Tuesday, May 23, 2017

That Awkward Moment......

Ariana Grande discovered that loudly proclaiming "I hate America," doesn't protect you from people who really do hate America. Sadly for the left, appeasement is truly like feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last only to discover that he tends to bite off the hand that feeds him.

© 2017 by Tom King

Saturday, May 13, 2017

DNC Proposes New Cheese Labeling Standards

Proposed New Labels to Prevent Cheesy Micro-Aggressions*

Washington, DC, May 13: Democrat minority leader Nancy Pelosi proposed a House bill today that would address micro-aggressive labeling by American cheese-makers. The specific type of cheese targeted bears the label "White American Cheese Slices".  Under the new law, this product would be labeled "International Cheese with Pigmentation Impairment."  This new labeling would address the America-centric micro-aggressions that non-Americans might experience as well as the Caucasian-specific racial overtones engendered by the product label. LGBTQ Advocates have also requested a rider removing the term "Singles" due to the hetero-sexual micro-aggressions engendered by the sexist term "single" which implies a difference between unmarried and married persons, especially between hetero-normal individuals and non-traditional gender embracing persons. The LGBTQ Alliance further seeks a ban on the term hetero-normal, though for the life of them, they couldn't think of another word to use for straight people (other than "straight" which is also a micro-aggression to gender creative individuals.

Former speaker Pelosi further proposed a ban on the term "Pigs in a blanket" when referring to a popular U.S breakfast food. The DNC has petitioned the food and drug administration and the Federal Communications Commission to purge all such references from Internet food websites, recipe books, product labeling and school lunchroom menus, replacing the term with the more educational and progressive term, "white cops in a straight jacket" in order to promote awareness of the need to rein in our out of control law enforcement officers, and in particular, white officers. The petition is also supported by the National Organization of Women, The Service Employees International Union, The National Education Agency, Black Lives Matter, the International Communist Party and the former Pope Benedict.

© 2017 by Tom King

 * Just a reminder for those of you in Rio Linda, San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle. This post is satire. It's meant to be funny, not truth. Please do not pass this news item to your friends and fellow social justice warriors. I made it all up to make fun of you. I'm sorry, but when I was making breakfast and saw the White Cheese slices sitting there, my twisted mind was off to the races (which PETA would not have approved of, but hey). Please accept this in the spirit in which it was intended. Or better yet, you could sit on your sofa, watch old episodes of The West Wing and Madam Secretary and wallow in self-pity till your fingers get all pruney. whichever makes you feel better (or worse if that's what you are going for). Enjoy! And leave a nasty comment below if that will help. I can take it.

Sunday, May 7, 2017

Filmmaking as Confused Propaganda

We get all sorts of dystopian and post-apocalyptic movies aimed at teenagers these days. They all have a theme - an oppressive large government controls everyone's life either before the apocalypse or after it. Either way, the brave young post pubescent teens run away or starts guerrilla warfare against the repressive government. Somehow the filmmakers throw in little suggestions that the evil central government is somehow Republican or conservative.

Case in Point:  The Thinning

This progressive filmmaker attempts to sell the idea that Texas has submitted to a United Nations demand that it reduce it's population by 5%. Really? Texas submits to a UN mandate? Then, the Texas governor institutes a system of culling through testing in schools. Low-scoring kids are killed (thinned). Everyone (in Texas mind you) goes along with the idea without a lot of fuss. Before the test, kids are shown a propaganda film (the sort liberals like to use to explain why capitalism is bad to school children).  Kids who fail are carried out of the test center by people in black wearing hockey masks.

They may have actually filmed it in Austin. After all, Austin is one of the cities where we store out liberals in Texas where we can keep an eye on them. But the idea that Texas has somehow disarmed its citizens and convinced them to quietly accept the systematic slaughter of their children is probably the most ludicrous premise for a film ever.  Eugenics is NOT a popular idea in Texas. Hell, we don't like abortion. The idea that anytime in the next 50 years Texas is going to go full eugenics under a conservative Texas governor is incredibly stupid. And to think the conservatives in Texas would put supposedly thinned kids into some corporate work program or organ harvesting program is ludicrous, though this is what the ending led us to believe.

I don't get it. The very people that make these types of films are the first to go out and vote for progressive Democrats, the same people who want bigger government, more population controls, and a more powerful regulations. Progressives have long been believers in "improving" the human race. The "message" in these kinds of films is so screwed up. F. Scott Fitzgerald, a progressive if there ever was one stated that it was a sign of intelligence to be able to hold two opposing ideas in one's mind at the same time and believe both. If that's true these rudderless filmmakers are freakin' geniuses.

Myself, I suspect these college brain-washed children have some vague idea that some smart people in government will take care of all their needs so they can indulge in sex, drugs and rock n' roll without having to take any real responsibility for anything. In such a world, anyone who advocates for a world that requires some kind of serious work for your reward is anathema. While such folks themselves put in an incredible amount of work it's true, they also see themselves as part of the privileged elite who will manipulate the dim-witted masses to keep them content and obedient. Like I said, I don't get it.

© 2017 by Tom King


Thursday, May 4, 2017

A New Twist on the Facebook Con

And now we have a new modern twist on the Miss Lonelyhearts con, using low tech, easily learned skills and Facebook. 
The trick works like this.

  1. The con artist (male or female) creates a brand new new Facebook account.  The con selects a person with a Facebook account who looks the part they wish to play. Usually they pick some mature looking guy in uniform if they are going after women. If they are going after men, it will be some busty young woman.
  2. The con artist makes up a name that is similar to the person whose account is being cloned. Then the con person steals candid photos from the target person's photo album and posts the pictures as their own. 
  3. Once the account is set up, the con artist friends a person who does a lot of cutting and pasting and other things that require extra steps. They particularly go after people who pass along posts that they have been bullied or made to feel guilty for not posting. These they mark as easy targets or "marks".
They particularly like playing older military guys, contractors particularly in the oil business or pilots when going after women. They like to play successful attract women when going after older men (the sort with disposable income).  

