Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Looking for the "Big Win" - Progressives vs. Conservatives

However beautiful the strategy,
you should occasionally look at
the result - Winston Churchill
TRIGGER WARNING
I posted the Churchill quote the other day and got an immediate response from a friend who like to debunk my quotations that offend some people on the left. I'm not sure whether he objected to it being Churchill who said it or that Winnie suggested that results might be a valid way to evaluate whether or not your "beautiful strategy" is working or not.

Anyway he shot back, "
And the conservative agenda. The war on drugs: screaming success, right? Prohibition: big win, right? Trickle-down economics: now that was a real winner!"

My left-leaning buddies like to taunt us conservatives with our supposed failures like playground bullies in second grade with their thumbs in their ears and their fingers flapping, going "Nanny, nanny boo boo! As though shouting talking points at us is an actual argument. I've talked here before about the Satanic propaganda system. In the Garden the serpent started off with a lie assumed to be truth because he said it was so. "Thou shalt not surely die!" Because he said it with authority, Eve didn't question that part of the argument, setting her up for the second part, "Thou shalt be like gods!" She believed the second lie because she accepted that the first lie was general knowledge (everybody knows....) and assumed that it was therefore true. 

You know intellectually, of course, that saying something was a failure doesn't make it so and nanny boo-boo isn't proof that your premise is correct. Emotionally, however, your instinct to belong to the herd makes such statements, however false they might be. FEEL right. If you can get past the feeling right bit, you may discover that the truth is somewhat different than the herd believes. Remember the members of the herd believe that if they follow the running butt in front of them they'll be okay. They believe this right up until they run off the cliff hot on the heels of their fellow cattle.

So let's examine the assumptions about "the big win" we have failed to get.

The Failure of Prohibition:  
Pre-Prohibition family fun
Everybody, even Seventh day Adventists whose grandparents and great grandparents fought for and voted for Prohibition, now think that Prohibition failed because mobsters used it as a way to commit crimes and make money.  Well Prohibition may have been repealed, and criminals committed crimes, but that doesn't mean Prohibition failed. America's booze-soaked culture prior to prohibition had gotten to such a point that families with small children served whiskey at breakfast like we serve orange juice today. Most people don't remember this, but it was common for kids 8-10 years old to drink wine and beer in pre-Prohibition America. Early childhood alcohol consumption was considered normal. A little white lightnin' in a baby bottle was well-known as a way to quiet a fractious child.

There are disinformation sites on the Internet that say Prohibition increased alcohol consumption. These are pressing a propaganda message says that prohibiting a thing makes it more desirable. Has pornography become less attractive by making it more available? These heavily massaged statistics are a lot of baloney, propagated by people who wanted easy access to booze. But, at the same time, here are some stats about what was going on at the time of Prohibition.

  • Wife beating and lack of family support decreased 82%
  • Drunkenness decreased 55.3%
  • Assault decreased 53.1%
  • Vagrancy decreased 52.8%
  • Disorderly conduct decreased 51.5%
  • Delinquency decreased 50.0%
  • Deaths due to cirrhosis decreased 50.0%
  • The number of inmates in jails and prisons decreased 75%, and
    many correctional institutions were closed entirely
  • General domestic complaints decreased by two-thirds
  • County hospital death rates were historically low
  • Alcohol became almost unavailable
  • Prostitution decreased
  • The national crime rate (excluding Chicago) declined 38%; in Chicago, the crime rate declined 25% (despite the best efforts of Al Capone, the O'Banions, the Genna Brothers and Bugs Moran)
  • Savings accounts tripled
  • Real estate values increased dramatically, due to home improvements
  • Families became better clothed
  • Attendence at churches and schools became more regular
  • Factory job attendance and job performance greatly increased
  • Demand for services at welfare missions decreased by half
America's alcohol-fueled culture was causing the dissolution of families, rampant alcoholism, economic ruin and misery. What prohibition actually accomplished was to reset the way the American culture looked at alcohol. Thanks to prohibition alcohol came to be viewed as a vice by American mainstream culture. Instead of tacit approval of drinking, Americans were reset to a standard disapproval of drinking, especially around kids. Instead of embracing alcohol, after prohibition, Americans merely tolerated it. AND the rates of alcoholism which dropped dramatically during prohibition, never have come back to pre-Prohibition levels. America as a nation, in effect spent a generation in rehab kicking the habit during Prohibition. So Prohibition was actually a BIG WIN. We are a far more productive and sober nation than we were before Prohibition.

The Failed Drug War:  
Now that the far left and right have banded together to use the so-called failure of Prohibition as an excuse to shut down the war on illegal drugs, now we get to see if the progressive's are right. Will making drugs legal and stopping the racist persecution of the poor, the potheads, the junkies and their suppliers, want to give up drugs. Will illegal hallucinogenic drugs will lose their fascination for teenagers. Will we make big tax dollars on the sale of legal drugs once the stigma is removed. I have looked at the early numbers and it looks like we're headed for a BIG LOSE.

The Failure of Trickle Down Economics:

Ronald Reagan's trickle down economics policy, though sabotaged at every turn by Democrat dominated Congresses, still managed to kick off the longest sustained economic uptick in history. Bill Clinton was smart enough to get out of the way of the Republican Congress during his administration long enough to allow the economy to blow through a slight recession during the Bush 40 administration. So how did government's attempted management of the economy under Obama and Democrats go? Well, we've just begun to emerge from the longest recession since the debacle of the Great Depression as extended and deepened under FDR. Even liberal economists are now admitting that FDR's New Deal government management only extended the nation' misery.

So yeah! They were all big winners.~  (sarcasm alert in case you missed it)

Progressivism's "Big Win":

Mussolini as "Atlas in front of Rockefeller Center.
Early progressive socialism - In the US our first big progressive president after Teddy Roosevelt dabbled in it, was Woodrow Wilson, Democrat. Wilson furthered the federal government's racism and put us in the middle of a bloody war he'd sworn he wouldn't get us into. Early progressive heroes of US progressives included the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini and Adolph Hitler (the artist carved what looked like Mussolini's head on the body of a sculpture of "Atlas" at Radio City Music Hall in 1937. US progressives paid tribute to the Italian fascist along with Stalin and even Hitler. FDR sent staff members to visit the facist nations during the 30s hoping to learn "how they recovered so quickly from the depression and their own economic miseries. FDR came away with the idea that direct government control of economies was how to stop the Depression. All he really succeeded in doing is prolonging the Depression until he had to go to war against his fascist role models in 1941.

