This weekend I talked briefly about the crisis in England with Tommy Robinson’s arrest and the unwillingness of Englishmen to stand up and fight for the basic rights of Englishmen that back when I was born would have been an automatic reaction.
The question here is why and I think I have the answer.
In 1963 every single Englishman had either fought in the war (WW 2), had a family member serve in the military or personally knew someone who had fought and died in military service.
In 2018 how many Englishmen actually personally know another who served who is under the age of ninety?
Why would you fight for rights when you’ve never learned the virtue of doing so?
Today is Memorial Day in the US.
On Memorial day 1963 I was twelve days old and it would have been nearly impossible to find a person didn’t either serve in the armed services, had a family member who had served, or personally knew someone who had either served or fought and died.
On Memorial day 2018 I’m 55 years and ten days old and the opposite is now true. It takes no effort to find people who have never served, nor had a family member they know serve or don’t know a person personally who serves or has served.
I’m not saying where going to end up where England is, but I am saying that if we do end up there, this will be one of the primary reasons for it.
When Milton Friedman famously wrote “I think the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem and very often makes the problem worse” in his work An Economist’s Protest, back in 1975, that statement was a fundamental truth. Today there is no doubt that the government solution to any problem is always far worse than the original problem. Fake news and censorship of conservatives on social media platforms are both very serious problems. Different federal government branches are investigating ways of solving these two problems. You may me wondering, what could possibly go wrong. Based on the track record of the federal government, the possibilities are too horrific to speculate on, but speculate I will.
Thanks to an overwhelmingly liberal media, fake news has turned into a major problem. The liberal bias of their reporting is meant to sway elections. Ever since President Trump announced he was running, he railed against fake news, and has continued railing after winning the presidency. The liberal media labeled these verbal jibes as a direct violation of the Freedom of the Free Press clause of the First Amendment and labeled President as one of the worst practitioners of press suppression. Neither of these characterizations of his fake news statements claims is true. He is merely exercising his freedom speech. Even if President Trump’s accusations were incorrect, his verbal attacks are perfectly fine.
The Department of Homeland Security wants to track the comings and going of journalists, bloggers and other “media influencers” through a database.
The DHS’s “Media Monitoring” plan, which was first reported by FedBizOpps.gov, would give the contracting company “24/7 access to a password protected, media influencer database, including journalists, editors, correspondents, social media influencers, bloggers etc.” in order to “identify any and all media coverage related to the Department of Homeland Security or a particular event.”
The database would be designed to monitor the public activities of media members and influencers by “location, beat and influencers,” the document says.
This monitoring plan would be a direct attack on the Freedom of the Press clause because it would be an attempt to intimidate the media into reporting only what the Trump administration approves of. It would also be a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s privacy protections. Is this article accurate or is it fake news? If is up to every one of us to decide for ourselves and ignore it if we believe it is fake. That is the only solution to the fake news plague. Any government solution would lead to the type of tyranny exhibited by this proposal, or even worse tyranny.
Censorship of conservatives and other individuals on the political right by Facebook, Twitter, and You Tube is an issue I constantly rage against on Facebook and Twitter. Censorship of any individual or group is the issue I most passionately fight against. I appose censorship of anyone even if I vehemently oppose what they have to say. Even the most vile and disgusting individuals and groups have a right to say whatever they want to say.
Different congressional committees called the head of Facebook into hearings in order to answer questions about Facebook’s censorship and data mishandling issues. Facebook is a private company. The federal government has no business questioning anyone at the company about how they do anything. The same holds true for any company. The Constitution never granted the federal government the power to regulate any private company. It wasn’t until 1943 and the FDR Supreme Court stacking crisis that the federal government granted itself this extra constitutional power. Regulations placed on business only waste billions of dollars every year, stifle competition, and generate far worse problems then they were meant to solve. Would regulating Facebook to stop the censorship be any different? According to this article, the elected officials doing the questioning proved they know nothing about how internet businesses, or any businesses, work. Facebook, Twitter, and You Tube would be destroyed the regulations placed on them to solve this problem and no one would try and rebuild them.