This kind of fake account is most effectively used to roll widows and lonely-hearted women and widowed or shy men. Inevitably the con artist flatters them and portray themselves as well off potential romantic partners. Then one day the con tells them they are stuck somewhere without a credit card and they ask the mark to wire them money, promising to pay them back when some money gets transferred to their account until they get their replacement credit card. 

When they get the money they disappear.  That's why they need a fake account. They disappear once they get the money. They need to steal your pictures so they look authentic with lots of friendly pictures. Most of the time they don't choose any pictures with a spouse. If they do, they tell the target that their spouse has recently died and they are so terribly lonely.

If you do get approached by one of these people, watch for these signs:

  1. They will be overly familiar, calling you pet names and telling you how handsome or beautiful you are.
  2. They will seek to become more intimate relatively quickly.
  3. They will tell you how well off they are and how much money they make. It will be rather a lot.
  4. They will tell you how much you mean to them and ask you for small favors at first.
  5. They will offer to give you money or some kind of help.
  6. THEN they will ask for money from you.

These people are truly despicable. Don't let them in. Be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.

© 2017 by Tom King

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

ESPN Catches a Lot of Karma

The face of ESPN - 2015 ESPY winner Caitlyn Jenner
Business Rule #1 - Do Not Offend Your Customers

You wonder if today's ESPN sports journalists attended the same leftist university journalism schools as the rest of the mainstream media and never met any actual sports fans before taking up sports reporting. Let me 'splain. You see, sports fans, the kind who burrow down into statistics and player lives and the mechanics of professional sports, the raison d'etre for ESPN's very existence in the first place, tend to lean hard to starboard. That's nautical-speak meaning "to the right" for ESPN reporters who don't cover the America's Cup. 

ESPN laid off a hundred people the other day. Many more are expected to follow. ESPN boss,  and all their PR guys attribute ESPN's massive employee layoffs to a "changing media landscape" and other high-sounding marketing jargon laden excuses. I suspect what ESPN is experiencing is what liberal's who embrace Eastern mysticism call "karma". 

Interesting that ESPN doesn't credit the past year or so worth of increasingly leftist reporting and conservative bashing by the sports network as having anything to do with the staggering loss of conservative ESPN viewers. Turns out a lot of sports fans tend to be conservative, a demographic data point ESPN's marketing people seem to have missed. Not many mainstream news outlets are talking about the possibility that the recent shift to the leftward at ESPN may have fueled the loss of 621,000 subscribers in October 2016 and a full 7.2 million since.

ESPN tries to spin the layoffs as "not my fault" and some sort of cagey business decision. They should have seen the handwriting on the wall when they took back dismal Marxist Keith Olbermann from MSNBC and then had to explain why they fired him again with the usual "taking a different direction" excuse for his abysmal ratings. Since failing with Olbermann's in-your-face leftism, ESPN has allowed it's mainline reporters much more latitude in expressing their political opinions and disdain for all things conservative and Republican, perhaps expecting sports fans to accept their Marxism in smaller doses and not noticing it. The It has hurt them in ways I do not think they expected. In the process they discovered that sports fans are not sheep to be led about by the good shepherd ESPN.

Then came the Arthur Ashe Courage Award this year being given to Caitlyn Jenner. Again ESPN mis-underestimated the cringe factor that would come with that pit of political flag-waving. Fans tuned out in droves.

Another under-reported fact about ESPN's declining fortunes is just what the statistics of viewer vs subscriber losses say about fan disenchantment with the network. It is significant that ESPN has lost more far more viewers than subscribers in the past year.  While 7.2 million lost subscribers may be a relatively small percentage of ESPN's subscribers list, the loss of viewers says much more about viewer revolt, especially if you happen to be an ESPN advertiser. This disparity between subscriber and viewer loss is largely due to the fact that to "unsubscribe from ESPN" you often have to dump your entire cable package. ESPN is included in many basic cable/satellite subscriber packages or in special sports packages. To lose ESPN means you lose the other stuff as well.  As a result, many viewer have not dumped the network. Many sports fans just quit watching ESPN altogether and shifted over to Fox Sports or other less political sports news sources.

This Newsbuster story is a fair treatment of the consequences of ESPN's going hard left and viewers not liking it. They go into the numbers in more detail than I want to get into. The mainstream media have remained relatively quiet about ESPN's troubles, generally accepting the self-proclaimed World Leader in Sports' spin on the problem. One wonders whether the folk at ESPN will actually hear the message or is their political ideology so important that they will cling to it and content themselves with a smaller left-wing sports fan base.

Karma, as they say, is an angry female canine.

© 2017 by Tom King

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Religion Gets a Bad Rap

Some friends posted a video recently (see below for the link) by Jefferson Bethke entitled "Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus. Jefferson is young, cool-looking complete with leather jacket with hoodie (in case he wanted to use it to accentuate his cool).  Do I sound cynical? It's probably because I am. I listened to the video out of respect for my friends. What I saw worries me.

You know I hear that "hate religion, love Jesus" meme a lot - usually from people who don't like to go to church or pay tithe or do good works for the church. Often they are young, good-looking millennial types like Bethke. They are fond of making the case that religion is bad. They accept the militant atheist/socialist's argument that religion is a bad thing in and of itself and they try to make the case that Jesus came to end religion. In fact, Bethke makes this very point when he ends the video with "It is finished" and says Jesus meant that religion was finished. 
Trouble is, there is no evidence that Jesus wanted to end religion. He certainly went to church weekly. He practiced the Jewish religion meticulously. And nowhere did he ever say to forsake your religion and follow him. He might have said forsake your Playstation III or forsake sleeping late on the Sabbath or forsake going to I-Hop during services so you don't have to wait in line so long because of the after-church crowd. He did say those who practiced a form of religion for their own purposes were like white-washed tombs, pretty on the outside but full of corruption within. Note Jesus was here talking about people, not religion. There were people among the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes who followed Him in the end so His condemnation was not a blanket condemnation of religion practiced with an honest heart. His disciples after his death proceeded to set up the Christian religion complete with bishops, apostles, prophets, teachers, pastors and the like. Paul specifically said not to skip church as the manner of some is. Apparently, the early church had its share of folk who claimed to be "spiritual not religious".

