Monday, July 9, 2018

Why I Dislike the Word "Compliant"



A word that pops up disturbingly often in education, social service and health care paperwork is "compliant". It seems everyone who has anything to do with helping people seems hell-bent to make sure their charges are "compliant".  Even my doctor monitors "compliance" with his orders. Cooperating with my doctor is, of course a good thing, but I prefer "cooperation" to "compliance". I think "compliance" is a dangerous goal for any society. Americans are not a compliant people, thank God. My progressive friends seem to think more compliance would be good. The idea is that the government would make laws and then everyone would comply with them and then utopia would be achieved. The government could redistribute wealth and suddenly everyone would be "equal".  

The trouble is that "sameness" is not necessarily "equality". And redistributing wealth only redistributes wealth. It does not redistribute character or talent. There's nothing wrong with redistributing wealth. In fact there is no way to avoid doing that. Capitalism does that by its nature. Socialism does that by force. The question is can we intentionally spread wealth around in a way that is mutually beneficial to all. Must wealth be spread so that it is the same to all no matter how hard they work or what risks they take. Surely, there must be a way to gather enough wealth to allow (the few) enough rewards for risk-taking to create new economic activity. There also must be enough wealth spread around for (the many) people to be able to afford to buy new products or services. Turns out there is. It's called free-market capitalism.

Henry Ford contradicted conventional capitalistic wisdom (and angered fellow capitalists) by more than doubling the wages of his factory workers. Instead of going broke, Ford thrived because that act essentially created a new middle class who, for the first time, could afford to buy cars. Sadly, Ford mistook wise business policy for equally sound political policy and supported Hitler and Mussolini's ideas of socialism. World War II was an eye-opener for Mr. Ford. Mr. Ford got too big for his britches in thinking he could apply what he did voluntarily and do by force what he did through government authority. He was desperately wrong.

If we think the economic pie is finitely small, we can't do things like Ford did. Even Ford seems to have missed that. Giving your workers more money in a zero-sum game would mean the business owner makes less. Progressive idealists love the idea of picking wealthy pockets, the politics of envy being essential if you're planning to use the proletariat's greed to foment a revolution.
My point is this.

Time and again members of the progressive left keep hitting me with this argument in favor of me coming over to the progressive side: 
  • "I don't understand why you would support a policy that is against your own interests."

So, supporting political policy simply because it would increase my welfare check would be in my own interests in the short term? Well, maybe, but such a policy might not be good for everyone in the long run. That very appeal to narrow self-interest reveals the piratical nature of the strategy behind the progressive agenda. In a moment of rare clarity, one leftist wag reminded me that if I were to vote for progressives, then they would take money from people I envy and give it to me.

They did a lot of that in Detroit and for a while the people of Detroit enjoyed the vast influx of public largesse from the federal government.  Detroit was to be the showcase of liberal planning and a demonstration of the benefits to be gained from big government spending, central planning and wealth distributions. The People's Republic of Detroit, however, proved to be an unsustainable house of cards and it crumbled to ruin, leaving behind a wasteland, where once stood the most vibrant industrial city in America once stood - at least before Progressives tried to fix it..

I believe the short-sighted thinking of the progressive movement stems from an almost desperate need by the leaders of the movement (most of whom reject religion in general and Christianity in particular) to prove that man can create a heaven on Earth by writing laws.
The folly of perfecting people by passing laws has been demonstrated already. In the early days of Israel, God showed the Israelites that even He could not create a perfect world by making laws - not in a world where humans have free will to obey or disobey those laws. Laws only reveal what is evil in man. Changing man's heart that he may obey those laws on his own steam must happen in the human heart, transformed by time spent in the presence of He who is love, joy, peace and harmony incarnate.

The Progressive movement falls into the trap very quickly of deciding that if writing the law doesn't work, then what's needed is strict enforcement. Then, a perusal of history shows that the harder they try and enforce the law, the more rebellious people become. Under government coercion of its citizens, resistance to the law tends to increase until finally, the whole thing deteriorates. At last tyranny comes to open warfare with the people who must live under the laws. Such governments pass more and more laws thinking to make people more likely to obey. But hedging people about with an abundance of law is inevitably fatal. Too many laws and obedience becomes more and more onerous and the more it becomes evident that the laws are not working. Finally, the "dear leaders" find themselves strung up by their feet from a nearby telephone pole or cast into their own gulags.