There are two solutions to this problem. The first is for individuals to stop using these platforms and tell them why. The second is for individuals to create alternatives. Freedom and competition are the only solutions to problems caused by private companies.
radical feminists protested against pornography for many years until — with stealth funding from the pornography industry, including Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Foundation — there emerged in the 1980s what is now known as “pro-sex feminism,” sometimes called liberal feminism to distinguish from (the original) radical feminism. That the women’s movement was co-opted by the porn industry is a fact that Women’s Studies majors usually don’t learn until their sophomore or junior year, if they learn it at all, because this is one of the shameful secrets that the feminist cult doesn’t like to mention, and radical (anti-pornography) feminists have been marginalized within their own movement.
Very shortly I will be old enough to qualify for senior citizen discounts all over the nation and I’ve been thinking about my life as I hit its seventh inning stretch when I saw this tweet (via instapundit) by Ben Shapirio
The greatest trick the patriarchy ever pulled was convincing women it was feminist to get naked https://t.co/a7UyEojwKW
In days past a man who wanted a women was expected to be a good provider, to be able to support not only a wife but an entire family through the sweat of his brow. He was expected to call on a woman, likely with a chaperone to keep an eye on him to offer self-control and to slowly but surely win approval of both the woman and the family to some degree before advancing to the next step.
And if he advanced prematurely or attempted to attain a conquest otherwise he was subject to the disapproval of culture or a shotgun to the back to make sure he did the right thing. The right thing being marriage, and if you finally secured a wife after meeting all these requirements divorce was not considered proper or acceptable culturally.
The reason why this combination of restraints and incentives was effective is due to a simple truth that has never changed:
Men want sex and want it badly and as much as men want sex teenage boys & men want it obsessively to the point where they were willing to allow themselves to be pushed toward responsibility, hard work and respectability for the chance to get it.
Thanks however to the sexual revolution, none of this is necessary anymore.
When I was a kid you had to hide a “dirty magazine” (a friend of mine kept a stash in a trash bag in the woods near his house) today you would be hard pressed to find a boy who had not seen hard core porn online by the age of 12 and thanks to the sexual revolution girls are not only taught at a young age that virtues like modesty or chastity are not only prehistoric but a form of oppression but we have a society that actually teaches that one who critiques having sex on camera for the masturbatory pleasure of men to pay for college is worthy of contempt.
In short men all the sexual desires that once motivated men from nudity, to sex without commitment are now available without the effort of self improvement and the idea of women and girls engaging in this conduct that provides this to men in high school, college and even before is not only considered “empowering” but the failure of a young women to do so makes one odd.
All of this has happened in the space of two generations and by a not odd coincidence in my opinion, coincides with the growth of “woman’s studies” programs in universities all over the nation.
So as I near the date of my senior citizen discount and look back at this change I have a question for all the woman’s studies programs out there and the women in them:
How has the normalization and mainstreaming of promiscuity among young women and the removing of the sexual incentive system restraining men over the last 40 years empowered women and brought them better, more fulfilling lives?
I submit and suggest that it has not.
Update: If I had emailed Ed Driscoll of Instapundit and asked him to put up a post to prove my point today I couldn’t have done better than this:
Doe woke up, realized they had engaged in sexual activity while they were both drunk, and feared that she would file a complaint against him, as she had done to his friend. Panic-stricken, he felt he had no choice but to beat her to the punch.
As you probably know by now Tim Allen’s series Last Man Standing is going to be returning to TV on Fox after ABC cancelled the popular show without explanation, but insisting that it had nothing to do with its conservative bent.
I don’t watch a lot of TV these days thanks to a 2nd shift job and other concerns but I want to briefly note something.
Allen, an outspoken Republican, starred as a right-leaning character on the sitcom. Shortly after ABC canceled the series last year, critics questioned whether the show got the ax because of Allen’s political views.
“There’s nothing more dangerous to me, especially in this climate, than a funny, likable conservative,” Allen said while discussing the show’s cancellation in an interview last year.
ABC denied politics played a role in the cancellation. The network’s entertainment president, Channing Dungey, said in 2017, “politics had absolutely nothing to do” with the network nixing the series.
