Whether it’s the Emancipation Proclamation or the desegregation of the Armed Forces or Brown v. Boardof Education or the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the federal government has seemed to be on the side of the black American as his constitutional rights were being suppressed by state or local governments. (Conveniently forgotten are Dred Scott v. Sanford and Plessy v. Ferguson, the latter of which was reverse by Brown.) Because of this history, even many black Americans who do not personally rely on the federal government still view the fed as our friend.
What needs to be spelled-out, however, is what the federal government actually did in the above-mentioned areas: it removed legal obstacles to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of Americans who are black. And, that is what it was supposed to do.
However, the Civil Rights Act went too far in the opposite direction. It made discrimination in government services–the word “public” is used– illegal, which was a good thing. However, it also made it illegal for private businesses to discriminate. Telling private business owners to whom they must sell goods and services is merely the flip-side of Jim Crow.
Recall that Jim Crow laws mandated that all public and private businesses provide separate accommodations for race. That meant that even if a private business owner wanted to provide integrated and equal goods and services, he/she was forbidden to do so by law.
In light of this, it should not be a surprise that Christian business owners are being forced to provide goods and services to same-sex couples, under pain of prosecution. And, if the fed is allowed to mandate selling, it can mandate buying.
The present problem is this: the federal government began overstepping its bounds during the Great Depression and did so most infamously in the late sixties via the Great Society programs. Doing more that getting local racists out of the way, the federal government sought to and succeeded in making itself the supplier of life, liberty and, putatively, the happiness of many Americans. (Try telling a senior of any race that Social Security has sent the country into financial ruin. You’ll get an earful about her “rights” and about “her” money.) And by doing so, the fed set a precedent for today’s myriad methods of overreach into the lives of all citizens. It is the Honey Trap which was set for us all. LBJ produced the Great Society; Obamacare is the Great Invasion.
What’s needed, in order to change this perception, is obvious: education–not a new education but the old one, one which contains objective explanations of the role of government.
Simply put, the role of the American government is to remove obstacles to liberty of the People–even when that obstacle is American government itself. Supplying all of one’s needs is not government’s role. That’s God’s purview.
But what to do about a government that won’t get out of our lives?
The Obamas seem to like all the trappings of wealth and power: the SUV limos, the ability to clog city traffic for miles; the private jets, the ability to travel at will and at where; the designers hankering to be employed , the magazine covers.
I’ve known people like this all my life. Such persons will bash those richer than they. However, if these same persons ever become rich, they will not be shy about displaying evidence of their wealth, meant for the consumption of your eyeballs—nor will they be shy about looking down on you for having less money. It’s a mini-drama played out in traffic all the time here in Southern California and, undoubtedly, all over. My great-aunt called it ‘floor-showing.’
And, that’s what I think the Obamas have been doing since the inauguration, but there’s more to the charade than that: it’s a sort of “in your face” attitude to struggling America. From the Obamas, with spite.
They are saying this to us:
“We’ll take your country down; we’ll hollow out every institution you hold dear; we’ll shame you before other nations;
“We’ll spend every last cent in your treasury, and then some; we’ll make worthless that which is left;
“We’ll spy on you—on the street, on the phone, on the Internet, even in your bedroom;
“We’ll pay all your local and state law enforcement agencies to militarize themselves and to strike fear in you; you’ll never know what they are going to do, nor when;
“We’ll do all of those things and more.
“And while we’re doing it, we’re going to have a great time spending your money—eating, drinking, golfing, taking selfies, and being merry, for…
Recently, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has been intimating that the GOP should drop the topic of voter ID legislation. This position seems to have been influenced by his speech at Howard University—a historically black university—and by his meeting with a group of black pastors. In short, in these two meetings, it seems that some sets of self-appointed black “leaders” and spokesbodies have informed him and his party should lay off the advocacy so as not to appear racist, especially racist against blacks.
It’s really tough to listen to politicians “debate” issues like voter ID as if a solid foundation for debate actually exists. It’s equally tough to watch as reasonably sane politicians like Senator Paul kowtow to the bought and paid-for Leftist shills as they tell him what the Organized Left—their masters–want.