It's why socialist nations eventually take up genocide as their national sport. They try to eliminate anyone who might not be compliant. It's why Hitler killed Jews and gypsies. It's why Stalin starved 1.8 million Ukrainian Kulaks, the best farmers in Russia. It's why the bishops of France drove out the Hugenots - Protestant shop-keepers who were the backbone of business in France. It's why Chairman Mao slaughtered Chinese teachers and intellectuals and landlords. A landlord to Mao was anyone who owned more than one ox. Pol Pot murdered 3 million professionals, intellectuals, Buddhist monks and ethnic minorities. The "reunited" Communist "People's Republic" of Vietnam murdered some 2 million South Vietnamese after the Democrat US Congress abandoned their agreement to support the South Vietnamese after the peace accords were signed. 

Those who will not obey must be eliminated. It's such an elegant solution. Kill anyone with any spunk and leave only the compliant behind. It's why the leaders of revolutions tend to kill off their own comrades once they've seized power. All threats to their power must be removed, leaving only "the compliant". Hitler turned on the Brownshirts - the citizen thugs that supported his rise to power. Can you say ANTIFA?. Stalin assassinated his fellow Communist, Leon Trotsky and anyone who was his friend.

The devil's first lie was an empty promise.  "Thou shalt not surely die." His second was that "You shall be like gods."  Then, every time we try to be like gods we somehow wind up enslaved and dead. It is the nature of lusting for power. The wages of sin," says the Apostle Paul, "is death." And when we dabble in it, the wages always get paid.


God on the other hand does not demand compliance. Obedience by our own free choice to obey laws we believe in, is not knuckling under to an oppressor. That's what non-Christians don't get about us. We obey because we agree with the law, not because we fear the consequences. Over the years some have created tools like hellfire and excommunication and guilt and the power of priests to forgive in the same way Karl Marx tried to use revolution and enforced collectivism.

.
© 2018 by Tom King


Thursday, June 28, 2018

Resisting the New Normal

The New Normal?
As the leftist propaganda machine ramps up its efforts to "fundamentally change" American culture and values, it becomes increasingly dangerous to be a member of the resistance. Defending common sense and traditional values can cost you your job, your reputation and even get your kids taken from you. And, if you are the president of the United States, it can get you impeached - at least that's what the united progressives of the world are hoping. The latest flap over efforts by Donald Trump's INS to protect the US border is an example.

Yes, the US Immigration and Naturalization Service removes children from adult detention facilities and places them in Dept. of Human Services facilities while their parents, who have committed a crime by crossing the border illegally are being processed.
Contrary to the narrative progressives are promoting, there are not a lot of "Family Jail Cells" at the INS where families can be kept together. Adult Illegal aliens are kept in what facilities there are while names are checked. This is a difficult process because undocumented aliens are, well, UNDOCUMENTED.


So instead of keeping them incarcerated with people who claim to be their parents (again no documentation) along with smugglers, sex traffickers, drug cartel enforcers, terrorists and drug mules, INS puts them into the custody of the Dept. of Human Services, an agency experienced in protecting children. DHS keeps the kids safe until their parents can be found or the adults they came across with can be identified as their parents (instead of child sex traffickers). Once everyone is identified and processed, the families are reunited and sent home to their respective countries. And the UN Human Rights Council, which condones massive assaults on the Israeli border by waves of women and children acting as human shields for terrorist assault forces, gets it's panties in a wad because we don't leave the kids in adult jail along with potential adult abusers.

The UN Human Rights Council is the same body of politicians who remain silent when authorities jerk kids out of happy homes because their parents don't want them to be propagandized by LGBQT propagandists in public schools. In Canada you cannot adopt a child unless you're willing to support a sex change operation for a four year-old. Quite frankly, in four decades of working among abused and emotionally damaged kids, it looks to me more like LGBQT advocates are more interested in increasing the numbers of potential sex partners in the coming years than protecting anyone's rights. 

I know that sounds harsh, but when you've seen fresh-faced kids come to town on buses with a piece of paper inviting them to come to the gay bars of the big cities, I have a hard time not doubting the motivation of the folk trying to "normalize" deviant sexual practices. There are, after all, only about 3% of Americans who embrace alternative sexual lifestyles. They must have a hard time finding partners. I sometimes wonder if the drive to encourage "alternative" gender identification in impressionable children is more about trying to grow the numbers of young sex partners than it is about protecting children from bullying.

After 40 years watching this sickness being pushed on us by government bureaucrats, the media and progressive activists, and seeing the horrors being perpetrated on innocent children and confused people with mental illness by these sexual bullies, I am frankly sickened by it all. People who casually go along with this kind of "fundamental change" in American values and culture, haven't seen the parade of victims of those promoting it. I have and I can tell you, you don't want to see the human wreckage left behind.