“We have actors on our shows who have all sorts of different political views,” Dungey said.
The story is good, but the real story is the fact that a piece on the return of a comedy to TV isn’t from trade magazine like Inside Hollywood or Variety but it is at the Hill
Take a look at the list of categories at the Hill from this drop down graphic
There are a lot of categories for news and political stories there, but none of them involve sitcoms and unlike Roseanne which had a hook to the President, there is no indication that Last Man Standing is going to have any direct link to the president to play off of. Yet the Hill choose to report on it.
What does it say? It says this.
The media and the left are so united in their public and professional hatred of conservatism in general and President Trump in particular that a single sitcom that might just display those values without mocking them, even while ignoring the President is big enough news for a national political journal to cover.
Hayden: [stopping his horse and drawing a pistol] Good night Mr. Breen John Breen:You mean I can go? Hayden:Anytime John Breen: [looking at the armed men around behind him] What makes you think I will? Hayden:Because that way you’ve got a chance, a small one, but a chance John Breen: [griping reigns of his horse] Well never let it be said I didn’t take it
The Fighting Kentuckian 1949
On May 10 1941 Rudolf Hess flew solo to England to propose peace between England and the Third Reich. It had been a plan he had been working on since Sept of 1940, running short of fuel he had to bail out and was captured the next day making the case for peace between the British Empire and the Third Reich.
From Sept 1940 to May 1941 England had been standing alone against the Undefeated Reich, Italy and Japan, their army and not recovered from the loss of their equipment at Dunkirk. The Battle of the Atlantic against the U-Boat fleet was still very much in doubt and the prospect for help was not good. The non-aggression pact between Russia and Germany was still in force and the American public was not inclined to enter another war in Europe and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor which would change their minds was still seven months away.
It’s a good thing for the world that Britain in 1941 was not run by the folks at Alder Ray Hospital in charge of Alfie Evans, the people at the NHS, the Judges in charge of his appeal, or the British Government of today that let it happen. For those folks and those on social media who have steadfastly defended them, the idea of costly fighting on with the odds against them would have had no appeal when you had a no cost alternative that guaranteed their existing empire.
Much easier to keep what they had and give up the freedom of France, Holland, Belgium, Poland, Norway and Poland. then take the long shot risks for the sake of their freedom.
The world is very lucky that the half American Winston Churchill was in charge at the time and was able to lead and inspire his people to fight on.
Alas for Alfie Evans that Churchillian “never say die” attitude while expressed by thousands of Americans online and in person was not present in the British Government in general or in the NHS in particular. A single hour of Winston and Alfie Evans would have been in Italy weeks ago given food and water with a chance, however small, for survival.
How incredible is it that the we have the spectacle of a German Doctor saying that this decision would be unthinkable in modern day Germany
A leading German pediatrician is saying that the way the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) is dealing with disabled toddler Alfie Evans and his parents would never happen in his country given its history with the Nazi regime.
“We have learned in Germany because of our history, that there are things that you do not do with severely disabled patients,” Professor Nikolaus Haas, head of the Child Cardiology and Pediatric Intensive Medicine Unit at Munich University Hospital, told Germany’s Die Welt newspaper in an April 26 article.
“Our ethical understanding in Germany is different, I mean – thank God. The [hospital’s] logic that it is better for the child to die than that someone else looks at it, and even to sue [for that] in court, this is an unimaginable behavior for me,” he said.
Alas this is not unimaginable this is reality. Alfie Evans is dead, a bit shy of his 2nd birthday and the risk to the NHS and it’s defenders posed by his continued survival has died with him, ironically the same week that the newest son of British Royalty was named.
Nicholas Angel:You should be ashamed! Calling yourself a community that cares! James Reaper:Oh, but we do care Nicholas! Joyce Cooper:It’s all about the greater good! NWA Members: [echoing in agreement] The greater good… Nicholas Angel:How can this be for the greater good? NWA Members: [echoing] The greater good…
Hot Fuzz 2007
Yesterday I told you about Alfie Evans the 23 month old Toddler who was removed from life support but kept on living. Alfie Evans spent the feast of St. George, Patron of England defying the odds by continuing to breathe on his own despite a court order removing him from life support the British Government, apparently upset that this 23 month old British subject refuses to surrender is life has decided to go with plan B. They have decided to deny him food.
toddler Alfie Evans is being starved to death by the hospital looking after him, the boy’s father Tom confirmed.
