by baldilocks

First off, I never have, at least explicitly.Baldilocks mini

There is no way of guessing which candidate, if elected, will keep his/her word after getting elected. Promises—like rules—are made to be broken among those of the political class. Endorsing a candidate implies that I think that a single person would make the best president from among the choices available and even when I very strongly supported a candidacy—President Bush’s in 2004—I never formally endorsed him. In 2008, I very strongly opposed then-Senator Obama’s candidacy, so it was a given that I supported that of Senator McCain.

Now? I could go on about the pros and cons–no pun intended–of Senator Cruz and Mr. Trump, but to quote the presumptive 2016 Democrat front-runner, what difference at this point would it make?

This is what’s going to happen: the country is about to take a huge financial fall and whichever party is in control at that time will take the blame for it. Wait. Scratch that. If a Democrat is in the White House, he/she will find a way to blame the Republicans and the Mainstream press will help bolster that notion. It goes without saying that the GOP will shoulder all the blame if there is a GOP president at the breaking point. There will be another Civil War–and only among the political elite, if God is merciful to us.

In short, I think that we are past the point where it matters which person and which party is in the White House, so any endorsement coming from me would be a waste and would draw needless annoyance from those who worship the Political Candidate Idols and who engage in “bumper-sticker-level mudslinging” whenever their god is blasphemed.

I prefer to keep developing and improving my faith life, my critical thinking skills, and writing my novel. There will time enough for choosing. And for finger-pointing. And for chaos.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel, tentatively titled, Arlen’s Harem, will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s Projects JOB: HER TRIP TO KENYA! Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>

by baldilocks

Originally posted at my old blog on April 12, 2008 in the months before another presidential election. Some editing and added text.

Background.

Note: I may have already re-posted this rant here at Da Tech Guy Blog. But as I watch how “conservative” fans—note the noun–of Donald Trump react to criticism of him and his past, I felt the need to post it again. Many fans like the fact that Mr. Trump speaks without fear or apology and, I agree that this is an admirable trait. But if we conservatives are supposed to vote for a person because of his conservative-sounding words and are to discount the past words and deeds which contradict that person’s present words, then fans of Barack Obama—who believed his words and ignored his past–are owed an apology.

On principle.

All too often these days, when the average person talks about principles, what they’re really talking about are their personal commodities—exchangeable for fiat and other currencies and available only to the select. Oh sure, this merchandise is labeled as “principle” but the definition of the word has become mutable–Truth become the Lie.

pawn
Expendible

Thus does the Golden Rule, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” become “do unto others as your preconceived notions would have you believe that others will do unto you.” Or does the Rule come with a codicil: “do unto others as you would have them do unto you—but only if you believe that others follow this rule.”  (The most common, of course, is: “do unto others before they do/as they have already done to you,” but at least those who abide by this perversion of the Rule have the courtesy to drop all pretense.)

Of course the Golden Rule has constraints—like all rules which exist in the realm of human imperfection. It cannot and, sometimes, should not be followed 100% of the time. There are exceptions to every single rule under the sun. But if the Rule is to be thrown out of the window every single time it gets a little difficult to follow it, then why bother to even pretend to follow it? (And, please people, on those occasions when you’re not living up to your stated principles, you could at least acknowledge that you’re falling short instead of childishly pointing at the other guy and say “well he’s not following the Rule either.”)

If your “principles” are always for sale, then call them something else, because, in spite of the Theory of Relative Definitions for Words Which Have Fixed Meanings in the Real World, they are not principles.

Call them The Family Jewels and sell them on eBay. You might fetch a high price for them.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel, tentatively titled, Arlen’s Harem, will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s Projects JOB: HER TRIP TO KENYA! Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>baldilocks

The DaTechGuy Blog is guided by two foundational principles on being both Catholic and Conservative.

The endeavor to be “Catholic” and “Conservative” is fraught with perils and pitfalls; the current culture that we live in is akin to swimming in a sea of moral relativism where moral absolutes are dismissed as political power plays.