I love my friends who struggle with sexual identity issues. I spent years helping sexually abused kids try to come to terms with family's and friends' acts of perversion perpetrated on them when they were little. The trouble with trying to help these kids is that the LGBQT advocacy folks have convinced mental health professionals who ought to know better to go along with their efforts to force everyone to agree that sexual perversions are "normal".  Therefore scientists and counselors are forbidden to explore any possible treatments to help kids and adults who do not want to be slaves to their "alternative sexual proclivities." Why would people who write books like "Free to Be You and Me" object to folks who have homosexual proclivities, trying to get some treatment. People with bipolar are not forced to "embrace" their craziness, just because a lot of important celebrities have bipolar. And by the way the suicide rate among people with sexual issues is up there with that of people with untreated bipolar disorder. The only difference is that the political establishment of our country and a medical profession which has embraced politically correctness denies treatment to homosexuals, lesbians, trans-sexuals et al.

It's a real struggle to achieve some level of recovery from sexual deviance it's true, but don't let anyone tell you that you have to act on your impulses. Having everyone pretend that sexual deviance is normal and healthy isn't going to help the suicide rate any more taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will cause a mass shooter not to act on his impulse to mow down a row of school children. Impulses may be controlled, but it's difficult once they have found a seat within the mechanism of our brains. If you are denied any help for impulses you don't want, don't like and think are wrong, it's little wonder there is so much despair among those who suffer with this sort of mental illness. And, yes , I said mental illness. I have ADHD myself. It's a mental condition. I deal with it. I got some help. Everyone should be able to get help if they want it.

Thank God that He loves us and saves us from our sins. It's the last bit of hope in a world that devil wants to be as confusing and contradictory as possible. As an old rock song once opined, "Satan is my name. Confusion is my game." Look, if abused little girls can find peace after what they've gone through, so can other victims of sexual perversions. I've seen the horrific damage done to women in their childhoods and watched the heart-breaking struggle they go through to find peace and recovery. So why by all that's holy do we deny that healing and peace to those who are the victim of other forms of deviant sexual bullying?

Just sayin'.

(c) 2018 by Tom King

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

False Equivalencies, Logical Fallacies and Memes That Work "Too Well"


A friend posted this complaint about the plethora of memes defending President Trump's immigration policies, particularly putting immigrant in protective custody of DHS while their parents are being processed. Note I didn't use the words "atrocity" or "humanitarian crisis" as my leftist friends do. My friend claims that every one of the memes he's seen uses a "false equivalency" logical fallacy as "proof." This approach, he says, has become the go-to method of influencing public opinion. People simply pass these memes along with no regard as to whether or not the information is factual or misleading. And the frightening thing, he says, is that it seems to be working!

Yes, it is frightening that the left can't make this horrible situation stick to Trump. The trouble with my friend's argument is that the false equivalencies that I have seen are heavily on the rabid anti-Trump side. The media and Democrat side would have you think that suddenly Donald Trump started ripping children from their parents for no reason other than to be mean. This is not true. 
Here's why:

(1) The policy was started under Bill Clinton and expanded under Obama. Bush tried to close the border and create a guest worker program, but neither party was having it.

(2) It was a good policy to place kids in custody of DHS (which does the same thing if American parents are arrested). Trump started processing illegals as misdemeanor offenders. You don't leave kids in detention facilities with adults who may be smugglers, sex traffickers, drug mules, cartel enforcers or terrorists. It's not safe and ICE doesn't have enough family-friendly facilities to handle the surge of illegals.

(3) The kids are only kept until the parents are processed and then they are reunited and returned to their home countries. I think it's that "returned to their home country bit that's causing the Democrats to have the flutters.

(4) The hyperbole about kids whose mothers are in Mexico and the kids still in the states? That kind of thing happens when you write a phone number on the kid's forehead and send him across the border alone or you bring a whole undocumented family across illegally and can't prove the kids are even yours. Sometimes kids are over here along because Mom never crossed the border in the first place but came alone or with a "friend" or was abducted by traffickers. That's one of those things where you need to know the rest of the story. I know ICE agents and they aren't cruel people. 

Children of illegals thrown into "jail".  This was 2015 in
California. Want to guess who was president and
over the ICE at the time. Want to guess. I'll give you a
hint:  Big ears, goofy grin, wants to fundamentally change
America? How did that work out for you anyway?