The 23-month-old is now approaching 24 hours since being removed from his ventilator. Tom says his son is still fighting, but he needs food.
Mind you Alfie has been granted Italian citizenship, the Pope has appealed to the country and an ambulance is waiting to take the child to Rome for treatment without delay the moment the UK will allow it.
They will not. This comment is from a self described: “passionate and unapologetic defender of the NHS”
There is nothing more than can be done to help #AlfieEvans now. The legal arguments have been heard, many many times over. Alfie needs palliative care to ensure this final stage of his life is as comfortable and symptom-free as possible – exactly what #AlderHey are giving him.
Given that this doctor and the NHS has given up on young Alfie there is no logical reason prevent his parents from seeking treatment outside the UK as it as the only shot he has for life. To the normal sane person (and to Brits of just few generations ago) such a decision to deny parents such this option which has been freely offered would be inexplicable but there is actually, in my opinion, a very simple explanation.
I submit and suggest the British government is not afraid that treatment in Italy to save Alfie’s life would prove futile and result in his death, they are afraid that it would prove successful and he might live.
You see if Alfie Evans lives then every patient whose parents, friends or spouse have been convinced by the NHS that treatment for their loved one is useless will be asking themselves if that was really the case in their situation. Was the NHS simply trying to conservative their budget at the cost of their parents, friends, spouse, or children’s lives?
And if enough brits decide that the NHS is less concerned about preserving the lives of British Subjects than protecting the bureaucratic system spawned by the NHS, then those who profit the most from that system might see a risk to their jobs, reputations and political future and power.
Now it’s fair to say that Alfie’s odds are not good and if he is allowed to go to Italy for treatment it is very probable that he will still not live to see his second birthday or much beyond it.
But Her Majesty’s Government and those who worship at the altar of the NHS can’t take even the slightest chance that Alfie beats the odds, because if he manages to survive, or even worse grows up to be a useful and productive citizen he will be a living breathing indictment of their system.
Therefore the courts of England have sentenced Alfie Evans to be slowly starved to death and the NHS and the Doctors and Nurses within it along with the pols who back it will insist that doing so is for the child’s own good. He gets the Black cap that the villains of Rotherham will not.
And the NHS will be safe for another day.
Erick Erickson has England pegged.
What a monstrous country England has become. The state killing Alfie Evans is not something a moral people would allow.
Closing thought #1: If you’ve ever wondered what those Death Panels Sarah Palin was talking about might look like, this is it.
Closing thought #2: Does anyone think for one moment that if this child’s last name was “Windsor” and his mother’s maiden name was “Middleton” that there would be no question of leaving the nation as Her Majesty’s Government would spare no expense to provide any treatment his parents requested?
Closing thought #3 Why is it every time I hear someone defending starving #alfieevens to dead I hear the NWA members from the movie #hotfuzz chanting “The Greater good”?
If you think reality based reporting and commentary is worth your while then please consider hitting DaTipJar below
Consider subscribing. 8 more subscribers at $20 a month will pay the monthly price for the new host/server.
Pettibone told Robinson that some of the border-control officers who’d detained them in Britain had privately expressed agreement with their views but had said that they dared not speak out publicly on these matters for fear of losing their jobs. “The British people, we just suffer in silence,” one of them told Pettibone. “It’s just how we are.” Pettibone replied that if they remained silent “it’s only going to get worse. You have to act in some way, or you’re going to incrementally lose your freedoms. One day it’s going to affect you. … So you might as well stand up now. Because you’re only losing every day.”
If you are a Royal watcher you will not that Prince William of England’s wife delivered their third child, a boy this week, mother and son are doing fine and I of course wish the best for both.
