shower; as though you’re somehow dirtier just by watching him.
  • Joe Biden – Too funny. He’s out. Though I almost wish he were in. Talk about grist for Conservative comedians!!! This is the poster child for the idea that America is a mediocritocracy.(1) Interesting Note: People are worried about her Hillariness because of her “gaffes.” And they want Joe Biden instead? The man’s a gaffe machine! He walks, talks, breathes, exhales, exudes gaffes!
  • Martin O’Malley – Should be too funny. This is the guy who used to be the mayor of Baltimore, and who helped to contribute to the disaster that is Baltimore today. A sane party would have expelled him long ago, as if we were a  cancer cell in the party. However, this is the Democrat party we’re talking about. They welcome loonies like O’Malley.

Your next Democrat Party nominee — after the parade of mediocrities and nutcases we have seen recently — is Martin O’Malley.

If, that is, nothing changes from today to when the inevitable Democrat Party simpleton is selected next year.

I’ll keep you posted

Remember: in the very recent past the Democrats have selected John Kerry, Al Gore and Barack Obama. How’s America doing under those birdbrains? Remember: when Kerry and Gore lost their presidential elections? They didn’t just go away, as a sane person would have done, they become High Administration Officials and Important Environmental Activists. They are … embarrassments and buffoons.

If the Democrats  hadn’t chosen Obama in 2008, they’d have chosen … Hillary Clinton.

I defy you to show me a greater collection of morons, mediocrities, misfits and brainless boobs than the assemblage of steaming offal atop the leadership of the today’s American Democrat Party.

 

— xPraetorius

Notes


(1) – Rule by the mediocre. In other words: the more mediocre you are, the better you chances at excelling in a mediocritocracy.

 

I Did It! YOU Should Do It Too!


I just lied through my teeth to a pollster.

For every question the pollster asked me, I answered the exact opposite of what I think.

Why? Because polls are garbage. Completely manipulable and manipulated — especially by the left.

What we all should do: Lie to the pollsters every time, then announce it at the top of our lungs.

If this really is a democracy here, then polling should be an absolutely insignificant factor in who will win the next election, presidential or otherwise. Nowadays, they practically determine who will win or lose.

If we all defy pollsters by simply lying to them, and then announcing that we have lied to them, we will have taken one small, important step in fixing our democracy.

 

— xPraetorius

NPR Watch – 7/27/15


I was listening to National Public Radio this morning on the way to work. Someone came on to promote a feature of theirs: “Science Friday.

The key phrase: “Science: it’s not just for geeks anymore.”

At first glance, that sounds just great, doesn’t it? People taking science, with all its complexity and sophisticated-sounding words and all, and distilling it down for the common ruck?

What’s not to like?

Needless to say, it’s in that “distillation” process that vast mischief lurks. What, after all, do you get when you combine (1) scientists needing money to keep their research going, with (2) a credulous public willing to believe nearly anyone with “scientist” attached to his name, with (3) a left-wing ideology that’ll use anything to advance its agenda, with (4) a thoroughly corrupt media-academia-pop culture complex willing to do or say anything to promote that left-wing ideology? Why, you get: environmentalism.

The 21st Century’s greatest scam, environmentalism, is being perpetrated right in front of our eyes, and all by “scientists,” supposedly interested only in where “the science” will take them.

it’s important to note that environmentalism is not the only such scam. Remember all the hullabaloo over the “gay gene?” Supposedly, “scientists” had discovered the existence of a gene that makes gay people gay. Then, when that idea was no longer needed politically, gays have quietly admitted that there was never any such gene, and that homosexuality is merely a state of mind.

So, what could possibly go wrong with something like “Science Friday?” Well, either the scientists or the self-appointed “interpreters” of the science simply lying about that science, as they did to fabricate the fraudulent “science” of environmentalism. That’s what could go wrong, and is going wrong, with “science.”

Don’t forget, it was “scientists” — not religious people — who fought hardest to keep the idea of a flat earth alive. As well as the idea of an earth-centered solar system, and so forth.