The Organized Left wants anyone and everyone—citizen or not—to be able to vote and to do so as many times as desired. That ability makes voter fraud easier and voter ID laws prevent these frauds. And, since there is no above-board reason to oppose voter ID, one has to be fabricated. Racism charges always work.
The idea that there are large groups of black Americans running around with no form of identification is so incredibly ridiculous—not to mention insulting—that it seems equally ridiculous even to explain it.
However, the beauty of this particular fraud is two-fold. Common sense will tell most observers that this notion is the most blatant of lies, and, therefore, many proponents of voter ID see no need to spell out why it’s a lie. Secondly, we Americans have been inundated for so long with the idea that black Americans are helpless babies that some of us who don’t know that many poor black persons may begin to believe the lie.
Why won’t some prominent politician have the stones to call the foundation undergirding opposition to voter ID what it actually is? It’s Bravo Sierra.
Any discussion of the following subject reminds me that, in order to have even a chance of being in the ballpark of a correct conclusion, it’s necessary to be able to analyze information properly, rather than simply to gather it. The will and ability to do this has become essential—not just to “win” an argument, but for personal and national survival.
In order for an individual to examine the tenets of any faith, that person must look at the foundational work establishing that faith. Before the Bible was made available to the everyday Christian, the Church leadership–meaning the Roman Catholic Church clergy–dispensed doctrine and interpreted in whatever manner they saw fit.
After Johannes Gutenberg’s invention, the Bible was mass-produced, making it available to all who could read it–and, most importantly, translated from Latin in other European languages. It is no accident that Christianity was radically transformed and Reformed after that.
A similar reform—or reversion– is happening to Islam with respect to its doctrines and, subsequently, its adherents.
One of the Founders of these two religions commanded his followers to love God with all one’s heart, soul, strength and mind and to love one’s neighbor as self; the other commanded his followers to convert non-believers at the point of the sword or make them pay the unbelievers’ tax.
As each set of followers have become more and more familiar with the foundational doctrines of their respective religious beliefs, each has begun to behave more in accordance with those doctrines: one set has become less totalitarian almost to the point of zero and the other, more aggressive and violent.
The Bible and the Koran are objective documents with historical contexts readily available in this information age. It is up to the individual to make himself/herself familiar enough with both–if desired–in order to come to a cogent conclusions about each.
Naturally, my friend mentioned the genocides committed in the name of Jesus. Of course, the crimes of the prior millennium’s Church are well-known and acknowledged:
Christian missionaries of Europe fell into error and sin back when they were bent on converting the natives of all lands–not by the act of leading others to Christ, but by making Christianity about something other than Christ, His Sacrifice, Resurrection and the purpose of the foregoing. The European missionaries bound up Christ in themselves and their own ethnicity.
Christians have used Christ to justify all kinds of sin—much easier to do when it was illegal for non-clergy to read the Bible. However, these crimes do not take anything away from the quality of the Gospel; they only speak to the quality the imperfect human beings proclaiming it. Again, were such missionaries following the Bible or ignoring the inconvenient parts when they trampled non-Christian cultures? And was the Islamic group Boko Haram following the Koran or ignoring it when the group abducted hundreds of non-Muslim girls from a Nigerian school?
A little thinking-through of things won’t hurt. On the contrary, it might save our lives.
1) Go to graduate school. Become a nurse, or a scientist, or an architect. Do NOT become a lawyer, a journalist or a politician. Do NOT go into show business, unless you’re going to be a producer or part of the crew.
2) Immerse yourself in your Jewish heritage/religion. Or some other religion.
3) Get involved in some little-publicized charity work.
4) Stay out of the public eye as much as possible. Change your name, if you see fit. But whatever happens, refuse to give any interviews on anything regarding former President Clinton and the scandal created by the two of you.
Why should you do these things? By immersing yourself in, taking care of, building or studying something for you, you can carve out a new reputation for yourself, instead of being constantly saddled with the old one. Accomplish something. Make a difference, a positive one.
I don’t know whether she knows that this letter exists, but it seems that she took much of my advice. Turning down multi-million dollar offers–presumably, to tell her story–she moved to London and earned a Master’s degree in psychology at the London School of Economics. And, she kept silent about her part in the indiscretion—until now.