I believe it is Satan's purpose to slander the idea of "religion" to drive apart Christians. Organized Christians are a threat to his progressive agenda.  Religion is, after all, simply a systematic belief system for practicing your faith. You could compare it to an army, the Red Cross or an nonprofit organization.  Religion isn't the Illuminati or the Bilderbergs or some evil secret cabal.

You cannot "love Jesus" and not practice some form of religion; it's built in to the faith. This young man's rejection of "religion" is a religious belief in and of itself. You cannot escape it no matter how many verbal gymnastics you perform and no matter how "spiritual" you claim to be. Virtually everyone practices some form of religion. Politics for that matter, has all the earmarks of a religion. People love to say, "I"m not religious, I'm spiritual." I believe Satan would rather we adopt that sort of touchy-feely sense of moral superiority over our brothers and sisters who kneel before God in church to worship him, than to adopt a pure religion, even a flawed one.

Jesus isn't a rap song. He did not come to destroy religion. He did not come to make you feel better. He came to make you a better person - one fit to live forever. Jesus and religion are not opposites. Jesus is the object of our journey. Religion is the road. Religion simply provides a framework for people on the road to finding God. This young man's "system of belief" is every bit as much "religion" as exists in any of the more organized denominations with buildings. If you read the scriptures, God always organizes his people for mutual support and to make their efforts toward a lost world more effective. We are intended to do good in the world.

And what half-blind historical revisionist can say, "Religion doesn't feed the poor"?  The truth is that for millennia, the church was virtually the only institution that took the trouble to feed the poor. Admittedly there are some political powers who have absorbed and corrupted specific churches and committed atrocities in the name of Christ. These "religious practitioners" are false Christians. There have always been those who practice true religion. Satan would prefer you not know that and instead of seeking the true, Lucifer would prefer we seek the comfortable - the anti-religion of good feelings, rap songs and youthful self-righteousness.

This rap song contains all the elements of the final deception being perpetrated on the Christian religion. It deals in absolutes - claiming that religion started all the wars, for instance, when religion has done no such thing. Except for a couple of notable exceptions where religious leaders actually had armies, wars are almost universally started by governments. It accuses the Christian religion of building churches and neglecting the poor when for the majority of the actual Christian church (excepting Roman Catholicism), churches are built by the people (poor included) as a place of worship. These churches are physical and spiritual aid stations in the war with the armies of evil, providing healing and comfort, food and often shelter to the lost, poor and displaced. Missionaries supported by religions with their brick and mortar churches have improved the lives of literally billions of the worlds poor, wretched and starving.

Given the excellent production values on the video, and the direct attack on Republicans, I suspect this was funded by progressive socialists or Democrats directly and is part of the sudden onslaught against Conservatives, especially Christians. Bethke's message here is in line with the socialist agenda and relegates Christ to the same status as a good joint - makes you feel good without any need to do anything in exchange for your high. I didn't hear this guy talk about what he intended to do about the poor or needy. He took a shot at Republicans, so I assume he's a Democrat, which means he won't have to worry about the poor because the government will take care of it. One wonders if this is what he thinks Jesus would do. Funny I don't recall Jesus letting his followers off the hook for caring for the poor, the widows and the orphans.

The liberals have pulled out all the stops to attack Christian and conservative moral values. I am reminded of a passage I read years ago which described the desperation of Satan as he sees the end coming. He has begun what I believe is a full on assault. It is time we take up arms to resist it lest we be over-whelmed by the forces of darkness.

Here's the video. Note the themes of Democrat socialism and the "hate speech" toward religion.  Can I be offended now?

Note the use of the word "Hate" in this video. And we people who have a religion are supposed to be the "haters".  The irony thickens!

© 2017 by Tom King

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

North Korean Ballistic Missile Dysfunction

Dateline North Korea:  North Korean leader Kim Jong Un came off a 52 under par round of golf this morning to the shocking news that North Korea's latest test of the Dear Leader's Long Dong Un missile failed to achieve altitude and fell limply into the sea near a Japanese Fishing vessel which hauled the rocket on board with a load of squid.

In other news, fourteen North Korean rocket scientists were accidentally killed when an anti-aircraft gun misfired and struck the scientists who were at the time participating in daily patriotic exercises involving dangling from tall poles by their necks.  Kim Jong Un expressed his condolences to the families of the scientists who were also accidentally killed in a North Korean People's Army training exercise, when hundreds of hand grenades accidentally rolled into their homes. Officials could not explain how the pins were accidentally removed from the grenades. The incident is being investigated and the American spies responsible will be found and accidentally killed by anti-aircraft fire.

© 2017 by Tom King

Friday, March 24, 2017

Let's Bring Back a Little Cultural Imperialism

In India the Hindu practice of Sati or Suttee used to be that, if a husband died, they'd throw all his leftover living wives onto the funeral pyre with their husbands - alive. The horrible British, when they conquered India and made it a protectorate, banned this practice. An Indian leader approached the British general who enforced this law and protested.

"But," the Indian leader complained, "This is our custom, our culture, our religion."

"And it is my custom, culture and religion," said the general, "To hang people who throw innocent women onto funeral pyres."

One forgets that several million widows who lived out their lives in the past century, many of who are still living alive and well in India, owe those lives and some thanks to the British whose laws altered the custom and culture so they did not meet a fiery death simply because their klutzy spouse fell off a train or died in a car crash. Some call this sort of thing "Cultural Imperialism." I call it making the world a better place. The Brits did do some awful things in securing their empire, no question. But in introducing British law to their colonies, they did change some pretty awful "cultural" practices. The status of the so-called untouchables in India, for instance, is far better now than it used to be when being an untouchable was worse than slavery. Also, remember, that the Brits outlawed slavery long before we did and outlawed it throughout the empire, ending a whole lot of misery for a whole lot of people and managed to confine this barbaric practice to non British countries and Islamic states, where it is still practiced to this day.