Since NPR is nothing more than a part of the vast propaganda wing of the American left, you can know, without a doubt, that anything they do they do to support a leftist agenda. Period. That is the Prime Directive of NPR.

And, in America today, anything that comes wrapped in a package labeled “Science” has automatic credibility — whether it’s actually science, or an out-and-out fraud, like environmentalism.

— xPraetorius

Fifteen Minutes of Brilliance


It’s right here.

In a great interview, the great Thomas Sowell expounds on intellectuals and race. Just in case you think we’re a bit “extreme,” Dr. Sowell says much of what we’ve been saying for a while.

I don’t claim to be Dr. Sowell’s influence — the reverse, rather, is true — but it’s still nice to observe one of America’s all-time most brilliant thinkers agreeing with us here at our small, but increasingly influential, think tank.

In this short video, we hear Dr. Sowell and his interviewer confirm that racism is a phenomenon largely of the left, not of the right.

The two confirm many other things we’ve been saying here for a long time too.

— xPraetorius

THE Proper Perspective on Trump vs. McCain (Part II)


In this post, I covered the tiff between Donald Trump, billionaire candidate for the Presidency, and John McCain, Republican Senator from Arizona. In that column, I said that:

Personally, I have no desire whatsoever for Donald Trump to become the President of the United States, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with his opinion of John McCain.

I should have noted something else: Any of the Republican Presidential candidates would be a better President, by orders of magnitude, than Hillary Clinton, the logical next step of the Great Obama Decline.

From the ridiculous (Trump) to the sublime (Carson), the Republicans are awash in people who would do, or would have done, a better job than Obama-Clinton.

Don’t read too, too much into that: a kumquat would do, or would have done, a better job than Obama-Clinton.

It’s long past time to demand of Republicans that they field intelligent, substantive candidates.(1) They appear to be living up to that responsibility with Fiorina, Carson, Paul, Walker, Rubio, Kasich and some more, but we don’t need just a great candidate, we need a great President.

To help clean up the Obama wreckage.

— xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) – Because the Democrats signaled, decades ago, that they were no longer interested in presenting us with anyone but complete nitwits.

Can you imagine that? The fate of the world for the foreseeable future rests in the hands of the leadership of the Republican Party.

 

THE Proper Perspective on Trump vs. McCain


Warning: Rated PG (mild profanity, not usually permitted here)


The proper perspective on the tiff between Donald Trump and John McCain? It’s here. Note: My personal opinion is that FreeThinker expressed what needed to be expressed on this topic here.(1) Leave it to Mark Steyn, however, to bring up things that even we had not noticed. Hence, honesty and integrity, as well as a commitment to cover everything we cover comprehensively, compel us to report it to you.

It’s in Steyn’s column that we learn, for example, that John McCain told a (really) tasteless joke about Chelsea Clinton in 1998, and more.

Yes, it’s Mark Steyn, and as usual, he says all that needs to be said about le tout Trump-McCain in one bite-sized essay. In this column [Editor’s Note: This is the reason for the PG Rating], Steyn points out rather starkly that if “there’s a place in our party for such a man [John McCain], there’s certainly no reason why there shouldn’t also be a place for Donald Trump.”

There are so many implications in all that! Here are some of them:

  • John McCain is a war hero. Okay. That means that we should give him all the credit in the world for that. But it doesn’t make him a good man, or a good Senator, or a good anything else. His merit beyond his war hero status is entirely dependent on his actions and thoughts after what made him a war hero. Remember: first-class dingbat, and leftist commie sympathizer, and current Secretary of State John Kerry, came home a “war hero,” and is accepted as such by the vast majority of the media today. Some, myself included, argue credibly that his actions after the Vietnam War caused the deaths of more than two million Vietnamese after the Communist takeover of all of Vietnam that Kerry helped to engineer.
  • People use hyperbole. They should be allowed to do that.
  • The enmity between John McCain and Donald Trump is between John McCain and Donald Trump. People have enmity between them. That will never not be true.
  • Donald Trump has opinions with which I probably don’t agree. Okay. It’s likely that every single person on the face of the earth has opinions with which I don’t agree.
  • My disagreement with anyone’s opinions about something as narrowly-focused as the “war hero” status of someone else has no bearing whatsoever on the suitability of that other person to be the President of the United States.
  • Whether or not that other person is even right in his opinion about the war hero status of someone else has no bearing whatsoever on the suitability of the first person to be the President of the United States.
  • This is all teentsy-weentsy, piddling stuff, so, of course, the press obsess all over it. Note: all the while they completely ignore really serious stuff on the Democrat side(2)
  • Save your anger at Trump and direct it at the press for obsessing over the piddly and the trivial. Demand that the press stop being complete morons.