When evaluating the aspirants in the Republican Party with regards to their devotion to the reality of being Catholic and Conservative, it is safe to say that it is not necessary for each candidate to be Roman Catholic per se – it will be sufficient enough if they each have a hearty disposition to defend Religious Liberty (this will safeguard Catholicism) and our Judeo-Christian heritage (currently seen as a conservative anachronism).

If we were to ask ourselves, whether or not the top-tier of Republican candidates are really Conservative, we would receive a myriad of different answers.

For the purpose of our discussion this writer will refer to the American Conservative Union’s (the ACU was founded in 1964) political rating scale of politicians to deem if they are sufficiently conservative.

The ACU is one of the nation’s foremost Conservative organizations and they are the counterpoint to the Liberal Americans for Democratic Action (ADA founded in the 1940s).

With this in mind, let us rate the Conservatism (in this limited fashion) of the leading actors in the Republican Party’s polls:

  • Senator Marco Rubio possesses a lifetime (ACU) score of 98%. One would venture to say that Mr. Rubio’s impeccable conservative credentials should be beyond dispute.

Alas, this is not the case.

Senator Rubio committed for many Immigration Hawks the unpardonable sin by supporting the GANG of 8’s Immigration Reform measures.  For this he has obtained the wrath of Boarder Security Conservatives.

Nevertheless, Mr. Rubio has been in the Senate for four (4) years and his voting record and public service testify that he is a “True Conservative.”

State Representative Marco Rubio was Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives when he mounted a race for the US Senate and ran against former Republican (establishment?) Governor Charlie Crist.

Mr. Rubio ran as a Tea Party Conservative; this writer is shocked and somewhat baffled over how anyone could call Marco Rubio “an establishment Republican.”

  • A look at Senator Ted Cruz of Texas’ (ACU) score is equally impressive: Senator Cruz has a lifetime rating of 100%!  This is an astounding voting percentage (two years of Senatorial service).

Mr. Cruz is an intellectual wonder who graduated with distinction from both Princeton and Harvard Law School.

A similarity of both Senators (Rubio & Cruz) reminds Conservatives of how far they have come since President Obama became President:  Both of these Senators are products of “The Tea Party Movement”; and both men ran against the Republican establishment.

A brief look at the two young Senators (Rubio & Cruz) is a testimony to both the Intellectual and Political transformation that has affected our nation since William F. Buckley, Jr. founded “National Review” as a conservative journal in 1955.

As the old song states, “You’ve come a Long Way Baby!”

Both Misters Rubio and Cruz are certifiably “CONSERVATIVE!

  • But what about the conservatism of Mr. Donald Trump and what are we to make of it?

A look at Mr. Trump’s past might cause one to question his bona fides as a “true Conservative.”

When we look at The Donald’s past political involvement what does one find?

Did he (Donald Trump) stand with Conservatives at crucial junctures and at critical times?

Where was Mr. Trump when Ross Perot brought to the nation’s attention in 1992 that our deficits could strangle the future health and wellbeing of our nation?

Where was “the Donald” when Father Richard John Neuhaus and Minister Charles “Chuck” Colson – and others warned us about the impending “Cultural War” that was transforming our nation away from its Judeo-Christian heritage and into rampant Secularism?

Where was the Donald right after 9/11?

Did Mr. Trump support the 9/11 Commission’s’ findings or offer insightful critiques – or was he AWOL?

Unfortunately, Mr. Trump has NEVER held an elective office so there is no voting record by which to gauge his political pedigree.

Is This Man – the Donald – A True Conservative?

In the past, the Donald Trump has been socially liberal on family issues (Pro-Abortion) and suspect with regards to speaking out on issues pertaining to or protecting Religious Liberty.

Again, is this successful businessman – Donald Trump – a True Conservative?”

In the case of Dr. Ben Carson, we have a history of this man championing Pro-Family and Religious Liberty.  Dr. Carson’s life has reflected his Christian beliefs.

Question:  What does the Donald believe and what are his guiding principles?

A cursory look at Governor Jeb Bush’s two terms in Florida presents a compelling case that he was one of the most effective Conservative Governors in recent memory – period!

Governor Jeb Bush has a track record that can be judged and sifted through.

What of the Donald?

Is Mr. Trump a true Conservative?