Then there came the Middle Ages of progressive collectivism - 176 million deaths by execution, starvation and torture under Chairman Mao. Ukrainian Kulottes were deliberately starved in millions under "Uncle" Joe Stalin to eliminate the middle class and tens of millions more went to the Soviet gulags and Siberian work camps (the collectivist version of slavery). More recently, two million were murdered and untold numbers lost their lives fleeing in small boats from the North Vietnamese conquest of South Vietnam. Pol Pot slaughtered millions in the Cambodian killing fields. Socialists like Robert Mugabe and Idi Amin in Africa, Fidel Castro in Cuba and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela destroyed their countries economically and slaughtered their citizens in further millions in the name of the progressive Worker's Paradises that collectivism/socialism was supposed to create.

Even bastardized versions of the progressive gospel in which, for a time, capitalism supported socialism, proved inherently unstable and collapsed or are collapsing of their own weight. (see Denmark, Sweden, Greece and the rest of the EU) And yet people cling to the same old Marxist ideas, renaming it things like progressivism, communitarianism, or social democracy. Redefining old words and inventing new ones, they always hang on to the same failed idea that an elite bunch of self-proclaimed smart people (in N. Korea they call them "Dear Leaders") can save us all from ourselves.

I don't see a single "big win" in all the long history of the "progressive" movement's search for a way to create a man-made paradise. The only "win" I can see is that they successfully placed black folk once again in thrall to their Democrat masters using Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty as cover. The condition of black people is apparently so bad that multi-millionaire NFL players are taking a knee in protest. If I were a Democrat, that's a result I wouldn't want to look at either.

As it turns out only God can create a paradise and before He can do that, He has to convince human beings that the whole sin thing inevitably ends up in death and misery. Thus He has allowed us to destroy ourselves trying to do build alternative paradises and, as Old Blue Eyes sang it, "We did it ouuuuuuuuur way!" Letting little Festus fall flat on his face is sometimes the only way a parent can teach a child and that a child can learn that he is not omnipotent and immortal. It's probably the only way God can convince the human race that we aren't God and that we cannot do what He can. God, like a long-suffering parent has to let us fall on our collective faces. He is allowing His errant children to learn by experience that we don't have the right stuff to create paradises on our own hook.

Learning the hard way, though, can be very very painful.  Much better to learn something and then not repeat your earlier mistakes. As someone wise, no one knows exactly who, once wrote, "To repeat the same thing over and over hoping for a different outcome is, by definition, insanity." Seems there's a lot of that going around these days.

© 2017 by Tom King

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Stop Picking on Columbus!

Was Christopher Columbus Really Bad For America?



In the interest of full disclosure, many of my ancestors were Native American - Cherokee for some of them. My wife has Alabama-Coushatta ancestors. My ancestors were badly mistreated by some of my other ancestors. Some of my other ancestors mistreated by them. Plenty of naughty behavior on both sides. It's just one bunch of my ancestors were simply better at fighting than the other bunch. That's about all it was. But make no mistake. Both sides were responsible.


This from Aztec "Art".
So, this time of year it has become the thing to do for the progressive left to blame poor old Columbus and those who followed him for killing some 300 million or so Native Americans. Of course, there probably weren't that many Native North and South Americans who lived between the time Columbus came and now - at least not so long as the Aztecs, Mayans and Incas had their way. And if there is, it's pretty obvious white folks didn't manage to kill them all.

Did my European ancestors bring some diseases with them?
  Yes. but that wasn't deliberate. The smallpox blanket story is balderdash. It supposedly happened before anyone actually knew about germs and how diseases spread.  Scalping? The French and English used that, but the gentle Native Americans took it up with a vengeance. Did the Spanish wage war on the Meso-American native civilizations. Well, that's true, but then, the Meso-Americans were waging war long before the Spaniards came. The Spaniards were just better at it.

What the folks spreading around the mythology of the "noble savage" and the sophisticated native civilizations don't tell you is that the Natives weren't all that noble or sophisticated. The civilizations of the Purépechas, the Toltecs, the Olmecs, the Teotihuacán, the Mayans, the Aztecs, and the Incans were really quite good at mass murder. Human sacrifice, for instance, has been described, even by those who try to justify their practices, as "integral" to their societies. By integral, they mean, these guys did a lot of sacrificing.

Human sacrifice was, for instance the way the Aztecs sought to repay their debt to the gods. Apologists for the Aztecs carry on about how Aztecs gladly participated in the sacrifices, parting with all their worldly goods and their lives. Given the seriously perverse rituals related to these sacrifices, I rather doubt they were that thrilled about it. The "stage" for human sacrifice was the massive temple-pyramids. The kept all their bestest art, treasure and the bones of their victims buried beneath it.

The Aztecs were not peaceful; the were quite warlike. Three tribes, the Aztecs, Tlaxcala, Huexotzingo and Cholula formed an alliance. Fifty years before Columbus, Central America had a series of droughts and famines. These guys decided that it was punishment by the gods because they weren't properly honored. Me? I think the priests were a bunch of perverts. They ginned up what they called the "Flower Wars". They used these wars to obtain captives for human sacrifice. This ritualized warfare was used as a way to train soldiers for close combat. Warriors were supposed to fight in close and injure enemies rather than kill them. Captives were saved for the altars.

Then came the fun parts. The person to be sacrificed would be held spread-eagled by four priests on a stone slab. A fifth priest would rip open his or her abdomen with a flint knife. Then they would extract the beating heart, put it in a bowl. Sometimes they would lop off the victim's arms and legs and then throw the body down the temple stairs. Torture and beating were often administered followed by decapitation. There was so much blood, they had to build channels in the stonework to carry off all the blood. Everybody down at the bottom would stab and pierce themselves while dancing, beating drums and blowing whistles.