Personally, I have no desire whatsoever for Donald Trump to become the President of the United States, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with his opinion of John McCain.

— xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) – We noticed, for example, that the media simply yawned whenever a Democrat or any other leftist said the most scurrilous things imaginable about McCain. Remember: the American media were the ones who thought they had found their “war hero” in John “Lurch” Kerry.

(2) – Benghazi, the IRS, Fast and Furious, to name just a few… We covered, indirectly, a more comprehensive list here. Here’s an instructive quote:

Note: we have been saying for a very long time that the only reason the Obama Administration gets away with its staggering, steaming piles of corruption, is the complicity of the media.

The President of the United States is … an Anti-American Disgrace


I’m watching the news at my humble home. One headline is that the White House flag has not flown at half-staff since the murders of the five Marines in Tennessee. Five days ago.

Are you @#$^#!@!!! serious?

What more do you need, America?

This guy isn’t the President of the United States of America, he’s the president of The Rest of the World, and America be damned. That’s who he is and that’s who he wants to be.

Do we Americans really like being ruled by a guy who thinks that Vladimir Putin, ISIS, North Korea, Iran and Al Qaeda all have a point?

As millions pour across the border between Mexico and America, are you confident that Obama’s keeping out the ISIS thugs in that flood? You know, the ones coming here to kill you and your children?

I’m not.

FreeThinker

Time to Start the Count? (Part II)


Here we asked the question: “Should we start the count of “the depredations of islam in North America?

Let’s add:

  • One woman beheaded in Oklahoma? (I’ve forgotten the state, but then so have the media)
  • Five Marines murdered in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

And still no substantive response from the President of the United States of America, who, apparently, doesn’t give a hang.

— xPraetorius

How to Think About Trump’s Remark


Donald Trump said that John McCain is not a war hero because of whatever. Needless to say, this was red meat in front of the media.

Why though? Aren’t they used to seeing this from the left all the time?

No Conservative, or Republican is ever a war hero. That exalted status is only reserved for those who protested, who did everything they could to hinder, American war efforts.

Look at this link. In that column at MarketWatch.com, Rex Nutting(1) says that John McCain really isn’t a war hero. He then goes on to list all the reasons why McCain actually is a war hero, but that’s beside the point. Here’s the most important part of what’s largely a pointless essay:

But the war McCain fought in Vietnam was not a noble cause. He participated in the greatest aerial bombardment of any country up to that time, but what did he and the other American pilots accomplish? The bombing campaign didn’t win the war; it merely prolonged it.

We’ve fought a few more pointless wars since then. And each time we struggle as a nation to put some meaning into those wars. What do we say to those whom we’ve asked to make the ultimate sacrifice, those who killed and died for a cause that wasn’t worth killing or dying for?

We call them heroes. It helps us forget.

I almost stopped reading after, “But the war McCain fought in Vietnam was not a noble cause.” I really wanted to write some bad words after that, but my editor here won’t let me. I really wanted to say, “F-YOU,” Rex Nutting! Fighting communism was every bit as important as fighting Nazism. And that was a noble cause.

You say that “The bombing campaign didn’t win the war; it merely prolonged it.” How do you know that? How do you know how long the war would have lasted if this or that had changed? Were you there? Did you have some kind of crystal ball back then that told you that the bombing campaigns over North Vietnam were going to prolong the war? Do you have some kind of  crystal  ball now? Are you magic or something?

