I have something in common with Elizabeth Warren and I’m not referring to my complete lack of American Indian ancestry.

I’m referring to my wife statement that in addition to polish, Irish, English, Dutch and Scottish ancestry, she is part Sioux Indian through her father side, thus making my sons half Sicilian Italian and half everything my wife is.

To my knowledge my wife has no documentary evidence of this but we presume this is a true statement.

Now let’s presume that Senator Warren’s situation was similar to my sons, let me explain, if by some chance Harvard was interested in hiring one or both of my sons and inquired about their ethnicity for affirmative action how a normal person like my sons would have acted in that situation.

Harvard to my son(s):  Do you qualify for any affirmative action consideration?

My Sons to Harvard:  Well I’ve always been told by my mother that I’m part Sioux though her mother father side but I’m not enrolled in the tribe and there is no evidence of same, but I really don’t call myself “Sioux” if anything I’m half Sicilian from my father’s side.

Now if Harvard hired him on that basis as an affirmative action hire and listed him as same I would expect him if to object to the listing (if not to being hired) if there was an inquiry to that effect by the press I’d expect them to answer:  I’m surprised to be so listed, as I made it plain I have very little Indian ancestry and no actual proof of same and never requested such a listing but as they were kind enough to hire me I intend to do the job I was hired for.

If Warren had answered this way instead of making fake entries in cook books her 2020 ambitions might be in better shape.

With the midterms just under three weeks away, I’m cautiously optimistic the Republican Party will maintain a very narrow majority in both the House and Senate.  I wish I could be more confident in my prediction, and in the GOP’s performance in this most crucial midterm election.  I would be more confident if the Republicans inhabiting both Houses of the United States Congress actually gave the American people reasons to feel good about voting for them.

Based on their performance the past two years, the most accurate campaign slogan for the Republicans in Congress would be: ”vote for us because we’re not as bad as the Democrats.”  With the Democrat Party bending more and more towards the radical left, this election should be a Republican landslide.   Unfortunately the majority of Republicans currently serving in the United States Senate and House of Representatives have abandoned too many of their key principles and have stopped listening to the people who normally would be their staunchest supporters.  They have also acquired the skeletal structure of an invertebrate.

Here is some key legislation the Republicans should immediately bring up for vote.  It is not necessary that the legislation actually pass as long as the Republicans fight a good fight for each one.  It is the fight that is necessary along with the strong stand for principles that were once the cornerstone of the Republican Party.  Fighting for traditional Republican principles is the first key to a resounding Republican victory.

Even though the Republicans have tried and failed so many times, they need to vote to repeal ObamaCare one more time.  This time they need to highlight the numerous failures and horrors of ObamaCare, making that the focus of the debate.  They must also stress the devastation that would be caused by implementing Medicare for All.  It is the messaging and the debate that would be essential for the Republicans to profit from one more failed attempt,

Fighting to make the most recent tax cuts permanent, and greatly expanding them, so they would become true tax reform, is also a key to resounding victory.  The earlier tax reform was barely adequate yet produced very positive results that are being felt on Main Street.  A tax reform package that would have earned praise from Milton Friedman would be the most beneficial to the American people and to the Republican election chances.

The Republican Party was once best known for being the party of fiscal responsibility.  Now it appears that those in the US Congress can’t even spell that phrase anymore.  Legislation that would greatly slash spending across the board would be a huge win for the party and the American people.  If the congressional Republicans returned to their principles by trying to pass this legislation, the debate would provide a most needed contrast with the Democrats.

One of the issues that propelled President Trump to victory was his promise to build the wall along our Southern border.  So far the Republicans in Washington DC have done little to bring this wall into existence.  An immediate attempt to fund the Wall would greatly energize the Republican base and the debate would be most beneficial.

Unfortunately those up for reelection are most likely out campaigning right now instead of actually governing.  Because of that they are probably missing many key opportunities to actually sway voters and to do what voters actually sent them to Washington DC to do.