We know two things about the Donald:  (1) He is skilled at wealth creation (he is a shrewd negotiator), and (2.) he pursues his goals with gusto and reckless abandon.

Conservative voters of ALL stripes and ALL garden varieties whether they be (1.) Judeo-Christian (Social); (2.) Economic (read that Libertarian); or (3.) Strong National Defense (Foreign Policy Hawks) – need to remind themselves that the issues that face our nation are too great to gamble them away on people or a persons who may not embrace their “True Conservative Values and Principles.

by baldilocksgrillz

A relative of mine—not my parents or siblings—once opined that I had accomplished nothing in my life. When I pointed out that I had learned two foreign languages, retired from the military, and published a novel, he discounted those things!

Once I got over being angry and hurt about that conversation, I realized that my relative’s opinion had one meaning that is two-pronged: that 1) nothing is a real accomplishment unless it has produced vast quantities of material things and/or awards in order to 2) be seen and show-off in front of on-lookers. (My relative didn’t deny it when I, still angry, said that he didn’t think that the things I had done were real accomplishments because none of those  were things that he could brag about; none of his ignorant friends cared about such things.)

Having recently lost almost everything I owned spurred a conversation I’ve been having with God and a continuation of a philosophical “conversation” I’ve being having with myself since that other conversation. What’s the true purpose of using your talents—meant in the biblical sense? Is it so you can buy stuff to enjoy? Or to look good in front of others? Both? I know countless people who push to get their degrees and well-paying jobs for those reasons, especially the latter.

“Floor-showing” was what my great-aunt (RIP) called the fruit of this type of thinking.

It seems to me that floor-showing as an ultimate life goal is the full-flowering of ingratitude and entitlement. It is also a sign of a deep-seated inferiority complex.

And that’s what this whole thing with Jada Pinkett-Smith is about. It isn’t enough that her husband, Will Smith, is an accomplished actor and that the two have raised their children in great opulence. They must have validation! And not validation from the lowly consumer, but from the Big Guys! And, through that kind of validation he can say “I’m an Academy Award winner! Look at me!” And she can say, “I’m married to an Academy Award winning actor! Look at me!” The alleged scorning of black actors by the Academy is a mere vehicle to get others on their side.  Will Smith’s former Fresh Prince of Bel-Air co-star Janet Hubert sees right through this tactic.

Outcome-based education and employment–otherwise known as Affirmative Action–are two sophisticated types of floor-showing; they are the reasons that hard work has almost become irrelevant. Only the title accrued means anything, no matter how dumb-down the curricula or qualifications are made. This mindset has become so pervasive that even material gains and box office receipts are no longer good enough for people like the Smiths. They have to be crowned by the establishment they serve and, if not, they will take their ball and go home. And, in the name of tribal solidarity, they want other black actors to do the same, regardless of whether the latter have mortgages to pay or not, as Ms. Hubert mentioned. I’m guessing that the Smiths will not be putting up any boycotting actors in one of their mansions.

That said, what should any final life goal truly be? To give glory to God, which I think, is why He gives us personal talents/gifts in the first place. Achieving milestones in order to “be seen of men” seems to lead to chronic hunger. And anger. And unhappiness.

Investing our individual talents is what we are asked of God to do. And when we do it, we receive manifold interest: happiness, peace, and, maybe, vast material possessions; at the very least, enough to sustain us. But those first two are priceless and, as I recently discovered, hard to dislodge.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel, tentatively titled, Arlen’s Harem, will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s Projects JOB: HER TRIP TO KENYA! Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>baldilocks

by baldilocksbaldilocks

Do you ever feel as though the world has become like the movie The Invasion of the Body Snatchers and that you are one of the few remaining unsnatched?

Just wondering.

Everything has become a litmus test for labelling. Everyone knows, just knows what you think about a topic because of their notions of how people like you think.

Last night, it was presumed that I would be on the side of those who believed that Tamir Rice was murdered and this morning it was presumed that I would be on the side of the police officers who killed him. Both of these presumptions were made using preconceived notions about what I believe. And both are wrong. But, as this is not my first rodeo, I have annoyed participants on both sides of an argument before. Sometimes, it’s fun, but not this time.