Your column is ignorant and dumb, Rex.

Oh, and the war to kill islamic pigs is not pointless. It has a point. A good point. Every grisly islamic murder proves that point over and over again. I might agree that the beheaders and crucifiers are not worth dying for, but they are worth killing. I wish I’d done some of that killing.

But, I want to tell you the correct  way to think of Trump’s statement that John McCain is not a war hero. As I said at the top, the press hear this all the time from the Democrats. Why would they get in a lather about this? Like I said above, the only “war heroes” the left and the press recognize are ex-soldiers who come home and protest against America and everything America stands for.

So, the right way to think of what Donald Trump said is, “So what.” Everyone has his or her own opinion. I don’t care about any of that. If Trump doesn’t like McCain, so what. If the dislike is reciprocated, so what.

What is this candidate or that candidate going to do about taxes, islam, ISIS, my privacy, abortion, crime, and the most important thing in the world, rolling back the size of the US government? That’s what I care about, and so should you.

FreeThinker

Notes: 


(1) – I  wonder whether it would be proper to get rid of the final “g” on his last name, in order to label him correctly. :)

 

British Open Disappointment — and Happiness


I was rooting for Jordan Spieth to win his third major golf championship in a row. The astonishingly talented young man fell one shot short.

However, one of the classiest men in all of sports — not just golf — did win. Zach Johnson would bring, does bring, class, quiet, gentle charm, great good sportsmanship to every moment of every golf tournament in which he participates.

As it happens, he’s also one of the finest golfers in the world. Ever so quietly, he appears at or near the top of the leaderboard week in and week out. And he’s done so for years. 

Golf is overloaded with graceful ambassadors — people who represent the game in the public eye — in as fine a manner as any sport would ever want.

After all, there’s Matt Kuchar, Dustin Johnson, Phil Mickelson, for current golfers, and the older golfers are well-represented by great, good sports: Tom Watson, Jack Nicklaus, Lee Trevino, Arnold Palmer and more.

At the very pinnacle of this group of quiet, talented athletes and sportsmen is Zach Johnson. Know who else is right up there? Jordan Spieth: the guy who has to be the most disappointed golfer in the world today. He ended up one shot back, in fourth place.

Many people already regard young Spieth as the best golfer in the world, and a victory in the British Open would have ended any debate whatsoever. There is an order of magnitude of difference between what would have been if he had won, and what is now, that he came in second. You can tell the kid wants it. He makes no bones about it.

After he departed the 18th and final hole, having missed a four-way playoff by one stroke, Spieth stayed around to be sure to congratulate the eventual winner, Zach Johnson. He made sure to do the crowd clap at the end. He did everything to show that he was a great golfer, but that it was also really important to be a good sport.

Only golf has such people. And it has lots of such people. It’s practically a requirement of being a great golfer. The only prominent exception — the scowling, brooding, petulant, spoiled brat Tiger Woods — proves the point. Woods’ silly immaturity is mild compared to most sports, but it stands out starkly in golf, because everyone else acts so much better, so much classier.

Oh, golf has its scandals — Dustin Johnson last year got caught engaging in ummm… substance abuse — and took some six or so months off. Other than Tiger Woods’ really rotten personal behavior — again, the exception — that’s about it. Oh, there’ve been more, but there is so much social and peer pressure to be a good guy, that it produces results… and great sportsmanship.

I can’t help thinking that every top golfer realizes deep down that, bottom line, he’s paid a lot of money to hit a small ball into a hole usually about 1,300 to 1,400 feet away, and to do that in as few shots as possible. If someone were to ask him, “What’s the point?” he’d be worried that he couldn’t give an answer that would justify all the money.

At the same time, I know the answer. I’ve played with lots of people like Tiger, Phil, Zach, Dustin, and I’ve seen their concentration, and their focus. They want to tour the course, having vanquished it, every time they go out. It’s absolutely a proxy for war, and for jousting, and for the daily wrestling and grappling with other people, other companies, other cities, states, regions and countries, other ideas, beliefs and thinking, that we all partake in each day.