Nothing says "civilization" quite like
everyone sitting around naked
while eating your neighbors for lunch!
The body parts were disposed of and/or eaten by the priests and celebrants (yes cannabalism was quite popular in Meso-America). The warrior who captured the victim got all the meaty bits. The viscera was fed to animals in the Aztec zoological park. Heads were lopped off and stuck up on poles. Sometimes they wrapped victims up into a ball and kicked them around, playing some kind game with their bodies until they were dead. Aztec priests would often skin the victims while they were still breathing and dress themselves up in the skin of the victims (shades of Hannibal Lecter).

Sometimes when the Meso-Americans got bored cutting up naked people, they might shoot them with arrows till they looked like pincushions and slowly bled to death. Sometimes they played ball games and killed the losing team. They also burned victims alive, flayed them alive or drowned them. One inscription claims to have sacrificed 86,400 prisoners in just four days of carnage. Apologists for the Aztecs downplay that number to as low as 10,000, seemingly unaware of how appalling it would be to murder that many people deliberately in just four days.

And the Aztecs weren't alone in committing mass murder. The Mayans did it, using the same techniques. They were fond of disemboweling their living victims. There are huge sinkholes in the Yucatan Peninsula where they used to throw living victims to die slowly. The Incas in Peru liked to murder children. They would abandon them on mountains to die of the cold. Sometimes they just buried them alive. Great fun. It's been estimated that one in five children died every year on the sacrificial altars. That estimate comes from people who actually admire the Meso-American civilizations.

I can see why progressives would admire the Meso-American civilizations - an elite decadent ruling class and all those peons to slave away building pyramids and providing all that delightful serial killing for them. Apparently, I am told, I just don't understand them. After all their victims were dressed so nicely and they were told they'd go to heaven and be served by virgins and such.  Where have we heard that lately?

Historian Michael Harner estimated that some 250,000 Mexicas went to the altars annually. Apologists argue that 20,000 is more "plausible" as though somehow brutally murdering 20,000 people makes it all better. And this was going on centuries before Columbus ever got here.


Archaeologist are constantly digging up
Incan child sacrificial victims. The actual
toll of dead Inca kids may be worse than
anyone has previously thought.
People who blithely claim that white people beat that death toll really don't have a clue. I'm not excusing the Trail of Tears or the massacres by white vigilante groups. There's no excuse for what whites did, but the Indians were not without blame in the whole thing. Some of the tribes were little more than roving street gangs only they didn't have streets. They stole horses, children and women, wiped out whole villages and attacked farms and wagon trains.

There's plenty of blame to go around for everyone. Columbus may have been an arrogant European, but he was not solely to blame for the horrors that ensued. It could be argued that even Native Americans are rather better off than they were when Columbus arrived. They no longer live to the ripe old age of 29. They don't get swept up and brutally torture, dismembered and eaten by priestly perverts who enjoy that sort of thing.

The Aztec religion was the most blood thirsty in all pre-Columbian America. Others practiced human sacrifice but nobody was close to the Aztecs for cruelty and the efficiency of their mass murder. So when Cortez showed up, practically every neighboring tribe joined up with the Spaniards to put an end to the Aztec empire. If you think America would have been better off if Columbus had stayed away and left those bloodthirsty savages in charge to create a continent wide civilization, you have to be really indulging in an incredible level of wishful thinking and willful ignorance of how history works.

Anybody who looks at the impact of the "European Invasion" on the modern Americas, has to see that things are way better than they were under domination of the Meso-American civilizations and the tribal cultures of the hinterlands. The "civilizations" of the Americas where three or four millenia behind European civilization. Had Europeans stayed away altogether Americans would still be living possibly at an early Greco-Roman or even Persian level of civilization had they actually managed to advance at all. And given the level of ingrained bloodlust and perversion, I rather doubt there'd have been much of a chance of that.

All in all, Columbus may have done my native ancestors a favor. And native is probably a misnomer anyway given that they were immigrants themselves. So I think I will give a nod to old Christopher this Columbus Day. I encourage you to do the same.


© 2017 by Tom King




Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics

Well we all "know" that police murder young black men with impunity (that means whenever they feel like it for those of you in Rio Linda). NFL players are kneeling during the national anthem because it's such an epidemic of official oppression that someone needs to stand up to it (apparently by kneeling down which doesn't make a lot of sense unless they are praying which they are not). White cops are hunting down and killing tens of thousands of young black men.


At least that's what you are meant to believe.


But the numbers game is as Benjamin Disraeli described it - "...lies, damned lies and statistics."
Let's look a violence against the Police, where the narrative can be somewhat at variance to the facts. In 2016, for example, 135 police officers were killed. There are around 900,000 law enforcement officers of one sort or another in the country. According to one set of relatively reliable statistics, cops are 32 times more likely to be killed by citizens than the other way around. In those shootings, the perpetrator has a 50 percent chance of being black.

Let's use the "progressive" approach and parse that statistic against percentage of population. Since blacks make up just over 13% of the population against 87% of us are some other race, that means that a mere 13% of the population kill half the cops that are murdered each year.

Let's look at the claim that white cops are the killers. It turns out that black police officers are 330% more likely to fire their guns at a crime scene than any other ethnic group of cops. When a black cop is shooting at black Americans, the numbers are even higher.

But how can that be? Fat overfed football divas are kneeling during the national anthem? They wouldn't do that if cops weren't really hunting down and killing young innocent black men. Well, as it turns out, what you feel must be true may not necessarily be true. One can take the same batch of statistics and select out bits and reframe them and voila' - white cops can be made to seem to be murdering poor innocent black people with impunity.

Don't get me wrong. The problem isn't race. No race of people are entirely to blame. Black people are not bad people as a race. They've gotten mistreated for sure. They've been lied to, manipulated and kept down, not by white men, cops or otherwise, but by a political system playing head games with the black community. Malcolm X recognized the problem. "
Both (liberals and conservatives) want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro’s friend and benefactor; and by winning the friendship, allegiance, and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political “football game” that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives."