Here’s what I believe: sometimes, all available choices will bring anger and strife. Any choice that the Grand Jury made regarding the police officers in question would have caused an uproar. And Tamir Rice would still be dead, a victim of his own choices, the choices of the police, and, most importantly, the choices his parents made during the course of his all-too-short life. <<<See that? That’s my opinion regarding the things I do know.

This sounds like it’s about me, doesn’t it? Well, it’s not, except as I am a part of humanity.

Aside from the anger and the strife, was the Grand Jury decision grounded in truth? This is the only question that matters and I don’t know the answer to it because I don’t know enough about the case to come to a cogent conclusion.

You see how that works? If you know you don’t have all the facts, you say so. You don’t fall back on your ethnic and/or ideological “allegiances” to come to your conclusion and you don’t presume that the person with whom you are arguing is doing this, unless he/she outright says so.

It helps to ask good-faith questions.

But that sort of presumption has almost disappeared. Instead it’s “I know you think that yada yada blah because all you people think this way.”

Jesus the Christ prophesied that when we get close to the Last Days that “nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.” The word ‘nation’ is a translation of the Greek word ethnos, a word that can also be translated as ‘race.’

Better, I think: tribe.

Tribal “thinking” plus its resultant tribal allegiance equals tribalism and I’m beginning to suspect that tribalism is based on ideology as well as ethnicity.

Here’s what tribalism is not based on: truth. And if we must all repair to our respective ethnically- and or ideologically-based tribal corners in order to come to predetermined conclusions about a dead boy and about those who killed him, then we all might as well give up talking now, wait for the next conflagration, and pray that it will not be the final one.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel, tentatively titled, Arlen’s Harem, will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s Projects JOB: HER TRIP TO KENYA! Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>

Storm3by baldilocks

The West is repeating a mistake, a very recent one, says Daniel Greenfield. Greenfield points to the startling similarities between nascent international socialism from a century ago, the rise of Islamism in the present, and the impotence of the West in nipping both in their cradles. There are even parallel American presidents in the mix, both from the Democrat Party, and both with sympathies to the contemporaneous ideologies. Islamism has even infiltrated itself into Western institutions—exactly as the Organized Left did.

Greenfield claims that the West will lose to Islamism because it “doesn’t really want to defeat Islamic terrorism.”

It responds to terrorism while ignoring the ideology. And then it roots around for root causes that coincidentally turn out to all involve progressive policy priorities like economic inequality and global warming.

But novelist Matthew Bracken sees no such ignorant innocence in the reaction of the Organized Left to Islamic world ascendance, especially since Islamism is infiltrating the West not just ideologically, but corporeally.

The accelerated pace of the 2015 Muslim hijra [jihad by immigration] invasion [of Europe] was conceived, planned and executed by Quisling traitors comprising the elite leadership of the European branch of the international socialist movement, headquartered in Brussels. To paraphrase British nationalist patriot Paul Weston, if a farmer deliberately inserts a fox into the henhouse, who is guilty of killing the hens?

Now, today, across Europe the stage is being set for the genocide of the weak, confused and defenseless European hens. Former East German Communist functionary Angela Merkel achieves high marks at both Muslim fox insertion and German hen repression. (Meanwhile, former Soviet Communist KGB Colonel Vladimir Putin evolves to become a Russian nationalist who always advances Russian interests, at least as they are perceived by himself and his cronies).

(…)

In reality, the international socialists and the Islamist forces have agreed upon a murder pact, wherein their common enemy, the nationalists, will be removed as a threat to either of them forever. In 2016, European nations will deliberately be torched, in order to finish off their people’s last remaining notions of national pride and cultural identity. In effect, the coming conflict will constitute an agreement about the dinner menu made between a jackal, a hyena, and a supremely stupid bliss-ninny lamb, who was raised on Utopian multi-cultural fantasies. The lamb believes that by its own sweet example, the jackal and the hyena can be turned into vegetarians—but the choice for the dinner entree is already a foregone conclusion. European nationalists will be shot and stabbed in their fronts and their backs until they go down and are consumed by both of their rapacious destroyers.

(…)

If the traitor elites can imagine sufficiently far into the future, then they must surely see international socialism lining up next for its climactic struggle against Islam, which shall be fought atop the still-warm corpse of European nationalism.