Unfortunately and predictably, many employers were unable to see past her infamous past. But Lewinsky takes responsibility for her choices and seems much more mindful of the consequences of her actions in her mature years—as all thinking persons become.. Additionally, she is conscious of the fact that she may further suffer for her new openness about the topic.
I’ve decided, finally, to stick my head above the parapet so that I can take back my narrative and give a purpose to my past. (What this will cost me, I will soon find out.)
As opposed to the last time Lewinsky spoke out, her timing is right. I hope she expounds on the professional and personal costs that she has paid for a singular reason: other young women need to read these things. To stand voluntarily as a warning to others is an admirable thing to do. And, as was so the last time she spoke out, I wish Ms. Lewinsky all the best.
Remember when conspiracy theories and theorists were ridiculed? Those were the good old days. More and more, however, I find myself considering the possibilities of things I had previously thought to be ridiculous. Watching a concerted effort to take down a nation will do that.
In addition, I also find myself reading the opinions of persons who have been saying for decades, that there are groups long in existence, which have had the USA, as it was founded, in their sites. The idea seemed so secretive and shadowy before.
But, here is a man who points out that everything that’s happening to us has happened out in the open. We just didn’t want to see it. (Be advised: the commentator is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.)
This ever-growing network has been constructed right out in the open with a long lead-up after World War Two, and then an exponential ramp-up following the attacks of 9/11/01 and the paranoia entailed by it. It is surely a remarkable thing that there have been no terror acts on the grand scale in America since 9/11. The 2013 Boston marathon “pressure cooker” bombs that killed 3 people and maimed over 250 others was a way smaller op than 9/11 and relatively amateurish, and the Deep State did not prevent the Chechen Tsarnaev brothers from pulling it off despite the fact that the elder brother, Tamerlan, had been on an FBI watch list for two years prior to the bombing. The Fort Hood massacre of 2009 (13 fatalities [sic—14, including the unborn child of one soldier]) was perpetrated by, of all things, an army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan. You’d think the army would have been onto this fellow… he being right under its nose… but what better illustration of basic institutional failure?
This national blindness is more than just a gigantic educational deficit. The blindness is spiritual and it is the reason I often post about things Christian. Many of us—including our earthly leaders–are unable to see what’s coming because of that blindness, one caused by things not flesh and blood.
I pray that God decides to open more eyes. Discernment is your friend.
The only law related to free speech is in the U.S. Constitution, specifically, Article I of the Bill of Rights. Stated therein:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. Therefore, if you are not or I am not Congress, we are unable make any law abridging free speech. If a private corporation or a private association is not Congress, it is unable to make any law abridging freedom. Therefore, the 1st Amendment does not address what any parties which are not Congress may or may not do with respect to freedom of speech. Again, none of the parties mentioned in the cases above are Congress, nor are they any other branch of government. Each case involved something called a contract between private parties.
A contract is a written promise. Contracts can have all kinds of terms, some of which may involve what parties say in public. Other terms can stipulate how a party can react when the other contracting party violates any of the terms. Things like termination and fines are examples of such penalties, and you can bet that both A&E and the NBA listed these things on the contracts they offered to the Robertsons and to Sterling.
Observers are free to give their opinions on what they think and how they feel about these public controversies and their outcomes, but, in the end, it comes down to what was promised contractually and whether any of those promises were broken. If Duck Dynasty fans or A&E fans or NBA fans or even Donald Sterling fans don’t like how these private parties have resolved their contract problems, fans are free to no longer be fans. But, not being Congress, neither A&E nor the NBA have violated Phil Robertson’s or Donald Sterling’s 1st Amendment rights, respectively.
Each entity is free to act according to the terms of their respective contracts. And, you and I are free not to give them our money if we don’t like what they do.
AFTERTHOUGHT: A&E fired Phil Robertson for his comments, then re-instated him; the NBA banned Donald Sterling for life. Both A&E and the NBA reacted to the sentiments of their respect core consumers. Business is business.
Yes, I can occasionally be caught live in the kitchen. Look quick.
When growing up, my dinner task was making the salad. My mom bought the goods and I prepared them to her exacting specifications. As a result, I am very, shall we say, anal about salads.
A clean vegetable is a happy eater. Wash as far down as possible, wash as far up as possible, then, wash ‘possible.’ That maxim goes for many things.