The problem is that what to many seemed a well-meaning attempt to "end poverty" (a good thing) was created and managed by a cynical, power-loving group of individuals that have deliberately created vast islands of institutionalized poverty, dependency, anger, monolithic voting, and resentment against the enemies of the people who put them in this unhappy position. In selling our political views, manipulating statistics and rigging the welfare system to keep people in poverty so they'll vote the right way, we've triggered a backlash. I say "we" because good people have forgotten how God has led us in the past and sat by and let them do it. We even enjoyed feeling good about what was being done without actually looking at the damage that was being done by it to black families, culture and community.

The thing is, I don't blame black folk for being angry. They have been practiced upon by the political upper classes. I don't condone it, but I also understand why racism hasn't vanished as it should have after the Civil War. It has been in the interest of politicians to keep the warfare between races going. Racial tension gets elite folks re-elected.


If politicians keep dividing people into victim groups by race, war is what they're going to eventually get. Who knows, the more sinister politicians may actually be hoping for such a war so that some form of marshal law can be put into effect which will allow a massive seizure of power such as happened in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia and Mao's China. Mild-mannered university professors, some of whom have been consultants to the White House in the previous administration, have suggested that collapsing the economy would be a good thing, in that it would allow for the establishment of a socialist state in the ensuing confusion. They do this seemingly with no recognition of misery this would cause the very people they claim to be helping.
All of this game of statistics is nothing more than manipulation for political purposes. Both sides of the argument do it sadly. Far right "conservatives" do it. Far left "liberals" do it. People in the middle fall for it because most of us never take a statistics class in school. I've taken three graduate level statistics classes. It's hard to read the news without getting my blood pressure raised because of it. I know their nasty little tricks and how they manipulate statistics.

This is a power game, folks. You are being fed cold-blooded propaganda as surely as if Joseph Goebbels was running the media. Sometimes I think his ghost is running it. After all, Goebbels was a socialist!

© 2017 by Tom King

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

It's Over When the Fat Divas Kneel...



I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm about done with the NFL!  They have, I believe, reached a tipping point beyond which there may be no return and no forgiveness. Football fans tend to not be precious snowflakes, though some of the players appear to have gone over to the flakey side.

Even my beloved Dallas Cowboys took a knee in a copout gesture, then stood for the national anthem with arms locked. I'm a more than a little disappointed in Jerry Jones the Dallas owner, but then that's not anything new with me.

What the heck is there to protest? The biggest complaint from a black person I've heard is that they were stopped by cops for being the wrong color. So what? I've been stopped for being white while driving in a black neighborhood in South Dallas. Two cops stopped my wife and I - one black cop and one white one. They said we were not the sort of people usually driving in that neighborhood - meaning we where white.  These guys are making tens of millions per year. They are in no way oppressed and, truth is, there is nowhere near the oppression in America that this protest seems to believe there is.

Most of this racism rabble-rousing is a product of 8 years of Barak Obama's efforts to secure all-power for the Democrat Party. It is critical for progressives to stir up feelings of resentment, anger and rage. It matters not if the object of all this unfocused rage is anything real, just so it's rage against anyone or any thing that supports the Constitution and the rights outlined in it.

You want to get mad about slavery and racism, how about getting mad about sex-trafficking? It's vastly more common in Asia, Africa and parts of Europe and South America. There's actual slavery still common throughout the Middle-East and parts of Asia. Get mad about places where there is real misery.


And how about giving white people break okay? We're trying. How long are those of us who stood with Civil Rights marchers and who have spoken out against racism all our lives. You want to end racism? Then let it end for crying out loud. If you treat others, including white people the way you want to be treated, you marginalize actual racists and take away their power. By making the pitiful handful of actual racists into a national bugaboo, all you do is give them power they don't deserve and you foment a race war.

I'm tired of watching my country slide inexorably toward Marxism.
It always ends up badly and always people wind up dying in large numbers and abuses like racism, sexism and oppression at the hands of the Dear Leaders that inevitably wind up in charge of the whole shootin' match. As someone who has always treated my black brothers and sisters with respect and as equals, I find it hard to feel all warm and fuzzy about being told I'm a congenital racist by a bunch of overpaid over-sized, steroid stuffed spoiled brats who's sole claim to the moral high ground is that they play a children's game professionally.

I miss the days of Tom Landry, Vince Lombardi, Roger Staubach, Drew Pearson, Terry Bradshaw, Walter Payton and Emmitt Smith.


© 2017 by Tom King

Thursday, September 14, 2017

My Oppressor Is Better Than Your Oppressor


Florida AG Pam Bondi and Trump
The Great Controversy continues...

Trump hired Attorney General Pam Bondi, from Florida the other day to be an assistant AG with the Justice Department.
Bonidi shut down an investigation of Trump some years ago, so the Dems are immediately crying foul. They say that if a person shut down an investigation of Trump or pretty much any Republican for that matter, she must be taking a payoff. It couldn't be that the president hired a competent lawyer for the job. The charge is not surprising. Of course, to a Democrat, only the investigation shut-downs which benefit Democrats are righteous ones.~ If a Republican shuts down an investigation, he or she must be getting paid somehow.  Shut down the investigation into Hillary's emails or her manipulation of the primary vote and it's just "not wasting the people's money." Because, of course, as we all know Republicans only care about the rich and those nasty evil corporations and their nasty evil profits. Democrats, on the other hand, only care about "the people" or the "working man".

I call shenanigans! Truth is, the rotten whole mess is corrupt in politics from top to bottom. Some of them are more corrupt than others. What we're arguing here is about whether my corrupt AG is better than your corrupt AG. It's all about advancing an agenda and holding power. It has little or nothing to do with what's right or what serves the American people. Why don't we call it what it is? It's a power game. 

And there are basically two sides playing:

1. One side believes we that if we assemble the right leaders and the right sets of laws, we can perfect people and create a human-designed utopia. Like John Lennon put it - no heaven, no hell, no wars, no religion, and no possessions. A brotherhood of man. The Marxist dream world.

2. The other side believes we can't. Only God can perfect people. We believe that people are basically sinful and that we need to keep concentrated power out of their hands as much as possible.

