Tonight comes the first of the BBC specials celebrating the 50th Anniversary of Doctor Who

BBC America plans to do a doctor a month starting with the 1st Doctor William Hartnell.

After the Special they will show an episode from the Hartnell era. I had expected them to go with the very first Dr. Who episode but instead they are picking my favorite of the Hartnell era The Aztecs.

It is not only one of the best written and best acted of the era, it is the most provocative, at least it’s provocative if you live in 2013.

Watch the episode tonight (10 PM EST) and lets see if you spot the allegory to take with you.

Two Simple words in the English Language: I Forgot

Steve Martin

In the movie “A guide for the married man” there is a famous exchange between Walter Mathew and Robert Morse when Matthau’s character is advised what to do in case his wife gets suspicious in the event of an affair:

Mosre:   Deny Deny Deny, no matter what she knows or thinks she knows, Deny it!

Matthau:  But what if she really knows…

Mosre:  Deny it

Mosre:  but what if she really

Mosre:  Deny

Mosre:  but what if she

Mosre:  Deny Deny DENY!

I suspect this was the strategy of Senator Robert Melendez as he appeared on ABC’s THIS WEEK two days after news of the FBI investigation of a sexual scandal involving underage Dominican Hookers broke.

Alas for the Senator ABC News’ Martha  Raddatz totally foiled that strategy by cleverly choosing to refuse to ask a single question on the subject provoking this comment from Jim Hoft

That’s outrageous. You could imagine the grilling this man would have taken if he had an “R” behind his name instead of a “D”. Instead, ABC willfully keeps the public in the dark on this horrific scandal.

and this from Glenn Reynolds

That’s what media apparatchiks do.

I’d say that Senator Menendez should think his lucky starts, but as this story actually broke before the election and no member of the mainstream media had bothered to touch it, perhaps Martha Raddatz thought it would be unfair for them to start now.

Of course, now we have two scandals.  Senator Menendez’s scandal now being investigated by the FBI and the scandal of Martha (of course I’m not too Biased for the VP debate) Raddatz deciding that a senator being investigated by the FBI for banging underage hookers isn’t newsworthy.

Naturally the new media and Radio Hosts will have a field day with it tomorrow, in fact I’ll certainly mention it in Under the Fedora and on next week’s show.  That being so the real question becomes:  How will Martha the unbiased choose to answer these questions?

Well, if I may be so bold as to suggest  the Morse/Matthew strategy is still tanned rested and ready for  use….



“You shall not act dishonestly in rendering judgment. Show neither partiality to the weak nor deference to the mighty, but judge your fellow men justly.

Leviticus 18:15

Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more.

John 8:11-12

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

Father Damien Karras: I think it might be helpful if I gave you some background on the different personalities Regan has manifested. So far, I’d say there seem to be three. She’s convinced…

Father Merrin: There is only one.

The Exorcist 1973

For quite a bit I’ve been writing about a common thread that we see on the left

I wrote about the media’s big lie concerning Hurricane Sandy

If George Bush was in office Ginny White would be on every TV network but this is the time of the Big Lie.

The Big Lie, it’s all about not telling the truth or “speaking truth to power” but about pushing a meme and if some people are without blankets that’s just the way it is.

Susan Rice and Benghazi:

Note that the death of four Americans is not the issue, the administration sending out a person before the election to deceive is not the issue, no it is the idea that two of the three Senators who have critiqued said person are white men (we’ll ignore female Senator in the group) and she is a black woman and because she is a black woman the standards of truth and honesty do not apply here.

Israel & Hamas:

So in public Israel needs to show restraint, in private Hamas and their rocket firing friends are “some hooligans” than normal people would just go kill?

I object to the use of the term “Hooligans” it’s not like they are a bunch of bikers dragging their murdered people behind them as they rideoh wait:


Note that, not what is true, not what is right, what can be said.What can’t be said is any critique of Islam, no matter how true.

Amnesty International:

Managing that change has led to problems – an indication of which emerged in 2009, when Amnesty handed over about 800,000 pounds ($1.2 million) to two former executives as part of a confidential payout upon departure.