What we need is a president who is not intimidated by ISIS or the threat of jihad. We need leaders who develop a little righteous anger, when told by ISIS mullahs that stoning women who have been raped or who have the temerity to drive a car should be the law of the world. When confronted by people who fling homosexuals from the tops of tall buildings, who find nothing wrong with pedophilia, who murder those who leave Islam for another religion and who behead Christians for their own amusement, we need leaders who don't just shrug and pretend it's not happening. We need leaders who will tell such monsters in no uncertain terms, that it is our American military's custom to protect innocent women, homosexuals, converts to other religions and Christians who have the misfortune to simply live in Islamic ruled countries.

Who knows? Maybe we have such a president. Perhaps we should start taking actual refugees from those countries that Obama, himself listed as threats to our security. But we should first take those who are Christians, abused women, converts from Islam to other faiths and homosexuals, transsexuals, bisexuals and anyone else that Muslims might want to throw off a building. We should put them way up front in the line. Just saying. Refugee status is for people threatened in their own countries and people who want to be Americans so bad they are willing to go through what it takes to get here legally and become American Citizens.

What do you think? Me, I think America's cultural imperialism through our books and movies, our Internet and music, our goods and fashions is a very good thing. English has rapidly become the lingua franca of the world which improves everyone's communication dramatically across cultural lines. You see the way the culture works my precious snowflakes, is that cultures that bump up against each other share the good things and often to everyone's surprise start eliminating practices that appall their neighbors due to their contact with another more civilized culture.

Cultures are meant to appropriate good things from other cultures. Those which do not almost invariable become aggressive and attack their neighbors. The Brits culturally appropriated from everyone. India gave them a taste for curry. India and Southeast Asia gave them a taste for tea. There are a thousand things the British absorbed into their culture and way of life and many positive things that British subjects absorbed from the Brits themselves.

One thing that is not being absorbed by British culture is the vast stream of Islamic refugees pouring unchecked across their borders from the EU. Europe is experiencing an Invasion that is set upon, not learning from European culture, but upon burying it and wiping it from the face of the planet. The Islamic nations have on many occasions invaded Europe seeking to take the wealth of the West for themselves. This time they may succeed.

Our own forefathers came across the sea to escape the government by the nobility nonsense of the Old World and created the greatest nation ever seen on Earth - the wealthiest, most energetic, diverse and peaceful nation every.  America also unique in that government derives its power from the people and not vice versa as it is in the Old World where the Queen or the politburo bestow rights upon the citizenry at their pleasure. This government of the people idea resulted in the rise of the first dominant nation in history to reject the idea of conquering our neighbors to expand our borders. Well, after the uncalled for war with Mexico which wasn't a terribly just war, even though we bought the land we took from Mexico - land that was just about to break away from their Mexican overlords anyway. The Spanish American War did break Spain's stranglehold on Central and South America, but their influence was almost broken already. Probably because we felt guilty about waging that sort of war, we turned loose the territories we had won in that war - those that wanted to go at least.  If Puerto Rico wanted to go, it could have gone independent like Cuba and the Phillipines, but they keep voting to stay an American protectorate.

We Americans aren't without sin in our conduct around the world, but we're as close to sinless as any powerful nation has ever come. The Islamic nations know that they must silence the voices in the West if they are going to keep their young people fired up about world conquest and creating a Worldwide Caliphate in order to fulfill Mohammad's prophecy.

I think we should not shut up. I think we should not silence the Voice of America broadcasts, but ratchet them way up and throw in some free TV and Internet programs while we're at it. Let's make some friends and be friendly so that we stand in contrast to the vile power-mongers of the First and Third Worlds. 
And like the good general, once in a while let us remind them what American custom is. We think we should kick bad guys' butts. The world paused a bit when we had a genuine cowboy in the White House. They'd seen Westerns and they thought they knew what cowboys were like. Maybe it's time we make them believe we've got another one living on Pennsylvania Avenue. I don't think it's a bad thing that America makes some world leaders nervous.

Maybe that's just me.

2017 by Tom King

Monday, March 20, 2017

Hypocrites calling Hypocrites Hypocrites

The Descent of Political Discourse

Good cow! Now the Democrats and the Leftist Media are accusing Donald Trump of a "l
ack of transparency." Really? After the Obama administrations stunningly consistent opaque presidency, perhaps the least transparent in history, the hypocrisy is incredible. If it weren't for the odd open microphone we'd never have known Obama intended to sell us out to the Russians in his second term. If it wasn't for nosy cameras we'd never have seen him bowing to emperors, Saudi kings and assorted other potentates with titles. His signature legislation, Obamacare, was passed famously "before we could know what was in it." Not terribly transparent given that we discovered after it was passed that our health insurance would become more rather than less expensive and that we weren't going to be allowed to keep our doctors and health plans as promised.

I've so far been polite in my responses to most of my liberal friends and not accused them of things not in evidence. And yet, because I like some things Trump has done, I'm accused of Trump hero worship. So I will repeat what I have already said before. Trump is no hero of mine and I never have said he was. On the contrary. I've said I distrust him all along and that I will watch his actions with proper skepticism and set up a howl if he does something I don't like, although it will probably cause Democrats to cheer when he does some such thing.

Democrats are responsible for Trump anyway. They queered the Republican primary by some 12 million crossing over to vote for him and force the nomination, despite strong conservative opposition including mine. They didn't think he could beat Hillary. Unfortunately, they are not as smart as they think they are. Democrats really missed how much Americans disliked Mrs. Clinton.

Trump's their boy at heart. Even his repeal of Obamacare isn't really a repeal at all. Trumpcare is being sold as a better brand of Obamacare. It reminds me of Hitler claiming that Nazism was a better form of Marxism. Trump is obviously no politician. The fact that he hasn't been a politician is one of the few things in his favor as far as I am concerned. He's so inept at politics that the liberal press has their noses more deeply into dark places than they have for the past eight years. They are actually doing their job for a change which is kind of refreshing.

Trump's actions thus far (the official ones, not his tweets and the unimportant things the liberal press keeps harping on) have been heartening, and more than a little entertaining as liberal hair spontaneously combusts every time he sends out a tweet. One liberal friend complained about my use of past historical events, my "written words, sentences and paragraphs" that I used in responding to accusations against the President. What did they want. Should I hum a little tune to soothe their hurt feelings? I could play a little tune on my homemade banjo - a lullaby perhaps? Barring that, I have nothing with which to respond other than words, sentences and paragraphs.