There are, of course, non religious conservatives, but they, like Democrats, believe man can, at least, be improved upon. And they believe that if they just had enough power....

Dinesh D'Souza - American political prisoner
Rush Limbaugh (now don't stop up your ears just yet; hear me out), Rush once said that "The law is a teacher." This is true in a Judeo-Christian sense as well as the political sense. So what do we teach when we write laws that are 2000 pages long and that no one ever reads unless they plan to prosecute you for something the government doesn't like. What do we learn when law enforcement punishes you for something you do that's not illegal, by prosecuting your for some accidental violation of the law the way they did Dinesh D'Souza for his movie criticizing the president? You learn to keep your mouth shut - an essential feature if you plan to run a totalitarian socialist state.

 Malcolm Reynolds - Serenity
Our complex laws teach that people ought to be dependent on the goodwill of their government, because we can't understand the law for ourselves well enough to do for themselves. Or as Hillary Clinton said in her new book, "The goal (of George Orwell's dystopian novel, 1984) is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust toward exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves."  In other words, trust the press, your leaders and their experts and don't worry your pretty little heads about anything else.

Complex laws teach us that we are weak and ignorant and, since we can't understand all the laws that are on the books, we should trust our leaders to take care of us. We also learn to avoid criticizing the government or our leaders at all costs because we might have violated some unknown law and they could punish us for it. Complex laws invite us to fear law enforcement. How do we know whether or not we've violated some obscure law or other today? The fact is, we can't be sure. There are too many laws for us to keep up with.

The main reason I vote Republican is that I do not fear Republicans as much as I fear Democrats. I don't think Republicans are as interested in controlling everything I do or think. Democrats, I fear, have no compunctions about using the tens of millions of laws and regulations on the books to do just that. I'm pretty sure they won't hesitate to use one of those laws, I surely break every day without knowing it, and use them against me, should I make them angry.

At the same time, I don't think Republicans care what opinions I hold. It's clear to me that Democrats and the media do worry about what I think. Those on the left are not afraid of Republicans either. Those on the left, who by and large vote Democrat, say what they want, throw riots if they don't like something and try to undo the results of elections if their guys don't win. Even when Republicans hold both houses of Congress and the presidency and a majority on the Supreme Court and could seriously punish them if they wanted to, the left is not afraid. The converse is not true.

I like lazy politicians. If they aren't doing anything, they
can't be doing anything TO ME!
Democrats do know how to get things done, but I don't want a government that can get things done. Governments that can get things done also are good at oppressing people more efficiently. And governments always oppress their people. In America, the Constitution is supposed to limit the government's ability to oppress us. That's why I don't want anyone meddling with the Constitution. I suspect that's why Democrats want to "fix" the Constitution. In fact, I think Congress should meet for a couple of months every two years right after the elections while they still remember why we sent them to Congress in the first place. As Gideon J. Tucker once said, "No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session."

I am suspicious of socialism of any sort and especially the "progressive" kind. They sneak Marxism in under cover of humanitarian ideals, create lots of incomprehensible law and claim that somehow all that law will make humans more perfect. Yet how many "Socialist Worker's Paradises" have wound up primarily perfecting the art of mass murder and mutually assured poverty?

I too dream of a perfect world - a New Earth if you will. But the only way to get there is to let God perfect me - not law. The only law that I recognize as necessary is quite simple - ten commandments synthesized down to two basic principles. If we people such a New Earth with only those who obey those simple laws, there will be no need for government at all.

I dream of a Utopia in which no structures are necessary to ensure the safety and prosperity of its inhabitants - not physical or legal ones. No walls are needed either; not walls to keep people in or walls to keep people out. No armies, no police, no courts and only one Judge whose job is already obsolete by the time we plant the first new tree. I do not believe such a thing will happen on this Earth during this time.

© 2017 by Tom King

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Kim Jong Un Releases Scary Video Threat to the US


© 2017 by Kim Jong Un

If you watched this video, released by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (alias North Korea, aka KimJongUnville), you probably had three distinct reactions to the video.
  1. Here we go again. More military, uh, threats, uh..........................huh?
  2. What the heck am I watching?
  3. Oh @#$%. That little man is serious!  AND HE'S GOT NUKES!!!!!!!
The only thing missing from this video is a reaction shot of Simon doing a face palm! So here you go....




© 2017

Just Say "No!" A New Drug Epidemic

Notice how small the group of "warriors" is and how large
the group of people taking pictures. "Many a small thing has
been made large by the right kind of advertising." - Mark Twain


Want to know why Antifa, BLM, the KKK and the alt-right hate each other so much? They're rival socialist groups duking it out for power (see Germany 1932 - Communists vs Nazis). Neither of these extremist groups must win the center. Honest conservatives and liberals should stand back to back against these dangerous groups.

Violence and power are a kind of drug to extremists acting in mobs. It's addictive. Those who lust for power get off on it. It's the most effective path to power when used against those who dislike violence.


Violence is the most effective tool for seizing the power you lust for if you're just willing quiet your conscience and to use it without mercy. The biggest bully gets to rule the playground. You'd think we'd grow out of that after a while. No such luck!  Children who bully grow up to be bigger bullies.

We can have a civil discussion about the kind of government we should have so long as those having the discussion leave their bricks and bats at home. That's how our forefathers reached the good old American compromises that got us to where we are today. They were not always perfect compromises or even good compromises, but each one moved us ahead, if only a little bit.

If the forces of power and intimidation, the my way or the highway crowd win, if those who want powerful government prevail, then we're all in trouble. Give them power and they'll never leave us alone to live our lives in peace again (see 20th century Germany, Italy, Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Uganda, Rwanda, Libya, Venezuela in the 21st, and all the rest).

Just say no to big government power of any kind. It just isn't American and the reason we American mutts left all the other nations of the Earth is because we didn't like being ruled by kings, queens, emperors, dictators, politburos and potentates. So why on God's green Earth would we want to create an image to those bloody beasts we left behind?

© 2017 by Tom King

Thursday, August 31, 2017

Are Churches Stealing 71 Billion a Year from the Government?