Bracken says that Islam will win the follow-on conflict because the elites will have no problem converting to Islam—or, at least, pretending to. But, in the end Islam will win because

you can live without accepting a suitcase full of Euros or a juicy job offer as a bribe. But you cannot live with your head removed from your shoulders.

So which scenario is true? I know what I think, but in reality, that does not matter. There has to be another option for the endgame.

Meanwhile, in the wake of San Bernardino, Americans observe, think, and react, in spite of rhetoric and planned tyranny of our own Leftists.

UPDATE: Asking the same question at the end.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel, tentatively titled, Arlen’s Harem, will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.baldilocks

Please contribute to Juliette’s Projects JOB: HER TRIP TO KENYA! Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>

by baldilocks

As I said in Part One, Thomas Sowell outlined the two visions of human nature: constrained and unconstrained.

People with the constrained vision of human nature believe that this nature is fixed, flawed and that all humans act with self-interest in mind. And because of innate self-interest, we should be free to pursue it, but conversely, because of innate fallibility, there should be some constraints on human behavior which keep us from encroaching on the self-interest of others.

Example: those of us who subscribe to God’s newsletter acknowledge that, since the Fall in the Garden of Eden—man in naturally sinful (flawed)—and, following from there, it is the ultimate in self-interest to accept Jesus the Christ as one’s Lord and Savior. We are interested in not going to Hell for our sins and, therefore, we try to do what God wants us to do and one of those is to love one’s neighbor as self: a constraint on human behavior which keep us from encroaching on the self-interest of others.

It isn’t surprising, therefore, that people who hold the unconstrained vision of human nature are often atheists—though, allowing for incomplete thinking on personal principles, not always. (Belief in a Higher Power than humanity is, by nature, a constrained vision of human nature.) Under this philosophy man is his own agent and possesses all of the tools to become perfect and to perfect his species.

And the key feature to this vision is that as long at the goal is deemed virtuous, there is no moral constraint–or any other kind–on the means of attaining a particular goal. Does the phrase by any means necessary ring a bell?

Example: the notion that “all men are created equal” often falls by the wayside for those with this view. To them, there are some set of human beings which are inherently better than others—physically, mentally, emotionally, morally and spiritually–and those “others” are a drain on those who are “better.” This is the part of humankind which requires perfecting.

Obviously, racial supremacist ideology falls in this category and nearly every systematic mass killing conducted by a governmental entity ever recorded has been presented as an attempt to improve upon the peopling of a given society—especially those which have occurred in the last century or so.

Let’s go with abortion. Some of the most head-turning justifications for abortion which I’ve heard are in regard to the disproportionately high rate of abortion among black women. Many pro-choice/pro-abortion advocate even acknowledge that abortion is the killing of human beings, but will say “it’s better than being born poor” or “it’s better than being born in a racist, sexist society,” or something similar.

The foundation of that thinking is that blacks are (allegedly) unable to escape penury because of our genetic make-up and, therefore, we will always be discriminated against because of our race and/or sex. We are inferior—implies the person with the unconstrained vision—so it’s better to cull succeeding generations and to do it as often as possible. It’s all for the improvement of humankind.

More in Tuesday’s post.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel, tentatively titled, Arlen’s Harem, will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.baldilocks

Please contribute to Juliette’s Projects JOB: HER TRIP TO KENYA! Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>

Habris:  We are outnumbered. Unless you aid us, we shall all be killed.
Aukon:  Then die. That is the purpose of guards

Doctor Who State of Decay 1980

Michael Corleone: If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it is that you can kill anyone.

The Godfather Part II 1974

It is said that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality, the corollary being of course that as long as a liberal does not have to deal with unpleasant realities, they will have no reason to remove oneself from their beliefs.

This explains the streak of liberalism in the very very rich. Once you reach a particular level of wealth there is very little for you to actually fear, the basic needs that everyone has, food, shelter, safety, medical care, are taken care of while the things that add to life: companionship, sexual desire (there is nothing that makes you more attractive to the opposite sex than wealth, if you don’t believe me ask Summer Redstone), entertainment, prestige are available with very little effort or at a price that can be afforded.