Anyone who uses iceberg lettuce or put the leaf spine in a salad should be shot. (or maybe, er, reeducated.) Use red-leaf, romaine or butter leaf lettuce or some combination thereof. Spinach is also yummy.
Buy the right mushrooms. Get the ones that are closed at the junction between the body and the stem. If you buy the white ones, don’t buy them if they have dark spots. Cut the stems off but not so far down as to where you can see the inside of the body.
Use red onions and/or scallions, because they look prettier and taste better than yellow or white onions. Cut most of the flower of the scallions off because they are bland. The root is the good part.
Bell peppers are mandatory and when I’m the only one eating the salad or am sure of my audience, I will add chopped Serrano chili pepper in my salad. (You folks who are not from the southwest part of the US or are not of Mexican descent might not know what a Serrano is. It’s a little, tiny green pepper that is hot. I like hot, but if you like HOT, try a Habanero pepper. Make sure to wear gloves while you’re chopping those.)
Two of the ingredients that my mom didn’t require, but I usually use now are: carrots and cucumbers. Yes, peeling them is a pain—and please peel the cuck—but, boy, do they give great texture and taste to the salad. Split the cuck down the middle, by the way.
Sometimes I will top the salad with canned crab. There are two places here in LA from which I’ve bought the crab: Food for Less and Trader Joe’s. The FFL version is cheaper and the TJ’s version is prettier, but they both taste about the same. Sometimes I’ll rinse off canned beans or corn and add those. I don’t put anything heavier than that in a salad. Chicken, beef and pork are for the main course.
Croutons and bacon bits are masks for a salad prepared by a lazy salad-maker. If your ingredients are good, fresh and varied, you don’t need these, unless you like them.
No yellow, orange or white dressings should be used. Hey, if you want to hide the taste of your salad, just tear up some iceberg, chop up a big, fat tomato and pour Thousand Island all over it. Blech. I like a non-obnoxious Caesar or just some olive oil mixed with balsamic vinegar.
If you must put some seasoning on your salad, a bit of Mrs. Dash will do the trick; oh, and black pepper.
What did I forget? Tomatoes, of course, are required; cherry types cut in half. Full-sized tomatoes will make the salad go bad faster (too much liquid).
If you think salads are boring, you’re missing out on one of the great pleasures of eating. Time, attention and varied ingredients are all that are required. Don’t forget to make it beautiful as well. Eating is almost as much about the eye as it is about the tongue. So sue me for being a look-ist.
The Left has been building America up for overt communism/socialism/marxism/progressivism—henceforth called leftism–for a long, long time. Most educational systems have long ceased to educate their charges properly.They have ceased to define objectively the concepts of leftism, small-l liberalism, capitalism, basic economics and, of course, history. Specifically, educational systems stopped calling leftist concepts and ideologies by name. This made it easier to present these principles as good and necessary–present them as rights.
The accepted and assumed “truth” that leftist principles are rights is virus-like. It has become so pervasive that, when those who are properly educated, formally or otherwise, try to explain how and why such principles aren’t rights guaranteed by the US Constitution and how the implementation of these “rights” has bankrupted this nation and how it has radically altered life in this country for the worse, explainers get labeled adversely: racist, Nazi, Uncle Tom, fascist, Aunt Jemima, sexist, tool of the Patriarchy, or some combination thereof, depending on the coating and plumbing of the Cassandra in question. And, these labels stick for the same reason–because the definition and history behind those terms isn’t taught either. So, for example, instead of a Nazi being defined as someone who oppresses a set of persons, a Nazi is defined as someone who stops another from oppressing a set of persons.
And, in the wake of the sowing of those seeds, the human emotions of covetousness have further softened the ground for Leftism. The idea of profit beyond a certain limit being morally wrong stems from nothing but envy. Therefore, if the regular Jane knows nothing about government or economics or history except for the distorted topical versions dispensed by the average public educational system, the average university system and/or the seven o’clock news, she can be convinced, for example, that nationalizing the oil industry will bring down her gasoline bill. She can be convinced that corporations are the enemy of the worker. She can be convinced that their money is her money—stolen out of her pocket. She can be convinced that all profits of other individuals and corporations belong to her and those like her. She can be convinced that the great, almighty government can save her and everyone from the dastardly, mustache-twirling corporations. And, ultimately, she can be convinced that the icon of Hope and Change—the very flowering of the Leftist transformation plan for America–can and will make all of her dreams come true.