Cane River Bohemia: Cammie Henry and her Circle at Melrose Plantation

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – It’s been a very surreal week for me, and while I don’t like to write about myself (except when I’m begging for books for my classroom library), how often does one publish a book, anyway?  Well, unless you’re Stephen King, and trust me, I’m not.  But, I was lucky enough to have LSU Press publish my first book which came out last week, and I want to tell you a little bit about it.

It’s a biography of a fascinating woman named Cammie Henry who, after her husband died in 1918 and left her a widow with eight children on a working cotton plantation in central Louisiana, she opened her home to writers and artists of the budding Southern Renaissance.  Cammie and her husband lived at Melrose Plantation on the Cane River, seventeen miles south of Natchitoches and there’s no doubt that the atmosphere there is infused with creativity and inspiration.

My book explores Cammie’s friendships and relationships with many of the people who came and worked there.  Every time I toured or visited her home (it’s a house museum now, owned by the Association of the Preservation of Historic Natchitoches), I was curious about Cammie and wanted to know more about her.

Books had been written about other famous women associated with the house, but not Cammie.  The house at Melrose was built by Louis Metoyer in 1832; Louis was the son of freed slave Marie Therese Coincoin.  Louis died before construction was finished and his son completed the house.  The story of Marie Therese is amazing, and she has been extensively researched by Gary and Elizabeth Shown Mills.  Their excellent book, The Forgotten People:  Cane River’s Creoles of Color, is simply fascinating.

After the Metoyer period, the house was bought by a neighboring family who held it until 1881. In 1884, it was bought by Joseph Henry who would later be Cammie’s father-in-law.

One of the Henry employees was renown primitive artist Clementine Hunter whose father worked for the Henry family.  Clementine came to Melrose as a teenager and later worked for Cammie Henry.  It was through the exposure to Cammie’s artist friends that Clementine, the story goes, picked up some abandoned paints one day and began to paint plantation life as she saw it.

The Association for the Preservation of Historic Natchitoches held a ribbon-cutting event this past weekend for the Clementine Hunter house on the grounds of Melrose which has been preserved and restored exactly as it was when Mrs. Hunter lived and worked there.  There’s a terrific biography of Clementine Hunter with beautiful color plates of her work written by Art Shiver and Tom Whitehead.

So, tours of Melrose always talked about these three women: Marie Therese Coincoin, Cammie Henry, and Clementine Hunter, but there was no book about Cammie.  I wanted to know what a typical day at Melrose looked like when Lyle Saxon was sitting in his cabin typing his books out on his typewriter, sweltering in the heat, looking out over cotton fields.  I wanted to hear what Cammie and her mother talked about while sitting on the upstairs gallery looking over the Cane River.  I wanted to hear the laughter of the employees in the kitchen or in the gardens.  I wanted to sit with Cammie as she opened her volumes of mail each day.

Cammie’s archives at the Northwestern State University library in Natchitoches are amazing.  This women kept every piece of paper and ephemera she ever touched.  She corresponded with writers and booksellers all over the South in search of material for her library, which is extensive and holds many rare volumes and manuscripts.  Her daily mail was massive.

What I learned at the end of my research was that Cammie Henry was a dynamic woman, accomplished in gardening, (she had one of the premier gardens in the South on the grounds of Melrose); she was a librarian, a documentarian, a wife, a mother, a caretaker.  She was a preservationist before that was a cool thing to do.  She restored many abandoned cabins and had them moved to her property for visiting artists and writers.  She salvaged parts of homes that were to be demolished and used them at Melrose.  She rejuvenated the lost cottage industries of weaving and quilting and even grew Nankeen cotton and ramie to see how that would work in her weaving.  She raised her eight children with the exception of one son who died in 1918 of the Spanish flu.  And that tragedy is documented in her archives as well.

And through it all, though as I said this is a woman who kept everything she ever touched, there are no photographs or letters of her husband in her archives.  And that piqued my curiosity, too.