The headline reads:  If the Churches Paid Taxes, Everyone Would Only Pay 3% Taxes


First off that's utter horsecrap. There is no "cost to the government from church exemptions. All it means is that the government doesn't take 71 billion dollars of money from people who have already been taxed because they gave money to their churches. Taxing that same money again is not only unfair, but it takes away from the charitable activities that the church already does. It's a propaganda ploy - appealing to personal greed to turn you against churches. The "video" offers no facts, only a clip of a wealthy looking fancy church which is supposed to make you angry. Their reasoning is all based on the idea that the government owns everything and anything they don't take from you is robbing from them.

Let's say the feds gave it all to "feeding the hungry", which they won't do and which by the way is one of the things the churches already do with that money. It won't all go to feeding the hungry. Between 40 and 60% of that money will get eaten up paying for the salaries, supplies, benefits and the buildings in which they have their cubicles for bureaucrats who mismanage the food benefits program and generate useless paperwork for each other; dribbling out what's left to people the government thinks "deserve" to receive food assistance and deny it to them the first time they lift their heads even a little bit above the poverty level.

But, the government reduces your food stamps as you make more money.  That works out to virtually no transition period at all.  They simply reduce your benefits so that you can't afford the added expense of working (travel, clothing, meals at work, etc.). In effect, the benefits reduction keeps you at or near the poverty level until the cut the benefits entirely. So, practically, there is no transition period. Instead, the government programs strategic reductions only serve to extend the time during which you remain at the poverty level.

Talk about glass ceilings!  The gains we made with welfare to work back in the 90s have been virtually done away with in traditional "war on poverty" programs and with Obamacare, the glass ceiling was replaced with an iron one. On in which if you make a little extra some month you go from being on Medicaid to being offered a replacement policy on the Health Care Exchange that costs you more per month than you are making. And if you don't pay it, the IRS was going to make you pay a fine with money you don't actually have.  Of course, they can always take your refund in April. How's that for a hidden tax.  So basically, now if you want to rise above the poverty level, you have to accept that, for a time you will be paying to the government, more money than you make.

Of course this means you don't eat, you don't go to work because you can't afford it, and you can't pay the rent. So, it's better to remain safely below the poverty line where you are dependent on the government. And that, I think is the point. We are creating a dependent voting block that is is being programmed to accept extensive government intervention as the new normal.

Taxing churches will not save the government anything. There is no line item in the budget where the government pays churches to exist. There is only the gleam in the eye of some progressive Democrat looking for votes by creating another expensive government program that grows the size of government, gives it more power and hires more people to work for it.

Taxing is nothing more than a legalized form of systematized robbery from churches, supported by people who hate religion and would like to see religious institutions and people disappear from society. Christianity is the new progressive left's version of the Nazi's evil Jews. You will notice that no one is calling for the World Wildlife Fund, The Sierra Club or Media Matters to be taxed. Why pick on churches?

Because atheists don't like churches and the progressive socialist movement has been, at its heart, an anti-religion movement.
They blame religion for all wars for instance, conveniently ignoring that the only time religions have had armies was when they were government religions. Governments wage war. Megalomaniac dictators, kings and emperors wage wars. Not too many pastors wage war, although some did during the American revolution and the Civil War, but that was about patriotism, not religion. One religion that does wage war is Islam, although to be fair, Islam forms a government first before it wages any kind of war other than terrorism.

Anyway, if someone tells you churches are stealing money from the government, ask them if the Red Cross is stealing from the government.
How about your local art museums, zoos, your public schools, universities and wildlife rescue organizations?  Are they stealing from the government too.

And how many times is it okay for the government to tax your income? Already they hit you for taxes on your business and then hit you again for taxes on your personal income from the same business and now my "progressive" friends want to take a chunk out of the money that has already been taxed at least twice just because I put it into the collection plate at church.

Here's the video with all its reasons why churches should be taxes. Decide for yourself.

https://www.facebook.com/disclosetv/videos/10155942312185628/
 
Did you notice there were no reasons, other than a visceral reaction to someone having and expensive church building. Taking money from people is not a cost to the government. It's simply letting people keep what is already theirs and do with that money what they want to do. So I'll thank these collectivists to keep their hands out of my wallet and out of the church's offering plates. Be careful my "progressive" friends. Just because they say they are progressive, doesn't mean they are truly moving forward. We are, in fact, reversing course toward a revival of the two class system of the Dark Ages - noble leaders and peasants. The only other class is the soldier class and we know what they are used for. Even way back then, the noble leaders of governments pretty much left the church alone. When the government starts stealing from churches, though, it has truly gone beyond the pale.

And there beyond the pale my friend, lie the dragons in wait for us! And as one wry old philosopher so aptly put it, "Beware for thou are soft and crunchy and taste particularly good flambéed."
©
2017 by Tom king

Saturday, August 26, 2017

The Fourth at Pimlico - Answering the Race Question

Arlo Guthrie once opined that, "It's the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacree Movement and all you gotta do to join is sing it when it comes 'round on the guitar."  Arlo had an objection to the Vietnam War so he made fun of those who were carrying it out. Arlo's was a slightly different objection to the one I had. Arlo wanted us to come home. I wanted us to go ahead and win it. Arlo got his wish. I didn't. Two million South Vietnamese died at the hands of their new government after we abandoned them. So much for peace and love.

Now we have a new war going and I'm rapidly becoming sick of it. It's not a war of liberation in Afghanistan or some skirmish in Yugoslavia to distract from the president's having got caught with his pants unzipped and an intern under the Oval Office desk. It's an uncivil war being fomented by idiots on the extreme ends of both political ideologies and it's time to apply a little ridicule and bring this to an end. Arlo had the right idea for how to go about ending a war, even if he was misguided as to how to do it so two million people wouldn't be exterminated.

It's time to make fun of the race war! A friend the other day claimed white people like me don't understand racism. "Have you ever been pulled over by a cop for being white?" he asked.