That's the problem with us conservatives, my friends. We read history and we remember some lessons from it. Someone once said, “We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history." Two things I have learned from history that apply to my friendly debates with my buddies on the distaff side of the aisle. 
  1. Socialism and centralized government power, whether it's held by kings, emperors, commissars, politburos or presidents. It inevitably never works out well for the proletariat. 
  2. Socialists do not learn by experience. They keep trying the same thing over and over again, hoping it will turn out better this time.
Sadly, the left, I have discovered, only believe in free speech for themselves. They prefer not to hear opposing opinions that challenge the unearned sense of moral superiority that they gain from believing the "correct" ideology. They tend to want to silence anyone who presents words, sentences and paragraphs which make sense but disagree with the assumptions of their Marxist progressivism and which do not feed the sense of moral superiority that comes with belonging to the special ideological elite who will run things once the progressive agenda is accomplished.

The trouble with Democrats, said Ronald Reagan once, is that so much of what they know just ain't so. I think it's why they don't want to hear from people like me. Instead when I point out the hypocrisy of the left for criticizing their boy Trump for the same things that their boy Obama did during his reign, they tend to stick their fingers in their ears and go "La, la, la, la." No kidding, I heard a reporter refer to Obama's presidency as his "reign" once. It was more than a little disturbing and rather revealing.

Leftist judges have blocked Trump's immigration and travel restrictions from the very same countries that former president Obama identified as threats. The most recent judge actually said that if Obama had done the same thing as Trump it would have been okay, but because of things Trump said, it's not legal. In other words, judges have now created "thought crimes" which they can lay at the president's door.

Well, it's going along just about like I thought it would. It looks like "1984" may take an additional 40 years, but it appears that Orwell's scary state is still coming with it's government altering of history, language and culture for the purposes of creating the proper sort of proletariat that will subsume it's will to the dictates of the collective and, of course, it's elite intellectual leaders, who will, of course, live in luxurious country dachas with servants and security as a reward for being smarter than the rest of us stupid cattle.

As I've said before, I believe that Jesus is loading up the bus to come and get us. I'm not worried about the Marxists. Their idea of creating a man-made Utopia is doomed to fail in a big messy way. I hope to leave on the bus before I am killed in the collapse. If that happens, I'm not worried. I know where I'm going and I am at peace with that.

Just sayin'

© 2017 by Tom King

Saturday, March 4, 2017

Cedric Richmond (D) - Oh the Hypocrisy!

: "Y'all seen that photo of Kellyanne
on couch? She looks familiar in that position."
The Trump-bots are all atwitter over Louisiana Democrat Cedric Richmond's crude shot at Kellyanne Conway's picture kneeling on a couch in the Oval Office during a visit to President Trump by presidents of a number of historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). 

And I don't blame them. 

If a Republican Congressman (or any Republican for that matter) had made the same comment (even if it had been about Monica Lewinsky about whom the joke would have been true) the press would have crucified said Republican. Later Congressman Richmond tried to explain that his "joke" wasn't crude. Apparently it just wasn't funny the way he meant it to be. Here's what Richmond said.

  • I decided to use that joke due to the large social media backlash over her inappropriate posture considering there were more than 60 HBCU Presidents in the room.

And it's exactly what I thought it was when this started up days ago. Once again it's about race. How dare a white woman kneel on a sofa in the presence of all those black men. (I guess she should have knelt on the floor or something.) If there had been 60 white guys or Asian guys or Indo-European guys in there, Conway would not have been expected to genuflect in their presence. But because she did not show the proper obeisance in front of 60 black men, she therefore deserved to have Cedric suggest that she was familiar with that position (i.e. familiar with doing sexual favors for Trump). There was no other way to interpret Richmond's "joke". And by the way, It didn't look like 60 guys in that picture, but I'll give Cedric the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't matter anyway. Kellyanne was working and apparently not overly awed by the gathered crowd of "men". Should a very competent working woman have to bow to these people, especially as this was not an official photo, but a candid caught before the official photos were taken? I'm sure the photographer was looking for something controversial.

A liberal woman would have been applauded if she'd assumed the same posture with a group of 60 white world leaders. Feminiists would have praised her for showing that women were not intimidated by males no matter how important they think they are. Democrats would have defended her to the hilt, but only if she were a Democrat, of course. If we are going to have women in the workplace, it looks to me like we should allow women to be actual women. Women tuck their legs under them on sofas. They've done it since time immemorial (except possibly during the Victorian era when they wore corsets, whalebone and a stick up their backs).  So since Cedric ain't gonna do it, I will say it!

Way to show 'em you aren't intimidated by their race, creed, color or gender, Kellyanne!

You know I really like this lady more and more every day. And you can tell she's getting to them. They're already into creating a fake furor over nothing-burger* incidents. Next there will be books and movies out in which a woman in her position, working for the president is assassinated or causes a scandal or overdoses on drugs or something. Liberals are such hopeless dreamers!

© 2017 by Tom King

By the way, Ted Cruz, thanks for that new term. I hadn't heard it before, but I like it. I hope you don't mind me stealing it.

Thursday, March 2, 2017

Dan Rather - Teacher of Journalistic Integrity?

I finally found time to watch Trump's State of the Union Speech. As my regular readers know, I was not a Trump supporter during the election and don't trust him farther than I could toss him with my two bad knees and galloping arthritis. But I found the speech laudable and found nothing troubling in it. A CNN guy said the speech was full of big words that Trump didn't understand, but in listening to it, I found his language very simple. In fact, if you stumble over any of Trump's word, you probably are not reading at a fifth grade level.  

I didn't agree with every policy in the speech, but even when he talked about things I oppose in principle, I had to agree with him when he talked about how he'd execute the solutions. Whatever you think of Trump, the big thing was that he delivered a clear message. What was funny was the Dan Rather commercial for his "journalistic Integrity" online course (which he is teaching). He said this last election convinced him that journalist integrity was threatened and that he should teach an ethics course for young journalists to save journalism.