Well, I could go on and on, but I won’t.

I have a book launch event this week – my first ever and I’m nervous to the point of being terrified.  I want everyone to love Cammie and be as interested in her as I am!    But, no matter how the book goes over, I know that I’ve told her story.  It’s there now for anyone who wants to know about her and her life.  She was a dynamic and fascinating woman and I feel privileged that she chose me to tell her story.  (And she did – I’m not making that up, but that’s a story for another day!).

Shameless book plug:  get your copy of Cane River Bohemia either at Amazon or LSU Press!

 

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport and is the author of Cane River Bohemia: Cammie Henry and her Circle at Melrose Plantation.  Follow her on Instagram @patbecker25.

There were a lot of good quips about Mrs. Victoria B. Brown’s story of her oppression of her husband of fifty years in the Washington Post, the most amusing being Rod Dreher’s line

If somebody starts a Go Fund Me account to pay for Mr. Brown’s tab at his local bar, I’ll kick in.

I thought about doing a long essay on it, presuming he must be a good Catholic to stay with such a woman fifty years or perhaps that she seeing feminism cow people for most of her life is now cracking as it like the pre-2004 Redsox at the very edge of final success.  I even thought of waiting for Robert Stacy McCain’s inevitable article using the Washington Post piece to bolster his argument for men to avoid feminists but that’s when the cogs of memory awoke and I recalled a poem I once read from an old dusty book in the house which I was able to find online.

It’s by a 19th Century American Poet named Joseph Bert Smiley and he not only does better than I ever would on the subject but proves the point I’ve often argument that times and technology might change but people don’t.

For Mrs. Victoria B. Brown of Pennsylvania, I give you Joseph Bert Smiley’s classic:  St. Peter at the Gate:

ST. PETER stood guard at the golden gate,
With a solemn mien and an air sedate,
When up to the top of the golden stair
A man and a woman, ascending there,
Applied for admission. They came and stood
Before St. Peter, so great and good,
In hopes the City of Peace to win,
And asked St. Peter to let them in.

The woman was tall, and lank, and thin,
With a scraggy beadlet upon her chin; 10
The man was short, and thick, and stout;
His stomach was built so it rounded out;
His face was pleasant, and all the while
He wore a kindly and genial smile.
The choirs in the distance the echoes woke,
And the man kept still while the woman spoke:

“Oh, thou who guardest the gate,” said she,
“We two come hither beseeching thee
To let us enter the heavenly land,
And play our harps with the angel band.
Of me, St. Peter, there is no doubt—
There is nothing from heaven to bar me out;
I have been to meetings three times a week,
And almost always I’d rise and speak.
I’ve told the sinners about the day
When they’d repent their evil way;

I have told my neighbors, I have told them all,
’Bout Adam and Eve, and the primal fall;
I’ve shown them what they’d have to do
If they’d pass in with the chosen few;
I’ve marked their path of duty clear—
Laid out the plan for their whole career;
I’ve talked and talked to ’em, loud and long,
For my lungs are good and my voice is strong.

So, good St. Peter, you’ll clearly see
The gate of heaven is open to me.
But my old man, I regret to say,
Hasn’t walked exactly the narrow way;
He smokes and he swears, and grave faults he’s got,
And I don’t know whether he will pass or not.
He never would pray with an earnest vim,
Or go to revival, or join in a hymn;
So I had to leave him in sorrow there,
While I, with the chosen, united in prayer.
He ate what the pantry chanced to afford,
While I, in my purity, sang to the Lord;
And if cucumbers were all he got,
It’s a chance if he merited them or not.

But oh, St. Peter, I love him so!
To the pleasures of heaven please let him go!
I’ve done enough—a saint I’ve been.
Won’t that atone? Can’t you let him in?
By my grim gospel I know ’tis so,
That the unrepentant must fry below;
But isn’t there some way that you can see,
That he may enter who’s dear to me?
It’s a narrow gospel by which I pray,
But the chosen expect to find some way
Of coaxing, or fooling, or bribing you,
So that their relation can amble through.