Well, yes, I have. It was 1am and my wife and I were cruising through South Dallas. Two cops, one black and one white pulled us over for being white and driving through a black neighborhood. I was polite to the officers and so they didn't search my car. Had I been a bit belligerent or been unable to produce ID, I'd likely have had to pop the trunk. They apologized and admitted they'd stopped me for being white in a black neighborhood.  In our battered, 1963 Ford, we apparently looked suspicious.

I don't believe in "races" as generally defined by political ideologues. Genetically speaking, there is but one race here at the top of the mammalian intellectual pyramid as far as I'm concerned.  That's the human race. Oh, for sure we have different breeds like dogs do.  Dogs come in chocolate, white, brown, spotted and striped varieties. Humans come in black, brown, tan, pink and varying shades of white (if you are an albino and lack any pigment whatever), off-white, tan, and red. Someone the other day accused me of being "born white".  Actually, I wasn't. I was born red. I was really unhappy that the doc dragged me out of my nice warm place and whacked me on the butt. I screamed at him till I turned a nice cherry red color. My tint actually changes with the seasons. I run from an off-white in winter to a pale red in spring and fall when my allergies kick in. In the summer I'm a nice tan color. There's a skylight over my shower, so I get some very nice all over sun if I shower between 10am and 2pm.

I think I'm going to initiate my own little anti-racism movement and here's all you've got to do to join. If you'd like you can wait till it comes 'round on the guitar. Here's what I propose. When you fill out your next government or medical form or some survey, and they ask what "race" you are, give them a smart-alec answer.  Here are a few suggestions:


Race (check one):
  • NASCAR
  • Formula I
  • The Mile Relay
  • The Third at Belmont
  • The Fourth at Pimlico
  • The 200 Meter Free Style
  • Slot Cars
  • Hot Dog Eating
  • Kayak slalom 
  • Steeplechase
  • The 220 High Hurdles
Or perhaps we should all just tick off the "Other" box and simply write Human.

© 2017 by Tom King


Friday, August 18, 2017

Don't Trust Your Feelings Luke!



This is not politics, nor religion.
Call it philosophy or education or philosophy of education. Whatever!  I keep getting called ugly names by people who don't know me because of my political orientation. If I had an alternative sexual orientation I'd have been alright. The persons in question would, in fact, have defended me for that, but because my "label" makes them feel uncomfortable. It can't be right.

I blame George Lucas and the Romantic Poets. For many generations now we have been telling kids that feelings were important. The romantic poets started it off with the inane idea of courtly love - 90% emotion and 10% stupidity. George Lucas finished it off by having Obi Wan Kenobi give Luke Skywalker the second most inane idea "Trust your feelings, Luke."
Feelings cannot be trusted unless properly trained. Let me 'splain.

You want to learn to hit a baseball but you've never done it before. You take a swing. It feels awkward. You swing again, your brain working feverishly to try and adjust the trajectory of the bat by making adjustments to your finger pressure on the handle at the opposite end of the bat from the end you are trying to hit the ball with. It's a difficult task and at first it appears awkward.

But after repeating the process over and over and over again, eventually you get good at connecting with the ball. When you do finally get it right, when you swing correctly it just feels right. It's actually a positive emotional response that lets you know more quickly that you're doing it right. It saves your brain time by building thicker neuron pathways that trigger proper bat swinging. It skips the upper brain pretty much altogether and goes straight to the brain stem. After that, you swing the bat almost without thinking. When you feel good about the bat and ball coming together, you're probably swinging the bat correctly and way more likely to connect with a solid hit.

We train all our emotional responses that way. Even responses to labels, political opinions, religious beliefs if processed repeatedly come to feel "right".  The more we reinforce our belief systems, the more emotionally attached to them we become and anything that challenges those belief systems provokes a visceral response. The more firmly held the belief, the more powerful the response. So what we have now are people who feel first and then think and often they never quite get to the bit about thinking.

This is how holocausts happen.
Feelings are, for the most part, trained responses. Nine out of ten "feelings happen as a result of a previous series of "thinkings" Feelings are designed to be a backup to reasoning. As we encounter facts and ideas, process them and decide how we feel about them, our brain thickens pathways to the matching neural responses (feelings). If we agree with an idea or experience enough times we soon automatically feel good. Soon the limbic system stops sending incoming stimulus to the thinking part of the brain and short circuits it to the brain stem and triggers "feelings" If we train ourselves to believe that something is bad, we soon automatically have bad feelings about it. Obi Wan, in some ways was wrong.

You can only "Trust your feelings, Luke" if those feelings have been properly trained. One of the hazards of eliminating all contrary ideas from a child's training is that the child learns an emotional response to certain "facts" if those facts are incorrect or lies, the child still learns to skip the reasoning bit and go straight to a gut feeling that certain things are wrong and certain things are right. We create precious snowflakes that way - unable to tolerate a difference of opinion because it doesn't feel right and therefore it must be wrong.

It's why liberal-trained college students react so viscerally to anyone who challenges the Marxist ideas they've been trained to believe through positive reinforcement from their numerically superior numbers of Marxist college professors. We are no longer teaching young people to think (which makes them more resilient) but to feel (which makes them less mentally tough). Why do you think colleges deploy counselors and safe spaces every time college students are exposed to ideas different from what liberal professors teach?
It's just sad.

© 2017 by Tom King

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Do I Want to Be Associated with Nazis and the KKK?

The 1924 Democratic National Convention
Affectionately known as the Klanbake!
There is a fiction that all conservatives are somehow allied with white supremacists and Nazis. I had one gentleman honestly ask me if I really wanted to call myself a conservative and be associated with Nazis, white supremacists and the KKK.  He said it as if I had some kind of choices. First off, I choose to be a conservative, not any of those three vile things. To associate conservatives with Nazis and the KKK is patently false.

The truth is the Nazis, KKK and alt-right are closer to the radical left than they are to people like me.  The left doubles down on Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals in that they label their political enemies  as extremists. I am a solid conservative, not an extremist.  I love everybody. I believe in free enterprise, equal opportunity for all, personal freedom and that the government should serve the people not vice versa. I believe in small government because power attracts the corruptible.  I'm a strict constitutionalist. I believe in freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. I believe in freedom of speech, assembly and the rest.