If you remember, Dan Rather was forced to resign from Walter Cronkite's old job as evening news anchor because he made up a story about George W. Bush's National Guard Service using forged documents. That Rather would be whinging about journalistic integrity is monumentally laughable. One wonders if he realizes how silly it looks for him to be teaching ethics to journalists given his history.

© 2017 by Tom King

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

Progressives Aren't Liberals - Really? You're Kidding Right?

Woodrow Wilson - Godfather of Progressivism
A friend recently told me he would rather be a "progressive" than a "stick in the mud".  If he's referring to conservatives as "sticks in the mud", I would challenge that idea.  Then my friend added that "progressive" didn't mean "liberal".  Well if that's true, then progressives need to work on their advertising because in common parlance "progressive", "socialist", "liberal", and "Democrat" all mean practically the same thing or at least are as closely matched as "conservative" and "Republican".

AND conservatives are NOT stuck in the mud. We were once considered liberals. When the country was founded, the founding fathers were very much liberals. It was the American Tories (conservatives) who opposed the Revolution, even serving in the British Army to put down the rebellion. The liberal authors of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were heavily influenced by the philosophy of noted 18th century philosopher, John Locke, and others of the time. They believed in small government and that all men are created equal. They were against setting up a "noble" class, all except a few Federalists, who thought they ought to become a ruling nobility. Thanks to Jefferson and Washington and others, the idea of creating an American noble class was shot down. 

Later in the 1800s, upper class Americans came to consider themselves a breed apart - a new nobility if you will. They seized on the ideas of Charles Darwin to try and make the case that some folk were genetically superior to others and that those traits were passed down to their progeny. They latched on to socialist ideas propounded by Marx and Engels to justify the idea of an elite ruling class and a classless society or more accurately a single class proletariat which served the collectivist state ostensibly for their own good. Of course, it was clear to these earlier "progressives" that they should rule such a collectivist state, given their genetic intellectual superiority. This was, of course, for the people's own good. 

The Democrats seized on this because it fit the Southern notion that certain folk were naturally inferior to the upper classes and that these societal elites were chosen by God to rule. Actually, most of the upper classes didn't believe in God anyway. As American theologians more and more challenged that notion of the natural superiority of any particular class, the Democrats soon openly pushed aside the notion that God had anything to do with anything anyway and became the socialist, elitist, paternalistic, and damned near atheist political party that it is to day.

Early progressives under Teddy Roosevelt were well-intentioned and actually did some good for the working class. Unfortunately, the very people who were responsible for the exploitation of working Americans seized upon the movement as a means to convince the very people they exploited to embrace socialist style collectivism as a means to achieve freedom for all workers. The slave masters simply adopted a new racket to maintain their position and profitability. It wasn't long before progressives adopted the ideas of the eugenicists and began sterilizing the "mentally feeble" and passing laws to prevent certain immigrant races from owning land, putting quotas on certain racial immigrant groups and discouraging black migration from the South to the North. Progressives built statues of Mussolini at Rockefeller Center and praised Hitler and Stalin's policies and then smoothly morphed into patriots and New Dealers and tried to pretend they'd had nothing to do with their previous "progressive" ideas once it became clear that those were the ideas had bred monsters like Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler.

Democrat/progressive/liberal propaganda links these three nebulous ideologies into a single unified whole in the public mind. Conservatives and Republicans (at least up until the age of Trump) have been defenders of the idea of decentralized, limited government, individual rights and equal opportunity for all. Just because they call themselves "progressives" doesn't make them progressive. The ideals spelled out in the Declaration and the Constitution are as progressive now as they were then. Modern so-called progressivism is, in point of fact, entirely regressive, seeking to drive society backwards to the old feudal system of a one class peasantry (Marx called them the "proletariat") ruled over by an elite class of self-identified "leaders" who live in their dachas and mansions and rule over the human hive that socialism always tries to mold a society into.

The term "liberal" has come to mean the polar opposite of what it meant during the time of the Founding Fathers.
In those days liberals believed in the rights of all men and women, equal opportunity, and the elimination of rule by elites. Today "liberal" according to its own advertising means a strong central government that doles out housing, medical care, jobs and opportunity as determined by central planners and a leader class which takes care of the proletariat while the proletariat collectively serves the state.

Like I said, if that's not what liberalism means, then they need to get themselves some new PR guys. What I hear from the left is that liberalism is about feeling good because you give your responsibility for your neighbor over to the government. To me it seems that all that does is make you feel okay about walking past your injured neighbor like the Pharisees of Jesus' parable, secure in the knowledge that he can go to a dot-gov website and apply for government aid if he needs help and you don't have to be bothered about his difficulties. 

© 2017 by Tom King

Sunday, February 26, 2017

MSNBC Reporterette Makes Freudian Slip

The other day MSNBC reporterette Mika Brzezinski made a Freudian slip. In her comments about Trump's rough-handling of the media, makes it clear how she and other reporters think of themselves and their job. It's more than a little troubling. First she lamented that Trump might "undermine" the message that the economy is going to collapse and poor people will starve. Apparently, the media, at least MSNBC, have already decided that the economy is going to collapse and poor people will starve. Interesting that they're so sure what the message is going to be ahead of time.

Mika continues her lamentation by expressing her fear that Donald Trump might be able to "control exactly what people think."  Apparently Mika and the gang believe that it is the job of the media to tell people exactly what to think.

Man, somebody has a low opinion of "people" Sounds to me like somebody has also confused George Orwell's cautionary tale, "1984" with a liberal instruction manual. I think that's why this carefully orchestrated run-up to the past election went so badly wrong for them. The Democrat-Media complex pushed the worst Republican candidate possible and got him successfully nominated. Then they over-estimated their ability to cover Hillary's corrupt hindquarters and lost the election.

Now they are totally freaked out. Even though I voted for neither Trump nor Hillary, the results of this election may actually be entertaining as Trump's bull-in-a-china-shop approach to governance blows up the system in their face. It may end badly, but it will be interesting. But a word of caution...

There is an ancient Chinese curse that goes, "May you live in interesting times."

And it is getting very interesting out there.