Normally one must speak truth to and about power, but if the group is a mainstay of the left apparently Silence is golden, particularly if it means suppressing truth about an iconic left money machine.

Sen Kelly Ayotte again:

this is the left, if the truth and the reality is not favorable we shall simply ignore it, deny it or pretend it was never there.

On the bright side they can still play the race card if they include her.

Update: Jennifer Rubin appreciates Ayotte, but she is not the left.


Elizabeth Elizabeth Elizabeth you are so close, being kind-hearted you conclude that Ms Williams is taking herself on a monstrous route unknowingly, but observe her argument carefully. This is a place she has been forever, in fact an honest reading of her piece admits the pro-abortion side has been there all along. The only reason she is making this statement in public is she believes it will advance her cause.

And the sanctity of life:

How many years do you think it will take before “So What” extends to other people who the left concludes are less important and less worthy of life?

How long before it becomes a matter of faith that those who would stand up and object or obstruct such obvious truths that are held by the more enlightened must be suppressed? Of course you’d have to disarm them first.

All these things have a common thread, a pattern and it’s consistent:

1. Truth is not valued unless it serves a particular ideology.

2. The reality of people’s state is subordinate to the perception of their actual condition.

3. Critique can be made based on optics rather than fact.

4. Behaviors that are considered beyond the pale by their own standards are tolerated from specific groups or people.

5.  Public standards only exist until they are no longer useful or needed in the fight.

Looking that this list, one might say, it’s a fight the laws of human nature, yet that is not entirely true, after all, if a person of the right has, say an affair, the left apply said rules to destroy them, as opposed to a Bill Clinton who is still celebrated.

Or one could say it’s a battle for “modern feminism” the right for women to advance, yet a Sarah Palin,  Michelle Bachmann, Nikki Haley or a Michelle Malkin can be publicly attacked in ways 1000 times beyond Sandra Fluke was,  and the attackers are embraced and celebrated.

You might argue that its conservative values that prompt the attack, which is why a Kelly Ayotte can be ignored, yet Islam is far more conservative and it is defended.

You could say openness and justice are the goal, but such openness doesn’t extend to their own.

You can plead equality for gays, yet the murder or beating of gays in Islamic controlled lands is not an issue while Israel’s allowing of gay culture to exist is “pink washing”

In short there appears to be a double standard being employed here, people complain of it often, but that appearance is deceiving.  There is a single standard being applied a common thread a singular target that must be destroyed:

That target, Judeo-Christian values, or put simply Christianity.

Christianity is everything the left despises:

It teaches the unity of men, when the power of the left comes from dividing by race or color or creed.

It acknowledges God as the source of our freedom and free will, rather than the state or another giving such freedom

It restrains appetites, greed (thou shalt not covet), lust ( thou shalt not commit adultery), spin (though shalt not bear false witness) and does so by simple rules, rather than letting one do what they want, when you want.

It forgives and accepts anyone, on the condition that said person acknowledges and repents of their sins or at the very least commits to fight the temptation to them.

It gives the absolute freedom to walk away from it, while giving you until the very last second of your life to re-consider before actual judgement is passed.

And worst of all, to those who embrace it the strongest it gives courage, the courage to stand against any slander, any pressure and even die for the sake of Christ rather than sin.

Now some might look at this and scoff, there are Christians without number who violate these rules.  Well YEAH of course they do, it’s sin, man is susceptible to sin and temptation yet Christianity accepts them and dares to forgive them if only they change.  Even the Pope has a confessor.

One might give numerous examples of preachers and priests who have used Christianity as a cloak for their own sins, YEAH of course but there are corrupt police, corrupt courts, corrupt politicians and dishonest accountants, that doesn’t mean we should abolish Police, Courts, Government and Math.

One can point to the sins of a government that professes Christianity but even then Christianity is a walk toward perfection, such perfection can’t be achieved on earth, the left constantly holds Christianity to a utopian standard that they promise but never deliver knowing that very few if any individual Christians reach that standard.