I constantly get called racist, a Nazi, etc.. While there are those kinds of people out there, I find just as much of it on the far left as on the far right. The prejudices are simply different. About the only prejudices they seem to have in common though is that they both hate the Jews for some reason.

I don't hate anybody, but my politics are thoroughly conservative.
In all my time with the Tea Party, I never met a racist in the bunch, although I met more than a few fake racists pretending to be Tea Party folk. I worked for years with bipartisan advocacy groups, so I knew the local leftists and recognized the little buggers.

I find "progressives" paternalistic, divisive in the way they promote what they call "diversity", and their foreign policy and military policies to be misguided if not downright dangerous.  But I don't call liberals "communists" unless they've actually signed up on the party and I don't appreciate being called a Nazi or white supremacist if I have given no evidence that I am.

Do I like being "associated" with Nazis or the KKK?  Hell no, but then I'm not the one doing the associating. It's liberals who insist on associating perfectly lovely people like me with Nazis and the KKK.

Besides Nazis were socialists and the KKK were Democrats. I'm a free market capitalist and Republican and therefore neither of those.

© 2017 by Tom King

 

Saturday, August 5, 2017

The Free Market Manifesto



For Bob

My wife's cousin, Bob, a loyal union man and Democrat whether he admits it or not, has a new talking point. It's actually the same old talking point from the last election that says conservatives only complain and that they have no "solutions". He concludes by suggesting that "you (that's me) spend less time on points indicating you are well read and pose solutions to the ills and maladies that you think are holding us back as a nation."  I keep quoting people who also have good points. He seems to find that troubling. Apparently I shouldn't appropriate the ideas of others, but rely only on original thoughts. Sorry, but I don't get talking points from the RNC or some George Soros sponsored media advisory nonprofit. I get my opinions and ideas from original sources and it's my habit to give credit where credit is due when I can. That's just my style. Not trying to show off.

Bob demands I pose solutions to the ills and maladies that are holding us back as a nation. Okay here's my manifesto on the subjects he suggests:

  1. Healthcare - Get the government out of it as far as possible. Put Medicaid and Medicare on a more business-like basis.
  2. Taxes - Reduce the size of government and reduce taxes accordingly so as to stop punishing economic risk takers who are the builders of a healthy economy.
  3. The environment - Make whoever makes a mess, clean up after themselves. Stop using the EPA to punish political opponents or to suppress economic development.
  4. Minimum wage increases - Quit artificially jacking up the minimum wage. It's an entry level wage. The economy will be healthier if we quit trying to solve income inequity. Workers will learn skills and go get better jobs and the shortage of minimum wage workers will inevitably raise wages for entry level jobs because employers will have to compete for entry level workers. Shut off illegal immigration so we don't have a fear-based slave worker population which keeps entry level wages for unskilled labor artificially low.
  5. Public works - Interstate highways are crucial to the movement of troops so is part of the defense responsibility of the federal government. Ports are essential to defense. Air traffic control and airports are crucial to defense. Parks and wilderness preservation is essential to helping maintain a healthy environment. That's a federal responsibility. Protecting interstate commerce is a public work. That's about it.
  6. Education - None of the federal government's business. States and local communities need to keep their tax dollars for education and handle education there instead of sending a hundred bucks to Washington and getting less than 50 bucks back for education.
  7. National security - We have too many bloated, self-important security agencies. Stop creating new ones but combine and reduce the size of them and have them actually enforce the law instead of deciding what we will tolerate for political reasons and what we'll enforce.  Make it cost less and work more efficiently.
  8. Worker protections - It's a state job, not a federal one. Workers are quite capable of protecting themselves. States are far more effective at protecting workers. Quit spending money on feel good programs, cut the DOL down to bare bones and let states handle their own business.
  9. Civil rights - The federal government has the duty through law enforcement to protect the rights of citizens under the constitution. Just enforce the law for crying out loud. 
  10. Untreated mental illness - Get the federal government out of it. Back in the 80s the Democrat congress passed a law making it virtually impossible for families to hospitalize their mentally ill family members. You practically have to kill someone to be committed anymore. This federal approach to mental health, backfired badly and resulted in millions of seriously mentally ill people signing themselves out of treatment centers and creating a massive homeless problem almost overnight.  
  11. Defense - (I added this one to Bob's list) This is a federal government responsibility. The military is to protect us from foreign and domestic enemies. This does not include American citizens unless those citizens attack their fellow citizens. They are not to be used for law enforcement in general. They are strictly here to protect American interests and security from foreign enemies and to protect Americans in the world. It's one of the few things the government does well, although politicians have used military funding to provide pork for their home districts. That needs to be dealt with. Reducing the size and scope of government will help the media and government watchdogs to spend more energy on those kinds of abuses of power.
  12. The economy/unemployment - (I also added this one to his list).  Quit diddling with the economy. Keynesian economic theories have resulted in more than half a century of economic meddling by government, often with disastrous results. Nixon's price fixing intervention through us into a recession. Carter inherited a  recession when taking office and proceeded to tryto various Keynesian style government interventions and only succeeded in making the whole thing worse. Inflation and interest rates soon reached their highest levels since the second world war. GHW Bush went along with Democrats on taxes and triggered a recession. Fortunately, Clinton had the good sense to not mess with Republican avoidance of meddling and tax reductions and saw the recession end and an extension of the Reagan boom for another 6 years. GW Bush allowed his Democrat congress to meddle with the economy in order to preserve funding for the war on terror and got a nasty recession for his troubles. Obama took over with a Democrat congress and proceeded to go full Keyensian, trying stimulus, taking over industries like healthcare, and increasing taxes on the rich. Unlike Clinton, he failed to cooperate with a Republican senate and house and extended his inherited recession by another. He proceeded to declare that five million unemployed had actually left the workforce on their own accord in order to create the illusion that unemployment was reduced. The solution to the economy is for the feds to quit diddling with it. I don't think they can do that. 
Basically, the solution for all of this is to reduce the size and scope of the federal government and make it more effective. I don't have a lot of hope that that will happen. Power attracts the corruptible and the federal government has become very powerful. We may have reached the tipping point to totalitarianism.

© 2017 by Tom King