There have been a lot of comparisons about the difference between the princesses’ treatment and woman in Labor at NHS hospitals who are apparently routinely sent home while in labor due to shortages, but I’d like to compare the little tyke to Aflie Evans.
Alfie is a 23 month old London Toddler who is very sick but to who, not only is treatment being denied by the British National Hospital System, but his parents are being denied the chance to seek treatment elsewhere for their son and have been told they will be arrested if they attempt to take their child from the Hospital for such treatment elsewhere.
Even the Pope has weighted in:
Moved by the prayers and immense solidarity shown little Alfie Evans, I renew my appeal that the suffering of his parents may be heard and that their desire to seek new forms of treatment may be granted.
In the video, posted on Facebook at 6:40pm local time (London), Thomas Evans tells viewers that a hearing is to be held by conference call at 7:15 pm, with the Italian Ambassador to Great Britain, Judge Anthony Hayden, and Thomas Evans’ barrister present.
“The Italian Ambassador is going to do all he can now to seek request of Alfie’s care, and try to have Justice Hayden allow Alfie to go,” Evans says. Earlier today, the Italian government granted Alfie citizenship in a bid to transfer him immediately to the Bambino Gesù hospital in Rome.
“No one can promise that it’s going to happen, but Justice Hayden’s either going to either agree to life support being withdrawn, or he’s going to agree to let Alfie go to another country, today, as soon as today, as soon as the next couple of hours. We are going to have Alfie in the Vatican being treated,” he says.
The Judge decided to withdraw life support. As of this writing despite this Alfie continues to breathe on his own
For 9 hours Alfie has been breathing on his own. It came to a point when Kate could actually fall asleep. Kate is asleep next to him. We are checking his stats. His oxygen level is below 70 because he is working. How long, after a few hours presumably breathing on his own, (Tom intervenes after a few minutes), at what point did the doctors intervene?
When I sat them down and told them that this is becoming like a crime. Starving him of food and hydration, starving him potentially of oxygen. Nutrients and water. So I sat down with the doctors. We had a meeting for about 40 minutes and they said you know what I am right and I was always right. He is not even suffering. Have the doctors given him any food or water? They left him without food, water and oxygen for 6 hours. He is working.
I felt blessed when they confirmed his water and now his oxygen. It is not changing his breathing, he is still breathing on his own, but his body is oxygenated. But he needs to be supported within the next hour or so. He has been doing this for 9 hours, but he will need to be supported within the next hour or so.
The idea that it is necessary for British subjects to get the permission of a British court to allow them the chance to save the life of their child, ANOTHER British subject, whom a British hospital refuses to treat, is so diametrically opposed to principles that the British people held in living memory that I am amazed that the British people are willing to put up with it and ashamed that Her Majesty, who with her family stayed in London for the blitz would countenance the extraordinary contrast between the treatment of her granddaughter-in-law and great grandson and this British subject that she is sovereign to.
This incidentally is what a post Christian society looks like.
I submit and suggest that the NHS has returned Britain to a land of feudal serfs and Lords only without any of the restraints that the Church was once able to put on said Lords toward their vassals, and that this state suits said Lords (and I extend the definition of that term not only to landowners but to any with wealth and influence) just fine.
The Revolution of Washington. Adams, Jefferson and Franklin is looking better and better.
Closing thought, Never forget that to our friends on the left, all of this is a feature not a bug as they intend the same for us here, with themselves as the Lords.
Update: fixed some bad grammar Alfie still alive after 13 hours
If you think reality based reporting and commentary is worth your while then please consider hitting DaTipJar below
Consider subscribing. 8 more subscribers at $20 a month will pay the monthly price for the new host/server.
I lost count of how many times I’ve heard that the cause of all or our country’s problems is the fact that we have two parties that are at political extremes, leaving most of us, who are moderates that inhabit political middle, unrepresented. The proposed solution to this is the formation of a political party that occupies the middle ground between both extremist parties.