I can hear the arguments now:  There are all kinds of Christians that the left celebrates, yes They are, from breakaway Catholics to Protestants that abandon the written faith the left is always ready to celebrate any Christian that is willing to walk away from the plain language of scripture and tradition.  And since anyone and pretty much make their own protestant church by a vote of a group of people however small, there is no problem finding the willing, particularly when fame and acceptance from the right people is offered as a carrot.

Now I can hear those crying:  DaTechGuy you’re full of it!  It’s just a load of right wing nonsense you’re just upset because we are opposed to that wildly repressive organization known as the Roman Catholic Church that you follow.

That arrangement might hold weight if you didn’t consider the left and Islam.

Islam in general and radical Islam in particular is everything those who attack  Christianity in general and the Roman Catholic Church in particular despise:

The left says Christianity is misogynistic pointing to Paul words about subordination in verses 22-24 of Ephesians (while conveniently ignoring the radical for the time elevation of women in verses 21, 25-33) yet ignore the open misogyny when practiced without violence (divorce by simple proclamation of a man, subordination in practice, polygamy ), or with violence (honor killing, justified rape or slavery of non-believers)

They condemn Christianity as against homosexual acts  (as indeed it is, just as Christianity is against any other sin) yet the actual murder of Gays in Islamic lands or beating of Gays even in Western countries in Muslim enclaves are not newsworthy to them.

They abhor Christianity complaints about the free expression of things we find aberrant or insulting to Christ (as is our right) in public or private display to  and roundly condemn us a “puritanical” in defense of free speech.

Yet Molly Norris is still in hiding for a cartoon, South Park’s Muhammad episodes are still censored, Christians marching in Dearborn can be physically stoned and a filmmaker is still in prison over a (really lousy) film hitting Islam.

The question then is asked?  Why isn’t Islam even critiqued when Christianity is targeted?  The answer is simple.  Christianity IS the target thus the behaviors of Islam are acceptable because it is diametrically opposed to Christianity.

But what about they Jews you might ask?  Jews are no more Christians than Hindus are.  That’s true, but Judaism is the building block that Christianity is built upon.  We worship the same God, revere the same prophets and do our best to obey the same 10 commandments.  One can describe the difference between Judaism and Christianity in one simple expression:

Jews and Christians are running the same race, but Jews think Christians have jumped the gun, Christians think Jews didn’t hear it go off.


Now like any generality there are exceptions.   Pat Correll and the late Chris Hitchens come instantly to mind.  They have no use for Christianity but also have no use for Islam and at no little risk to themselves loudly fought its Fascism.  Likewise my friend Cynthia Yockey might take an exception to my arguments on the truth of Christianity but she is an implacable foe of Radical Islam and has abandoned the fiscal liberalism for the sake of her freedom.

It is no coincidence that all three of these people were rejected by the left for their apostasy although in fairness the left hasn’t yet reached the point where, like Islam such apostasy is punishable by death.


I ask you to look at the last 40 years.  Look at where the culture and the media has gone and ask your self, why?  Ask why children three generations removed from the cultural influences of Christianity find themselves killing themselves and others in numbers not seen before?  Ask why schools, particularly those controlled in places the left is strongest are places not of safety or education but of danger and mediocrity.  Ask why you have the most medicated culture in history, the most litigious culture in history and a generation that has physical and material advantages that their grandparents and great grandparents could only dream of, can’t cope with life and despair of their future.

None of this is a bug, it’s all a feature.  Is this what you want for your children and grandchildren?

I’m quite sure that this argument will produce scoffs, insults, pejorative labels and maybe even some counter arguments.  That’s fine, the nonsense I can deal with and as for the arguments,  if my thesis is any good it will hold up under critique.

But whatever you say, however you phase it, if you look at the left and the path they have led our culture I submit and suggest there is one way to understand it:

The common thread of the left is the destruction of Judeo Christian culture, standards belief and If you start from that position it all makes perfect sense.