And say, St. Peter, it seems to me
This gate isn’t kept as it ought to be.
You ought to stand by that opening there,
And never sit down in that easy chair.
And say, St. Peter, my sight is dimmed,
But I don’t like the way your whiskers are trimmed;
They’re cut too wide, and outward toss:
They’d look better narrower, cut straight across.
Well, we must be going our crowns to win,
So open, St. Peter, and we’ll pass in.”

St. Peter sat quiet and stroked his staff,
But spite of his office he had to laugh;
Then said, with a fiery gleam in his eye,
“Who’s tending this gateway—you, or I?”
And then he arose in his stature tall,
And pressed a button upon the wall,
And said to the imp who answered the bell,
“Escort this lady around to hell!”

The man stood still as a piece of stone—
Stood sadly, gloomily there alone;
A lifelong, settled idea he had
That his wife was good and he was bad.
He thought, if the woman went down below,
That he would certainly have to go;
That if she went to the regions dim,
There wasn’t a ghost of a show for him.
Slowly he turned, by habit bent,
To follow wherever the woman went.

St. Peter, standing on duty there,
Observed that the top of his head was bare.
He called the gentleman back, and said,
“Friend, how long have you been wed?”
“Thirty years” (with a weary sigh),
And then he thoughtfully added, “Why?”
St. Peter was silent. With head bent down,
He raised his hand and scratched his crown;
Then, seeming a different thought to take,
Slowly, half to himself, he spake:
“Thirty years with that woman there?
No wonder the man hasn’t any hair!
Swearing is wicked, smoke’s not good.
He smoked and swore—I should think he would.
Thirty years with that tongue so sharp!
Ho, Angel Gabriel! give him a harp—
A jeweled harp with a golden string.
Good sir, pass in where the angels sing.
Gabriel, give him a seat alone—
One with a cushion, up near the throne;
Call up some angels to play their best;
Let him enjoy the music in rest;
See that on finest ambrosia he feeds;
He’s had about all the hell he needs.
It isn’t just hardly the thing to do,
To roast him on earth, and the future too.”
They gave him a harp with golden strings,
A glittering robe, with a pair of wings,
And he said, as he entered the Realm of Day,
“Well, this beats cucumber, anyway!”
And so the Scriptures had come to pass
“The last shall be first, and the first shall be last.”

Yesterday I saw this story that didn’t do a lot of good for those pushing Transgenderism:

A five-year-old girl allegedly was sexually assaulted at school in the girls’ bathroom by a boy who identifies as gender-fluid, sparking an investigation by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) into the Decatur, Georgia school’s transgender bathroom policy.

The details are not pleasant:

“As [Victim] was emerging from a stall, the Assailant pushed her against a wall, pushed his hand between her legs, and repeatedly felt and poked at her genitals … while she struggled and called out for him to stop,” reads the legal complaint, dated May 22, 2018. “No one came to help.”

That’s about as bad as it gets but there was a detail in the story that really jumped out at me,  the boy, was also five years old.

Now while some might look at this story as an argument against Transgender bathrooms (it is) and others might look at is as a great example of the cowardice and fecklessness of a school district (it is) but the first thing that came to my mind is?

What kind of five-year old does this?

Regardless of the how fluid or non-fluid some kid thinks of himself, herself or itself as a general rule it doesn’t occur to a five-year old to push other kids against a wall, stick their hands between someone else’s legs and start exploring like Columbus looking for a faster route to India.

I submit and suggest that a five-year old doesn’t do this unless they are in an environment where such behavior is visible and common.

I don’t have a lot of trust in government when it comes to other people’s children but if there was ever a time that someone in authority needed to examine what’s going on a kid’s house this is it.

I presume that this will not be done as to do so might cause said authorities to be considered bigoted by the left, and what’s the safety of a few little girls next to making sure adults aren’t thought of badly by liberals.