You can make a straight line connecting the dots between sinking a 15-foot putt to win the Masters, or the British Open, and defeating tyranny on a continent. In-between those extremes lies the line that divides civilization and chaos. Every sport has that; only golf lives, breathes, is the understanding that — it’s still only golf.

That’s why I’m always a good sport on the golf course. My betters have set the standard, and if I can’t equal the quality of their play, I am in control of how good a man, and how good a sport I am.  On the golf course, I will be as good a man as Zach Johnson, even if I can’t be close to as good a golfer.

Even knowing all that, I’m still not convinced that I’ve given you an answer that satisfies you, rather than simply making you roll your eyes and think, “Oh, brother!”

But, I’m satisfied, and I still play, and I still love to stand at the tee box, to look out at the flag — sometimes more than a quarter-mile away! — and think: “I’m going to try really hard to put this ball into that hole in four shots, and I think I’ve got a shot at it.

One more quick note about the 2015 British Open: The massive, howling absence, the loud, honking, shrieking non-presence, in this year’s British Open was: Ireland’s Rory McIlroy, himself a classy, nice young man. Oh, and the #1-ranked golfer in the world. What a great game!

— xPraetorius

I Am FreeThinker


Thank you, xParetorius, for that gracious introduction at the end of my inaugural post in this blog!

I am FreeThinker and as xParetorius indicated I’m a “media personality.” Chances are that if you’re reading this, you’ve heard of me and know my name. You know also that if I were to say out loud what I’ll say anonymously in this forum, I’d lose my job. Hence, here I am!

Who am I?

As xPraetorius said, I’m a “brown girl,” meaning, I’m definitely not white, but my skin is not dark enough to qualify as black. I have mixed black african, East-Asian, Native American and some Scandinavian genetics. However, I’m all American. I was born here, and so were both my parents. Three of their four total parents, my grandparents, were immigrants and one, my great-grandmother on my mother’s side, was already here. Her family had been here a long time.

I absolutely qualify as a “person of color,” but refuse to allow myself to be labeled as such. I’m a person. My color has nothing to do with it. The term “person of color,” is meant to divide and separate people. To put distance between persons. The term should be avoided at all cost.

I also qualify as an “African-American,” but don’t allow myself to be called that either. If someone calls me “African-American.”  I gently correct them. “I am not,” I say, “an African-American. I’m a pure American. Period.” That generally rocks them back on their heels, but it gets my point across, and that’s that.

My great-grandparents, who all knew each other before my parents met, were all keen on insisting to each of my parents that they were American. Period. That all that other stuff was just hooey, because they, my grandparents, had done the greatest thing that anyone in the world could do for them, my parents, and that was to allow them to be born right here in the USA..

My parents passed that thought, that state-of-mind, on down to me. They never, ever complained about how anybody in America treated them, insisting that things were always a whole lot worse where their parents had come from. I don’t know many of those details, because my grandparents and I never spoke much of life in the old country. They always insisted that my parents and I focus on the future and that we do whatever we could to make it a bright future.

I grew up with a bit of a culture clash between myself and my surroundings. The majority of those around me were blacks and browns and a few whites, but I rarely had any real difficulty interacting with any of them. I had black, brown and white friends, and their parents definitely raised them differently depending on their race. The black and brown kids, with few exceptions, exhibited a sense of bitter entitlement. The white kids generally heard a fairly standard message of “work hard to give yourself a chance to do better than your current circumstances.” The black and brown kids usually heard a message of, “here’s what you have to do to beat the system that is rigged against you.”

I was never ever allowed even to contemplate that the system might have been “rigged against me” because of the color of my skin. I was pretty driven, so I didn’t fail a whole lot, but when I did, if I ever tried to make an excuse about how it wasn’t my fault, or the circumstances were unjust, or whatever, my parents quickly squashed it. I might have tried to make excuses once or twice. But I haven’t ever again.

My parents had a simple rule: “I don’t care what the circumstances are, nothing on earth relieves you of your obligation to work hard, to be a good and decent person, to worship God, to love your fellow man, and to go to bed and do it all again the next day. Period.