© 2017 by Tom King

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

What the Government Really Has to Say About the Church

To put it simply, "Nothing."  The First Amendment says this.
  • Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In other words, any law the government may make which limits the right of churches or individuals who may belong to a church to meet together, speak freely or print their opinion or even to complain to the government, is unconstitutional.

In other words.  The government may not meddle with the church and the church can do or say what it likes without interference.  This is highly troubling to many, given that the churches of the United States are given by the Constitution, great freedom and latitude to do their work, while the poor government may only stand by and wring its hands if the pastors of the nation say mean things about it.

This was a revolutionary idea in the world of the late 1700s/early 1800s given that most of the nations of the world had a government-sponsored church. The key feature of such a system was that only the approved church was encouraged and all others, if tolerated at all, were repressed. Because the state church depended on the state largess for it's continued existence, most state churches were well-behaved towards their political masters. The First Amendment was a revolutionary idea because most nations were governed by the nobility. Churches, as any king worth his salt knew, could be quite troublesome if allowed to call out the princes for their bad behavior. After all, the princes believed that because of all the hard work they did governing the ignorant masses, a little moral leeway should be allowed them. That's probably why the bit of my family tree that strays into the noble classes has so many branches that grow together at the top or were lopped off by less-deserving branches. The noble classes were naughty boys and girls.

At any rate, the churches, because of those pesky commandments, often felt compelled to speak out against the behavior of their liege lords. This problem with mouthy churchmen has a long history, going all the way back to Nero's problems with the Christians, Herod's dust up with John the Baptist, Ahab's troubles with Elijah and Saul's problems with Samuel. Churches are troublesome anyway a despot looks at it. They have a bad habit of pointing out sins. The Founding Fathers wanted to hamstring any potential American despot who might wish to silence the conscience of the nation. Religion had, after all, played a key role in the success of the American Revolution.

So the Constitution, after it's fashion, limits government's power to restrict the rights and privileges of the people.
Our founding documents tell the government what it cannot do and tells the churches their rights are protected along with the rights of other peaceful assemblies of the people. It also took the time to create a second protected moral voice by protecting the freedom of the press which also was supposed to act as a curb on power-mongering.

The First Amendment says that the government, therefore, cannot set up its own exclusive church, nor can it compel people to worship in that church. Nothing else is implied and any attempt to project any sort of government power over the exercise of faith by Americans is therefore, unconstitutional. Nowhere does it say the churches may not speak out on issues which concern it's moral imperatives or religious practices. And for 240 years, the churches have been pretty good about not using government to establish religious practice with occasional lapses, of course. A lengthy experiment with Sunday Blue Laws was finally brought to an end within my lifetime, brought on, in part, by the lobbying efforts of churches concerned that such laws did, in fact, violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Churches have recently spoken out against efforts by government to legislate the acceptance of gay marriage, in particular by churches which find the practice in violation of their principles.
Churches have also spoken out against abortion, which most find to be nothing less than murder of a human being. Because the issue of when a fetus becomes human is something of a philosophical or theological argument, the government has rightly left the decision with regard to abortion in the hands of the individual mother. Other aspects such as father's rights or the establishment of some sort of mutually agreed upon limit to how late an abortion can be performed might find some wiggle room for government legislation, but, again, this is something we as a nation can debate and churches have every right to put their oars into that debate.

Recently, laws regarding public restrooms have been challenged by churches on the grounds that such laws violate the establishment law by imposing secular standards upon the practice of faith by church members. More blatantly, laws which gag pastors from speaking out about political issues against the threat of IRS stripping them of the nonprofit status granted all religious organizations. If you're a strict constitutionalist, IRS sanctions would definitely fall under the establishment clause.

Remember, the Constitution tells the government it cannot meddle with churches. The right of churches to state their opinion or to advise their members on public issues, on the other hand, is protected by the Constitution along with the rights of individuals as well (under the right to petition for redress of grievances clause).

Secular priesthoods are never kindly or benevolent. They are a tyranny
because they have no moral compass, nor any fear of God.
My own church has long fought for the principle of separation of church and state. How? By preaching about public issues like Blue Laws and religious discrimination, by lobbying, by printing a magazine on the subject and by raising funds to support lobbying efforts to protect religious liberty. At no time have we believed that separation meant that churches should be silent. You can call it "education" all you want, but what the religious liberty, pro-separation coalition is doing really is lobbying by the old definition. We just don't call it that anymore because the IRS gets all up in your business if a nonprofit lobbies the legislature. Apparently the IRS thinks lobbying has something to do with bribing politicians (and sadly, they may be right). 

There is a concerted effort going on right now to establish a new government-sponsored religion. This religion is being established by silencing and banning all other religions from any influence it might have with government. Therefore, by denying all other religions the right to petition for redress of grievances with the government, militant secularism establishes itself as the only government-approved belief system. No matter that secularism has every earmark of a religion. It has codes of conduct, fundamental beliefs and websites. It holds evangelistic meetings, sells books, and pamphlets. It has prophets and preachers. It proclaims loudly that God is dead and therefore must have no influence upon the government which must only recognize the tenets of secularism. Most of these tenets are rules of behavior and belief as ironclad as the ten commandments. And, it seems, the secularists are making up their tenets as they go, largely in the form of cultural laws and rules which gag preachers and hobble religious institutions from doing their work of influencing the culture for what they see as "good".

For an amendment with just 45 words total, the forces of secularism have certainly managed to wring a lot of meaning out of the establishment clause that doesn't appear to be present. Dylan Thomas once wrote, "Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light." I agree with the fiery Welshman as I watch the Christian church face enemies that would have its light extinguished. I do not believe we should go gently. As another great philosopher once said, "I'm tired of runnin'. I aim to misbehave."  I even bought the tee shirt.

I'm just saying,

© 2017 by Tom King

Sunday, February 5, 2017

If You Don't Have an Accent, You Ain't Speakin' English!

There's a meme going around about how the poster is an immigrant who is accepted because they are white and "don't have an accent". It's supposed to make us feel guilty about being white, of course because we "notice" people's accents if they are foreign or ethnic. Well, I'm here to tell you that if you don't have an accent, you ain't speakin' English. The truth is that everybody has an accident. Even TV broadcasters borrow their artificial accents from the American Midwest. Someone evidently decide that the people in the middle should be considered as having the average American language style. Now they teach this style of English at all the nice liberal journalism schools.