It also explains the liberalism of those in particular jobs, a tenured college professor for example has a secure job for life. While they don’t have the lifestyle of the very rich barring massive stupidity the basic needs will be set and many of the things that add to life come with the job at no additional charge.

This extends to a lesser degree to people who have jobs they can’t be fired from (think government bureaucracy) , pols and the press at the highest levels who thanks to their position and connections have entrée to many of these things. The big variable for them are the approval of those above them who have the power to take these things away.

This is the thing you must understand before anything else when you look at the left’s reaction to San Bernardino.

Many of us on the right are completely perplexed by their reaction. From the pushing of gun laws that would be totally ineffective against the problem to pushing of a “workplace violence” meme to the avoidance of naming Islamic Terror their memes are, to they eyes of us conservatives, a completely illogical reaction.

This is not the case.

The mistake that conservatives make here is looking at the situation though our eyes and value systems which makes such reactions seem warped. If however you look at this through the eyes of a comfortable liberalism it all makes perfect sense.

In the safe space of liberalism, all of these events are things that happen to other people. The only way they become your problem is if you make it your problem. So how do you keep it from being your problem? Change the subject

Make this a “guns” issue along or a “workplace violence” issue. These are things that have no connection to the liberal world. Thus it doesn’t affect their status quo.

After all if the issue is guns, then as people either with bodyguards or working in a place with a guarded building the removal of weapons from others doesn’t affect them. If the issue is workplace violence, again that doesn’t phase them, they see themselves as not being in such an environment themselves.

But more important than this is the concept of doing all that can be done to avoid giving offence to radical Islam even to the point of promising to prosecute those who defame Islam.

Again this is completely rational.

It’s one thing to critique the NRA, the Catholic Church pro-lifers, the tea party and the GOP because for all the left’s protestation to the contrary, they know that none of these groups can affect their comfortable lives, let alone harm them.

Islam is the great barrier breaker, if a person has decided to kill you and more important doesn’t care if they live through the attempt then all bets are off.

Suddenly the reporter is in danger on every assignment, suddenly the professor is insecure in their classroom, suddenly for the celebrity every entrance and exit to an event is a choke point to be ambushed in. Even the swankiest restaurant is not safe, remember the fanaticism of Islam is not restricted to the poorest of the poor.

In other words they have something to lose, and they certainly aren’t going to risk the comfort they possess to fight a threat that likely isn’t going to be able to get them anyways, particularly if you are a secular progressive who isn’t expecting anything better after this life.

So they attack climate change, or shared bathrooms or guns or any other made up threat and not speak of radical Islam expect to denounce those who warn of the danger:

Pam and those who warn of Radical Islam are Fiver calling for help for those caught in a snare. Her detractors are Cowslip the head of the snared warren. To oppose radical Islam requires a courage they don’t have and to openly admit appeasement acknowledges a cowardice they can’t bear. Much easier to not talk about it and preserve their illusion of dignity.

Much better to remain in the comfort of their walls both physical or mental, after all it’s unlikely the Islamist will get around to them in their lifetime if they just keep their mouths shut.

Update:  This fyi also explains the liberal reluctance to take on the gangs in the city, why put yourself at risk when it’s only poor blacks and Hispanics that will vote for you anyway who will die?

Update 2: If you want to see the end result of the “Kill me last” caucus meet the “rape me last” caucus.

****************************************************************************

The only pay I get for this work comes from you. My goal for 2015 is $22,000 and to date we’re only at $5300

Given that fact I would I ask you to please consider hitting DaTipJar.




Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.


Choose a Subscription level



Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what most of them are worth.

by baldilocksBaldilocks mini

In panning Ta-Nehisi Coates’ open letter to his 15-year-old son, Between the World and Me, Randall Kennedy expresses something which every thinking black American has considered, even those who call themselves liberals.

[Coates] insists that behind apparent black racial pathology is the omnipresent reality of white domination—in this instance an act of white supremacy carried out by a black marionette. “To yell ‘black on black crime,’” he contends, “is to shoot a man and then shame him for bleeding.”