With all this in my background, I guess it’s not surprising that I’ve always been a questing thinker. I don’t want to go just below the surface. I have always wanted to dig and dig and think and think until I came to a point where I had confidence in my conclusions.

Too many people I saw around me did little more than parrot what they had heard others tell them, or what they heard in school. I always tended to chew things over until I almost inevitably came to something that nagged at me because it seemed to make no sense. I could never just let that go. I had to find out what it was with this thing, whatever it was, that seemed to contradict my conclusions.

That tended to make me popular or unpopular with my teachers, depending on their political preferences. In High School, my questioning was generally accepted and welcomed. Not in college.

My skin color overcame my mediocre high school grades (B Average) and got me into Dartmouth. There, my questioning of the overwhelmingly leftist orthodoxy that reigned was definitely not welcome. I became a “troublemaker” and escaped with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Communications, and a minor in Journalism. That is the exact credential of someone who has no idea what to do with her life.

Needless to say, I went into media, and being relatively attractive, soon found myself anchoring local network news broadcasts, albeit at odd hours of the night and odd days of the week. However, the pay was good and my colleagues treated me like gold, and I was on tv!

Still, something nagged at me. As constrained from expressing my point of view as I was at Dartmouth, this media job was a lot worse. Very early on, it became obvious to me that I was expected to be able to contribute to the station’s “African-American Outreach Initiative.” (Google it, if you wish) When I protested that I didn’t consider myself “African-American,” but rather “American,” I received a rather abrupt reminder that I needed to eradicate that kind of thinking, and get with the program.

I was, you see, an “African-American,” whether I liked it or not. I was hired as one, they told me, and I was one, and I was darned well going to act like one and help the station with its “Initiative.” Or else. It soon became evident that this “Initiative” was little more than theater spitting out all the same tired, old liberal bromides that I had questioned in high school and college, and for which I had never received any adquate explanations.

All this was relentlessly, inexorably making me into that rarest of creatures: a brown-skinned Conservative in media land, though I’ve never really fit comfortably into any boxes. The global “narrative” out there, however, is all liberal, and it’s riddled with contradictions, nonsense and rubbish. And it pretty much rules our land. That our great country, the greatest country that has ever been, chooses to be ruled by contradictions, nonsense and rubbish has long galled me, and I couldn’t just let it pass by unchallenged.

I realized that I couldn’t work at that television station too much longer and keep my sanity, so I started to hunt around. Amazingly, I found something fairly quickly. Something national. I passed the fairly grueling interview process and was offered a prominent media job with a huge raise in pay, in a big national market. Did I take the job? Of course I did!

Well, frying pan, meet fire. If I thought I was repressed in college, then in small-town media, that was nothing compared to major media! In major media, every word you utter is scrutinized to the nth degree, in hopes that something you say will allow someone to scream, “Ah hah! Gotcha!”

Even worse, I was a closet Conservative embedded deep in the belly of the liberal beast, national major media.

At that point, I realized something deeply depressing: I had become part of the problem with America.

Hence, despite the risk to my livelihood, I’ve been visiting various blogs out there in internet-land and challenging the points of view there. It’s been astonishingly therapeutic. I loved speaking freely. It was the first time I’ve done that since I left college! It was liberating, fun, stimulating, challenging. All the things that my job as a television personality in liberal-land are not.

One of my jaunts brought me to “BrothaWolf’s” blog, where I jousted with BrothaWolf’s readers. That eventually got me banned, as I pretty much expected, but not before xPraetorius at this blog could contact me. I didn’t know it, but he had been following my little interaction with BrothaWolf and his readers, and had been chronicling it in this blog.

It turns out that we are kindred spirits, xPraetorius and I, though he’s a good deal older than I. We corresponded a few times and out of the blue, he e-mailed me to ask me to consider joining his Writers Group. I didn’t answer for a while, but then thought, “What the heck! What can I lose?”