As Stacy McCain often says, people need to wake the hell up.

Based on the mass protests, the despicable conduct during the confirmation hearings, and the shameful smear campaign waged against Judge Kavanaugh, it is safe to say progressives are outraged that President Trump has so far placed two Justices on the Supreme Court.  The framers of the Constitution and those who ratified it would be completely perplexed by this level of outrage.  They would be unable to grasp why the nomination of an individual to such a relatively insignificant office would cause so much angst to so many.  According to the Constitution it is a rather insignificant office.  Here is how Alexander Hamilton described the power of the Supreme Court in relation to the other two branches of the federal government in Federalist 78

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

The impact the Supreme Court has on our lives would have remained much further reduced if we had remained faithful to the Constitution because of the limited nature of the federal government created by our most fundamental document.  Here is how James Madison describes that limited nature of the federal government in relation to the State governments:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

All of the social issues that preoccupy progressives and others on the political left so much were never meant to be brought to the federal government level.  The progression that lies at the heart of the progressive philosophy was about bringing those issues to the exclusive purview of the federal government, in direct violation of the actual text of the Constitution.  If the Constitution was still followed the only acceptable ruling by the Supreme Court involving social issues would be to return those cases back to the States.

The federal government is only granted the power to provide for the defense of the entire country, prevent the States from squabbling with each other, promote a sense of general well being for the entire country, and engage in diplomacy as a single country with other nations.  The entire list of powers granted to the federal government are enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and in the powers granted to the executive branch in Article 2.  If federal legislature passes laws that delve into areas not covered by those enumerated lists of powers then the Supreme Court has the authority to declare them unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court was never granted the authority to overturn State laws.  It granted itself that power by distorting the 14th Amendment.  The federal government was never granted the power to regulate social issues involving those living in the states for several reasons.

Firstly, they believed the federal government would have to grow incredibly large if it was granted that much authority.  That was proved correct after the federal government ignored the Constitution.

Secondly, it was believed the federal government would abuse that much power and use it to violate the rights of individuals.   That was also proved correct.

It was believed the people living in the States would be able to restrain the much smaller State governments if they abused this power, while it would be impossible to restrain the federal government if it abused those powers.  This was proved correct on so many levels.

The United States is a large country, with a diverse population, composed of individuals with very different religious and moral beliefs.  Many have different beliefs on social issues than others.   The framers of the Constitution believed some individuals living in the States would chose to live there based on the social issues embraced by the individual State governments.  With each State embracing different social issues people could find a home in a State that matched their beliefs.  Now the federal government forces certain beliefs regarding social issues onto every individual.  That is tyranny.

Social issues generate powerful emotions in individuals.  It was believed that preventing these social issues from reaching the federal government level would result in a much more tranquil nation.

If the Supreme Court sent these contentious social issues back to the States where they belong while dealing with dull technical issues pertaining solely to the limited number of enumerated powers, would the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice generate so much anger and hysteria?

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – So much negative news this morning in the headlines…tension, anxiety, anger, and sadness (that limo crash in New York – awful!).

All this anger is one of the reasons I quit full-time political blogging a few years ago: I was mad all the time.  Frustrated because I couldn’t really change anything and nobody was listening.  Well, it’s not that so much as I was just preaching to the choir.  I could feel my anxiety and rage building every single day of the Obama presidency.  I had to walk away.  And guess what?  The world did not implode when I did!

At any rate, I really wanted to pull out some good news for you this morning to try and achieve some balance in perspective, so let’s try this.

I was happy to see that Johns Hopkins has announced a new research building to be named after Henrietta Lacks.  Finally!  You certainly are familiar with the story behind Rebecca Skloot’s groundbreaking book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, which told the story of Henrietta and her family.  Skloot’s book is terrific and I use it in my sophomore English classroom every year; my students are thoroughly engaged in the story and it sets us up for so many terrific debates on ethics and moral issues.  Sometimes it is difficult for kids to imagine a world before they were born and so as angry as they tend to become about what they see as an injustice done to Henrietta, they get a chance to learn about a different time in history where medical ethics were not dominated by HIPAA.