It would seem, based on the heated arguments, the endless bickering, and the fact that nothing gets accomplished, that the two parties do operate at the extreme polar opposites of the political spectrum. That is not true at all. Only one party, the Democrat Party, has veered off into one of the political extremes. The Democrats now inhabit the extreme left. Don’t take my word for it. Here is what Senator Bernie Sanders had to say about his political party in this video. Rather than inhabit the extreme political right, the Republican Party now operates slightly less far to the left when compared to the Democrats. If you don’t agree please explain to me the latest Omnibus spending bill, their push for amnesty, their failure to repeal ObamaCare, their watered down tax cuts, and their efforts to eradicate true conservatives from leadership roles.
Why are so many convinced that each party operates on an opposite end of the political spectrum? Why are so many convinced that the policies of the political right are harmful and against everything this country was built on or stands for? It is because of a phenomenon known as the Overton Window. Here is how Wikipedia describes this phenomenon:
The Overton window is an approach to identifying which ideas define the domain of acceptability within a democracy’s possible governmental policies. Proponents of policies outside the window seek to persuade or educate the public in order to move and/or expand the window. Proponents of current policies, or similar ones, within the window seek to convince people that policies outside it should be deemed unacceptable.
The media, which is very left leaning, controls the narrative that forms the boundaries on either side of the window. They focus on the political spectrum in reference to how the two political parties exist today leaving out how both parties have slowly moved toward the left. What is left out by this narrowed window is how the two parties are now so far from the original position that was supposed to have been set in stone by the Constitution. The media, academia, and the Democrats paint the ideals of the Founding Fathers along with those individuals as being outdated, deeply flawed, and racist. They describe the Constitution and its principles using similar language. The media also uses the deeply inaccurate political spectrum that equates Fascists, Nazis, and conservatives,
Unfortunately the Republican Party abandoned the Constitution and the principles of fiscal responsibility and limited government a long time ago. Those in the party that still adhered to these principles are marginalized, ridiculed, and stripped of committee chairmanships. The media paints these individuals as dangerous extremists while championing those with extreme liberal beliefs.
The Constitution, which was supposed to limit the size and scope of the federal government, was abandoned many decades ago by both parties. The principles of federalism and limited government, which are enshrined in the Constitution, built this nation into the freest and most prosperous nation that ever existed. Rather than a party that occupies a narrow niche between two parties on the political left, we need one that reclaims a constitutionally limited federal government and free market economics. Can the Republican Party be reformed so it once again follows our founding principles, which are hallmarks of the true political right? I now believe the Republican Party is irredeemable.
Instead of shifting the media defined Overton Window back to the right; we need to smash it entirely so everyone can view the political spectrum in its entirety. This will be extremely difficult since the media is mostly controlled by liberals, along with social media. Next we need set the record straight about our Constitution and founding principles. Finally we need to start a new party that embraces these principles. Once we do this we can solve all of our problems.
The organisation said in a statement that it hopes to create a safe space for all members of the LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersex, asexual) community, and that while the decision may “disappoint” some people “the needs of the most marginalised groups within our community come first.”
Pity the poor drag queens, you can offend members of the general public, parents and Christians all you want, but the moment you might offend transgenders then you just aren’t acceptable anymore.
A few days ago I talked about how the ratings and the buzz concerning the Rosanne revival was bad news for the Democrat media left and indeed it is, however the biggest mistake the right can make, particularly the GOP looking to save the house in election 2018 is to presume this adds up to vote in the fall.
While any setback for the left in the culture wars is a cause for joy and as Andrew Breitbart always said: “Politics is downstream from culture” there is absolutely no reason believe there will be a “Rosanne effect” when it comes to election day.
Even if the meme of Trump voters as evil foreign entities controlled by Russia is partially dissipated in the minds of some on the left and swing voters this does not correspond to love for the GOP for several reasons.
Many in the GOP have made it a point to distance themselves from the President thus any good will built up from said moves will not spread.
The GOP, unlike Trump, has generally failed to either do what it promised or accomplish what it set out to do. While the tax cut is a legit measure to cheer the standing of the party continues to take a hit.
Even if this “Rosanne effect” began to take hold, it would not be fast enough to make a difference by November. it would take a few years for this type of thing to ripple through society.
Finally there is no way to be sure that Roseanne will not drift into a direction that will hurt the GOP