He flew me to his headquarters, a medium-sized office building in Hartford, CT, and we met. When we saw each other, we both did a double-take. You see, until that meeting, we were “FreeThinker” and “xPraetorius.” We had done nothing but refer to each other by our on-line monikers. But, he knew me, and I knew him! He’s really famous, while I’m kind of famous, so it was absolutely hilarious!

We talked about almost nothing relevant to the blog for some time. After all, we both kind of knew each other! After a while x said to me, “Let’s get down to brass tacks. I knew I agreed with you before I met you. I wanted to meet you to see whether I’d like you as well. That’s kind of important to our group and me. Now, though, I’d like to offer you a position with our think tank.”

I was a bit taken aback. The whole meeting was about whether or not he liked me? I wasn’t ready for that. I was ready for an in-depth interrogation on my views on politics, current events and the like. I was ready to discuss all that in depth. But, I was not prepared to get all close and personal with him. Don’t get me wrong, he was never once out of line or even slightly inappropriate, but I thought this was to be like a somewhat typical job interview.

I was annoyed for a moment, but only a moment. I haven’t mentioned that xPraetorius is exceedingly charming, and had won me over personally before I even knew it had happened.

Here are some of my observations, which you might already know anyway. He’s famous! Quite famous in certain circles. He’s a really tall, distinguished looking guy, a bit on the hefty side, but in an agreeable way. He’s much taller than he appears on television. And he’s solid, like a mountain, with a handshake like iron. He carries his extra weight well. He has a velvet, baritone voice. It’s a voice meant for radio, with a face for television. He’s quite handsome in a distinguished kind of way. You likely do know his face, you almost certainly know his voice.

He’s also the nicest, sweetest man I think I’ve ever met. He’s quiet, but not afraid at all to talk. He just talks quietly, with that velvety smooth voice that almost lulls you into a state of relaxation that might leave you suggestible to who knows what. :)

Bottom line, I liked him a lot, and I look forward to a long, fruitful relationship here at the Praetorian Writers’ Group!

FreeThinker

Ashamed of My Race(1)


I’m ashamed of my race.

I’m not ashamed of the color of my skin. I’m a brown girl in my twenties. I’m ashamed of those who look a lot like me, who are nothing but racists themselves.

When Martin O’Malley said in a recent speech, “all lives matter,” the liberal group he was speaking to erupted in booing and protests.

Could there have been any clearer way for them to say, “not all lives matter?”

Is there any clearer indication that so many of my co-race members are nothing more than racists? Not all of them, but a significant percentage of them. After all, we brown and black people voted for Obama by MORE THAN 90%!  Were we crazy? Or are my co-race members just a bunch of racists? Shaking my head sadly, I can answer only, “Both.”

When I’m out and about, and when I meet white people and other brown or black people, I know that they believe that I’m an Obama supporter, because of the color of my skin, and I want to scream, “I’M NOT AN OBAMA VOTER!!! I’D NEVER VOTE FOR HIM!”

I challenge other brown and black people to comment, and provide me with some indication that I’m wrong.

A personal note: I’m new to the Praetorian Writers’ Group, and their welcome has been warm and enthusiastic. For the first time in my career, I feel right at home, and perfectly comfortable at expressing myself. I’m looking forward to a long, productive relationship with them. :)

FreeThinker

Notes:


(1) – In this post, we announced that we were in talks with “FreeThinker” regarding the possibility of her joining our small, but increasingly influential think tank. She has graciously agreed to join our growing stable of writers.

FreeThinker styles herself “a young, Conservative, brown girl, with an open mind, an open heart, a keen eye, a sharp mind and a busy pen.

By way of  some background, FreeThinker is also a prominent blogger and media personality. People who read her posts here likely will know who she is. She views her contributions here as a way to supplement the work that she does in the media already. In that work, however, dues to the constraints of ratings and sponsors and the like, she is not able to speak perfectly freely and honestly. Like the rest of our group, therefore, she insisted that her involvement here be strictly anonymous in order to avoid the likelihood of negative repercussions in her professional life that would result from her openness in these pages.

I can tell you that I’ve personally found FreeThinker to be an intelligent, nimble, engaging thinker and writer. She’s also a genuinely nice person. It has been a real pleasure getting to know her and her family over the past few weeks and months.