From Baltimore:

Johns Hopkins and descendants of the late Henrietta Lacks announced plans to name a new research building after Lacks in honor of her impact on science and medicine.

The new building will be built next to the Berman Institute of Biotechs’ Deering Hall and will support programs that “enhance participation with members of the community in mutually beneficial research opportunities.”

Groundbreaking on the building is scheduled for 2020 and is anticipated to have a 2022 completion date.

Henrietta Lacks was a young mother of five from eastern Baltimore County who, despite radiation treatment at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, died in 1951 of an aggressive cancer. Lacks was the source of the HeLa cell line that has been critical to numerous advances in medicine.

More good news:

It’s NOT good that there’s a new potential hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, but it does make me happy that our Cajun Navy is already on top of it and while they are still working and volunteering in the Carolinas after Florence, they are mobilizing for any potential damage to come from Hurricane Michael.

I’m so proud of these guys and of my friend Rob Gaudet who works tirelessly on crowd funding to help people who lose so much during these storms.  If you can volunteer, donate, or help in any way with what these great people do, go here and let them know.

The Pelicans are coming back to Louisiana!  (Not a sports team – REAL pelicans!)

Drew Brees is pretty great!

The Books Along the Teche Literary Festival 2019 is looking VERY exciting!  Featured writer this year is Rebecca Wells!  Sign me up!

My mood is already lighter.  I’m feeling so inspired right now that I’m going to clean off my desk, box up some of my old research material for my now published book (I’ve been procrastinating this) and make room to start seriously working on my next book project.

 

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport and is the author of Cane River Bohemia: Cammie Henry and her Circle at Melrose Plantation.  Follow her on Instagram @patbecker25.

Got this request from Harriett Baldwin a few min ago

referring me to this post at Weaselzippers

Her son is going into hip surgery on Tuesday. He will then be laid up and need care for about 6 weeks.

At the same time, a lot of other things have caused them to be in a financial crisis and they are in need of immediate help.

You can check out their story and GoFundMe here, which good son William put together.

He’s a good Conservative, raised well by his mom. And he actually voted for the first time in the primaries this year.

It’s hard for Sandy, who was the past president of the Junior League, always volunteering and looking out for others, to ask for help.

So if you are able to help out Sandy and William, they would greatly appreciate it.

Go and kick in, my tipjar can wait

by baldilocks

For fans of the Star Trek franchise, the Borg collective was one of the most terrifying villains: a machine collective that forcibly assimilated individuals and civilizations with the goal of achieving perfection — with perfection being the full integration of all knowledge, culture, etc., everything that is contained within individuals and within singular societies. A mixture of man [sic] and machine with a centralized consciousness.

And the complete obliteration of free will.

The Borg motto: Resistance is Futile.

Each individual becomes a part of the hive-mind and, therefore a drone. When a drone becomes defective, it is destroyed. One of the things which the Borg consider to be a defect is the disconnection from the hive-mind.

I was thinking of this concept earlier today when I posted this on Twitter and Facebook.

Collective guilt is part of leftist theology. Their god? Mankind made perfect by its own efforts — efforts which always include the extermination of the “imperfectible.” The “imperfectible” share a lone characteristic: their existence proves that leftist theology is a lie.

I received a little bit of push-back on this assertion from – you guessed it – an atheist [sic] leftist – who claimed that rightist were the same way, especially those who base their political beliefs on Judeo-Christian ideology. When I asked him to prove that rightists of any religion believe that humankind is perfectible through its own efforts, he tossed off an insult and left the “conversation.”

(Side note: that Christians have forcibly converted societies in the past is in direct violation of the rule book. And Jews have forcibly converted a group one once.)

It’s interesting that much of the villainy in science fiction – often conjured by public leftists — consists of violently coercive individuals, civilizations, and governments bent on improvement. And by interesting, I mean crazy.