And so it is that the Cassandras, eloquent though they may be, will go unheeded for the most part.
Originally posted here on May 12, 2010; slightly updated and re-edited. This story is never out of season.
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
(Acts 2:17-18; KJV)
Some time ago, I had a dream.
Before I explain what type of dream it was, I should mention that my dreams are very vivid—almost like being awake; like short visits to worlds yet unexplored. Sometimes, I can remember them immediately upon waking, but they will usually be forgotten if I fail to write them down. (As an aside, I think that the ability to remember one’s dreams goes hand-in-hand with having a well-developed imagination—something essential to being a novelist.)
My subconscious will even, on occasion, incorporate sounds from the waking world and build a dream around it if the sound isn’t loud and/or piercing enough to disrupt my sleep. Such was the case several years ago when former Israeli Defense Minister Dan Gillerman’s melodious, accented baritone memorably penetrated my dreams as it wafted from my television. In that dream, the voice seemed to be emanating from the throat of the man whom I loved at the time; he seemed to pontificate about a war with Gaza.
However, for the dream mentioned at the beginning, there was never any need to write the details, and, whenever I reconsider it, it always looms large and has capital letters: The Dream.
At first, The Dream was a nightmare—one of the few nightmares in my fifty-plus years. (Interestingly enough, I only began having nightmares in the last few years—since I began walking closer to God.) I couldn’t see anything at first; I could only feel—and the feeling in question was pure terror. I’ve never come close to being that afraid when awake and I hope that I never do.
There was something–a living thing—in the room with me. What was it? Evil itself is the only way to describe this entity.
I lay on a floor, curled up in a ball like a potato bug and unable to move. My eyes—my dream-eyes—were slammed shut for fear of seeing the thing. It seemed to menace my back, crackling the skin of it. In the manner which dreams unfold, I could “see” chunks of flesh fall from my back; then it would reintegrate and the process would start again.
I wanted to uncurl and turn to face the being, but fear stopped me. I could feel my chest heaving; it seemed as though the mere sight of the Thing of Evil would stop my heart forever.
Then I cried out to God and He answered, reminding me that He had not given me the spirit of fear; that this particular emotion had a different source. This reassurance seemed to slow my breath and un-paralyze my body. I stood up and opened my eyes, but I still wasn’t quite able to face the Creature.
“Stretch out your arms,” God said. I did so and opened my right hand. In it was a sword or a handgun (they seemed interchangeable) and, as is so in myth and in fantasy, my weapon had a given name.
Weeks later, I was sitting in church and very much awake.
My pastor–learned in the languages of the Bible, Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek—was expounding on the two Greek terms for “word of God.” One is a term with which most English-speakers are familiar—logos. The other, however, is one I had heard before but had no idea what it meant until my pastor began to expound upon it: rhema[i].
The difference? People far more theologically learned than I are still discussing it, but the difference seems to be in scope. A rhema is more of a short aphorism, rather than a long sermon or the Word in its entirety, and it is intended to counter the Adversary quickly when he’s trying to induce doubt and/or fear. For example, Jesus Christ used a quick succession of rhema on Satan when the latter tried to induce doubt about God the Father.
In short, when you hear preachers talk about “a word from God,” most of the time they are talking about a rhema.
“What does this have to do with your dream,” I hear you ask. My mouth literally dropped open when my pastor mentioned the other definition of rhema….
This blog exists as a full time endeavor thanks to your support.
The reporting, the commentary and the nine magnificent seven writers are all made possible because you, the reader choose to support it.
For a full month of all of what we provide ,we ask a fixed amount $1465, under $50 a day.
This month we are behind, but we can make our goal if we can get $100 a day for the rest of the month. That’s 4 $25 Tip jar hits.
Jesus said laborer deserves his payment.(Lk 10:7) If you think the work we do here for the conservative movement is worth it, please consider hitting DaTipJar below .
Naturally once our monthly goal is made these solicitations will disappear till the next month but once we get 61 more subscribers at $20 a month the goal will be covered for a full year and this pitch will disappear until 2015.