A difficulty with attributing this much influence to white folks is that doing so negates the will of black folks. This brings to mind Ralph Ellison’s critique of Gunnar Myrdal’s An American Dilemma. Myrdal averred that “the Negro’s entire life and, consequently, also his opinions … are, in the main, to be considered as secondary reactions to more primary pressures from the side of the dominant white majority.” Objecting to this formulation, Ellison asked:

Can a people … live and develop for over three hundred years simply by reacting? Are American Negroes simply the creation of white men, or have they at least helped to create themselves out of what they found around them? Men have made a way of life in caves and upon cliffs; why cannot Negroes have made a life upon the horns of the white men’s dilemma?

(All emphasis mine.)

In 1970s, when Affirmative Action became all the rage, one of the few overtly political statements issuing forth from my parents that I can recall is their fervent opposition to it. Simply put, they viewed the policy as an official assertion of the innate inferiority of blacks. They still do.

Professional Black Leftists (PBLs) like Coates, et al. sometimes claim that we black conservatives are “showing off for the white man’s approval” when we put forth conservative opinions in public. It’s a bemusing accusation, since it seems to me that professional black Leftists are inordinately concerned with what white people as a group think of blacks, as if white America were an audience, black liberals were putting on some kind of Broadway show, and black conservatives were the competing show across the street.

Mr.Kennedy’s review calls forth a realization that has brewed in the back of my mind for quite some time: PBLs actually believe that the majority of black people are inferior to other races.

Oh, not themselves, of course. But, all of their bluster toward conservatives of all hues, and even their attempts to turn their mommy/daddy issues into a field of scholarship are defense mechanisms against saying this outright or even admitting it to themselves. And they get angry when you, white person, refuse to see “our inferiority” and to give us our collective wheelchairs. (I have another theory about black failure. It does not involve eugenics or IQ comparisons.)

Of course it would take a great deal of effort to undo the real problem; not inferiority, but the tree which LBJ planted all those years ago, the fruit of which is this. And thisAnd this. Rotten fruit.

LBJ demonstrated that a culture can be changed on purpose for the worse. (That’s what European leaders are trying to do now, by the way.) PBLs cannot grasp this particular pattern. Believing in the inferiority of other blacks is easier.

And for those of us who are at a loss as to how to make things better, repentance–making an 180-degree turn–begins in the house of the Lord. Action follows therefrom.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel, tentatively titled, Arlen’s Harem, will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s Projects JOB: HER TRIP TO KENYA! Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>

by baldilocksbaldilocks

I said this five years ago when President Obama had only one year in office.

I don’t feel like writing to convince anymore. I’m sure many have figured that out by now.

The problem, however, is that my “conscience” (read: the Holy Spirit) continuously reminds me that one should not be complacent or fearful when advocating a just cause. That just cause? Keeping the people of America free and, to that end, adding one more small voice to the millions who are angry and fed up at the daily encroachments on that freedom—daily since January 20, 2009.

That feeling remains, but once I finish getting a post off my chest, I usually feel better.

What am I feeling right now? A myriad of emotions. I’m still torqued off on how many people, including the president, seem intent on shaming those of us who are adamantly against allow more Syrian Refugees into the United States. New Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Paul Ryan (R-WI) managed to spearhead the passage of a bill suspending the refugee proposal until “tougher screening measures” can be implemented, but that doesn’t make me feel better. (Even in the Senate passes it and even if President Obama’s promised veto is overridden, what will stop the president from doing it anyway? It isn’t as if he hasn’t ignored the Separation of Powers before.)

Some proponents of the approval of Syrian refugee seeding are using their poor memories of what the Bible says about Jesus and about foreigners in order to shame–there’s that word again—the naysayers. Can you spot the evidence that the maker of this poster hasn’t opened a Bible in a while?

StupidBibleMeme
(The upside of pointing to this displayed Bible illiteracy is that some will actually go read the story surround Jesus’s birth in order to see what’s what. Some.)

In the meantime, most of us are sitting back to see what happens, praying, and practicing evil capitalism. Feelings are mostly irrelevant at this point. Okay. I feel better.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel, tentatively titled, Arlen’s Harem, will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s Projects JOB: HER TRIP TO KENYA! Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or click on Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>