We have been watching since Election Day 2016, as collectives attempt to overturn the results of that day and, to that effort, become more and more violent as non-leftists refuse to assimilate, especially one Donald J. Trump.

Today, in the wake of the confirmation of Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, after a concerted effort by many individuals to smear his reputation, we will see more violence.

Many of these collectives call themselves – without irony — the Resistance. But what they really want is for you to not resist.

Good luck to the real-life Borg!

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar for his new not-GoDaddy host

Or hit Juliette’s!

I don’t believe there is a more apt label for our current political climate than calling it a circus.  There is no better example of this circus than the entire confirmation process for Judge Kavanaugh.  This circus began with the protests that erupted even before President Trump announced the name of his nominee, continued with the constant interruptions by the Democrats during the hearings, and climaxed with the not too surprising last second accusations of sexual misconduct.

None of this surprised me, and I’m sure not too many readers of this wonderful website were surprised either. We’ve seen it so many times before.  The entire fracas has a scripted feel to it because it was scripted.   The script was published back in 1971 by Saul Alinsky.  It was titled Rules for Radicals.  This book is more than a script for a large percentage of the political left; it is their playbook and bible.  Colleges and universities use it to indoctrinate their students.  The more radical liberal Democrat politicians, such as President Obama and Hillary Clinton, have embraced this book.

Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals has often been portrayed as being a positive work. Is it really? Check out this quote from the page Prologue xvm

Remember we are talking about revolution, not revelation; you can miss the target by shooting too high as well as too low. First, there are no rules for revolution any more than there are rules for love or rules for happiness, but there are rules for radicals who want to change their world; there are certain central concepts of action in human politics that operate regardless of the scene or the time. To know these is basic to a pragmatic attack on the system. These rules make the difference between being a realistic radical and being a rhetorical one who uses the tired old words and slogans

The revolution he was talking about is one where our founding principles and free market economy are replaced by a socialist system.  This quote from page Prologue xix outlines the beginning moves in this revolution.

Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.

The political process in Washington DC has broken down.  Many Democrat members of the United States Congress have deliberately attempted to bring this about because they’re following Rules for Radicals.

Doesn’t this next quote, from page Prologue xxii, describe the tactics the political left has used against the political right for a very long time?  Doesn’t this quote describe the shenanigans used by the Democrats during the confirmation hearings?  Isn’t all of the political chaos creating feelings of disillusionment and hopelessness among the people?

Men don’t like to step abruptly out of the security of familiar experience; they need a bridge to cross from their own experience to a new way. A revolutionary organizer must shake up the prevailing patterns of their lives — agitate, create disenchantment and discontent with the current values, to produce, if not a passion for change, at least a passive, affirmative, non-challenging climate.

A reformation means that masses of our people have reached the point of disillusionment with past ways and values. They don’t know what will work but they do know that the prevailing system is self-defeating, frustrating, and hopeless. They won’t act for change but won’t strongly oppose those who do. The time is then ripe for revolution.

Bad political behavior is not a phenomenon exclusive to the political left; however it is much more prevalent on that side of the spectrum.   Rules for Radicals is primarily responsible for that.  Most on the political left have been indoctrinated by that book, either by reading it themselves or by receiving the information second or third hand.  Those on the political right more often embrace the Ten Commandments and Judeo Christian teachings on morality.

This quote from the Chapter of Ends and Means is the justification for many on the political left to engage in tactics such as rioting after losing an election, blocking highways, harassing people at restaurants, storming meetings, silencing those they do not agree with, enrolling the dead to vote, and attempting to derail a Supreme Court confirmation by dropping unfounded sexual misconduct allegations.

Life and how you live it is the story of means and ends. The end\s what you want, and the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles. The real arena is corrupt and bloody. Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns

The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe’s “conscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action”; in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of “personal salvation”; he doesn’t care enough for people to be “corrupted” for them.