Sometimes I think God chose English for America's predominant language. After all, English is adept at absorbing the words of other nations and cultures and make them their own. Every language has words for things that other languages don't have. Unlike French which constantly obsessed with making itself pure, if English speakers see a word they like, they just steal it. English vocabulary is stuffed with words from everywhere in the world - thanks in large part to the fact that England was a sea-going empire and set up shop worldwide. Exposed to the local languages, the servants of the British Empire borrowed them at will - especially words for the various types of food they encountered.
All this word borrowing from impossible languages like Celtic, French, Latin and German, makes spelling English words a nightmare. Still, it also makes the language wonderfully adaptable.English speakers can say things that people have to spend paragraphs to say in other languages. There are probably a few foreign words it might take us a couple of sentences to translate, but that's only because we haven't borrowed them yet. Be certain we will. We may not have invented it, but schadenfreude (pleasure in the misery of others) has become a surprisingly popular sin in the English-speaking world.

I suspect that English has more and varied accents than any other language in the world. We're also a mobile race (and by race I mean a multi-cultured people united by a common language of sorts). We carry our speech patterns everywhere with us. Visit Newfoundland and you'll find a deep Irish culture. New York City has as many accents as it has boroughs. Television has spread the Valley Girl speech pattern into corners of every high school in the nation. It's become sort of the lingua franca of blondes. And as a Texan, most people can identify me by my speech, especially if I'm tired or have been talking to family members back home on the phone.
Our most recent presidents from FDR on, all had accents from New York, Missouri, Kansas, Massachusetts, Texas, California, Midwest, Georgia, TV broadcaster standard, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Texas, West Coast, and now New York standard. We don't notice the accent so much here because they come from all over. We simply assign the accent to the person the way we identify Obama's ears, Trump's hair and Hillary Clinton's dumpy wild-eyed hysteria.  Accents, at least in America, do not mark you the way they do in England or Germany. There is no high or low English. It's simply English and it always has an accent.

So anybody who doesn't have an accent is trying too hard to be something he or she can never be - an unaccented American. We all carry around in our voices, the echoes of our ancestry and our home. You know, I quite like it that way. It's very American.

© 2017 by Tom King

Friday, February 3, 2017

Religious Freedom is Slavery - Doublespeak Rears It's Ugly Head

There was a breathless piece in The Nation this week. claiming that a new executive order by Donald Trump would legalize discrimination and somehow grants religious freedom in too broad a fashion.
It claims the EO would make one specific religion exempt from obeying a wide range of federal laws. The draft order, they say, seeks to create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity, and that it seeks to curtail women’s access to contraception and abortion through the Affordable Care Act.  

In other words, under Trump's Religious Freedom Executive Order, if, say, my church's pastor politely refuses to perform a gay marriage, then my church wouldn't lose its non-profit status. I kind of think this is a good thing after the scandals with IRS witch-hunts for Obama opponents lately. Some left wing pundits have even suggested that churches should be punished if pastors expressed any opinions about political issues at all.  This would be ironic in America, where the churches played a key role in driving the American Revolution during the dark days of our war with the British. Progressives who dream of the establishment of a proper progressive government love the idea of suppressing religion, free speech, assembly and anything else that might interfere with the great collective's work.

Trump's EO would likely save religious folks a lot of money on litigation defending themselves for not baking cakes and planning weddings. If, say, Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for abortions through its health insurance, then under the Trump EO, they would have a right to do so and not face crippling legal costs from constant lawfare. It sounds like the EO protects religious beliefs, rather, than threatens the right to hold religious beliefs as far too many of the Obama Era new regulations and EOs demanded. Under Trumps executive order all government departments would stop harrassing churches, forcing them to accept and believe in the current "cultural norms" as espoused by progressive liberals.  Hillary Clinton, during her campaign, hinted that this would have been expanded under her administration, stating that Christians would have to modify their beliefs somewhat under the new era of hope and change.

How is an executive order reinforcing the idea that you may not be forced to violate your religious beliefs a threat to religious freedom as some of my liberal friends suggest? Seems to me it reinforces the First Amendment's establishment clause rather than threatens it. It seems that what's been coming down from our insect overlords for the past few years has been more of a threat to religious liberty to me.

Democrats have for the past 8 years been steadily eroding religious freedom. Democrat politicians have been doing things like demanding copies of sermon notes (Democrat Houston Mayor) to check them for anti-gay marriage rhetoric) and threatening to remove nonprofit status from any churches where it is preached that homosexual or virtually any other sexual perversion or misbehavior is a sin. The left is wailing loudly about Trump's thwarting of their agenda to normalize adultery, homosexuality, transgenderism, and whatever other sort of Biblically forbidden behavior anyway. It's just one more complaint that their ideological march to the sea has been stalled.

It reminds me of George Orwell's classic "1984" (which I have been told that liberals are rediscovering lately).  In his book the fictional (very Soviet) totalitarian government had a whole agency that changed the definition of words so they meant the opposite of what they meant before.  War meant peace, slavery was freedom, ignorance is stregth and stuff like that. Sounds like the left has been reading that book for some time now and borrowed a few ideas.Newsflash guys:  That book was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.

Every time I hear this kind of inverted virtue signaling and longing after progressivism's ideological vision for the future, I am reminded of Revelation. In Revelation 13:3, John said that the whole world "wondered after the Beast." It's kind of strange when protecting the beliefs of religions is considered threatening religious freedom - very like Orwellian doublespeak.

The Declaration of Independence says we are guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as a God-given right. As long as a religion's beliefs don't threaten those things, the government has no claim to interfere. And it's funny how that same left doesn't mind overlooking a religious belief system that murders homosexuals, stones adulterers and rape victims and cuts the heads off nonbelievers and people who try to leave their religion, and believe that all others religions must submit to theirs, when it's time to decide who gets awarded tax-exempt status and who doesn't.

© 2017 by Tom King