It is with great excitement and pleasure that we welcome FreeThinker to The Praetorian Writers’ Group.

— xPraetorius

All Lives Matter


— Or Do They? —

Martin O’Malley thought they did. Or he said he thought they did. At a meeting filled with leftists, Martin O’Malley — former governor of Maryland, former mayor of that thriving, bustling metropolis, Baltimore, and current Democrat candidate for President of these United States — answered “Black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter!” to the question: “Do black lives matter?”

He was greeted with a chorus of boos and hisses that made him immediately back off, as Democrats do when they accidentally speak the truth.

One would think that the idea that “all lives matter” would be about as controversial as “the sun rises in the east.” Well, in sane circles that’s how it is. However, O’Malley wasn’t speaking to a sane crowd, he was speaking to a crowd full of leftists.

In that crowd not all lives matter.

It goes without saying that unborn babies’ lives don’t matter a hill of beans in leftist circles. In the land of the post-born, however, a significant portion of the Race Grievance Industry — black and white — believes that only black lives matter.

I’ve catalogued in these pages more than a few incidents wherein black commenters have fantasized about the rapid, violent elimination of the white race from the face of the earth. This was not an insignificant portion of the RGI. Here for example.

Here’s a YouTube commentator who makes no bones about his view that whites are defective and will, or should, be eliminated. Based solely on the color of their skin. In my interactions with the RGI, several of my interlocutors quoted the above-linked snake-oil salesman — one “Dr.” Llaila Afrika — as a great sage.

In suggesting that whites should be eliminated, these leftists re-join the unlamented, once thought dead, eugenicist movement of the early 20th Century.

Members of that movement suggested that black people were inferior, and that they should be eliminated through the process of voluntary and involuntary sterilization. What was the “rationale” for their belief? The color of blacks’ skin, the shape of their heads and lips, the texture of their hair. Watch the above-linked “Dr.” Llaila Afrika, and you will see the very same “logic” undergirding his beliefs.

I used the word, re-join above because the worldwide left was the main engine for the once thriving eugenics movement — the supposedly science-based movement that purported to have proven that blacks were inferior to whites.

One important believer in eugenics was Adolf Hitler. Another was Margaret Sanger. Today’s eugenicists are again on the left — in the left’s political wing, the Democrat Party, and in the Race Grievance Industry. The stink of their ugly, putrid belief system is just as bad, as they ooze out from under their rocks.

— xPraetorius

The Facts of Life Are Conservative(1)


— But Society’s White Noise is Leftist — 

We’ve said it many, many times in these pages. Mark Steyn says the same thing in a speech at the Manning Centre all the way back in 2014. Here’s the link.

This was almost a “Powerful, Influential People Read This Blog” feature, but it’s pretty much a sure thing that Steyn would have ascertained this without our help(2).

Lady Margaret Thatcher said our headline, and we added the follow-up, above in red. The point: you can have the facts on your side all you want, if Hollywood and all the rest of pop culture, as well as the media and academia, are all busily indoctrinating America in contrary fictions, then the facts have no real relevance, except as historical curiosities.(3)

The relevant passage starts at about 41:40, but the rest of the speech — a speech about Canadian and American socio-political life — is worth a watch too. If only because it’s Mark Steyn delivering it.

Commentators around the world call Steyn the finest, funniest, most intelligent political commentator in the world. Even those who disagree with him. (See Part II of this series)

 

— xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) – Quote by Margaret Thatcher

(2) – ‘Sides, powerful, influential people do read this blog, so we don’t really need to trumpet it.

(3) – The facts of life have no real relevance in the short term — meaning during your lifetime and mine, and that of our children. However, as Steyn also notes in his speech, reality eventually and inevitably will reassert itself. The problem is: when that happens, if we go too far down the leftist road, reality will make for massive societal dislocation — pretty words that mean violence, rioting, death, vast suffering. Wouldn’t it be better to acknowledge reality now, rather than force society to undergo the horror later, when reality reasserts itself.