(5) One reason kids get separated from "parents" is because they are "undocumented" and DHS is reluctant to reunite kids with adults who may not actually be their parents. An immigration attorney in Texas just got through sending out the word through the Associated Press that if you have a child with you, ICE won't prosecute you. She just encouraged drug mules, cartel enforcers, terrorists, sex traffickers and such to grab a random child before they cross the border to protect themselves from prosecution.

(6) ICE is overloaded because after 8 years of catch and release under Obama, Trump is talking a border wall. Illegals are rushing the border to try and get across before he builds a wall. That's why the facilities for detaining illegal immigrants are overcrowded and inadequate.

(7) If you want to talk about false equivalency, check how many of those pictures of kids behind chain link were taken back in 2014 under the Obama Administration. The mainstream media did a spate of investigative reports on ICE separating kids from their parents and tried to pin it on the GOP. The stories died very quickly when the blame didn't stick with Republicans but started to fall on President Obama. Obama "solved" the problem by transporting illegals and their kids north and deeper into the US and then releasing them with instructions to come back for "processing" later. Guess how many showed up with their kids to be processed.

(8) Trump is being blamed for a problem he inherited from Obama. And the left is busy wailing about Trump refusing to take responsibility and that conservatives are blaming Obama. Takes a lot of nerve when Bush blaming got so bad under Obama that it became a joke that every time Obama had a problem he would blame George Bush for it. Sad really.

(9) The left is mad at Trump now because he's announced an Executive Order to "handle the problem" of separating kids from incarcerated parents. Have you read the order? There are all these phrases like "as far as possible"; loopholes salted into the thing that leave the President and ICE free to continue incarcerating parents and putting the kids under the protection of DHS as they should be. That's an old Democrat trick to issue some fine-sounding paperwork to make people feel better and then leaving yourself an out to do what you want. Trump learned that when he was a Democrat.

(10) Democrats like Chuck Schumer are advising Democrats to oppose any attempt by the House and Senate to deal with the problem, lest it make Trump look good. That's the real humanitarian issue here. Immigrant kids being used to try and unseat a President and to seize political power.

Colonias in America - no water, sewer or electricity.
This is about memes alright, but it's not the relatively tepid memes defending Donald Trump that are the worst offenders here. I'm sick of the exploitation of the misery of those seeking to escape the horrors of life south of the border. We could do something but the political parties are too busy struggling for power.

Actually President Bush had the answer but he couldn't get either party to come together on the solution. The solution is simple and powerful and frees illegals from what is virtual low-wage slavery her in the US.

(a) Close the border tight. Until we stem the flow, we're fighting a losing battle.
(b) Create a guest worker program. If we need workers for jobs Americans won't do, let's make a legal way for them to come over and do those jobs.
(c) Register illegals already in the country. If they're obeying the law and willing to work put them in the guest worker program. If not, deport them.
(d) Make companies, farms, dairies and others which depend on migrant labor pay a fair wage, taxes and it should at least reach minimum wage for even unskilled labor. That takes care of the whole "jobs Americans won't do" argument.
(e) Close the colonias and arrest the people who profiteer off the fear and isolation illegal immigrants face trying to dodge ICE. If we make them legal through a guest worker program you solve the problems that promote poverty, crime and disease in immigrant communities. Once they are no longer illegal, they are protected by the American justice system from exploitation.
(f) Cut off all aid to nations sending their surplus populations north until they stop it. Let them participate in the guest worker program and let them receive an economic boost from the money that guest workers send back to their countries. The money will got to poor families rather than being filtered through corrupt governments that take 3/4 of all aid money to cover "administrative costs" so that only the tiniest trickle ever gets through to the people it's intended for.

East Texas colonias look like this. Rose growers, dairies, and
chicken plants send pickups to bring the men to work.
I worked for 40 years with kids, adults, the disabled, seniors, poor families and immigrants - illegal and otherwise. I saw the conditions in the colonias firsthand, the exploitation of illegals by chicken processors, rose growers, farmers and dairymen (all good Democrats contributing regularly to their congressmen, senators and such to buy protection for illegal immigration and what amounts to slaver labor and exploitation of illegals).

The Democrat party claims to have undergone this big change back in the 60's and renounced white supremacy and slavery utterly. I don't see it. They just changed their tactics for keeping minorities enslaved and on the plantation. I saw too much over the past 4 decades to buy the memes about Democrats being for the working man. I served during the time the Democrats were in power in Texas and watched the rise of the Republicans. Things got better under Governor Bush and his successors, let me tell you. And like with Trump, the Democrats ran the most shameless disinformation campaign trying to discredit the GOP in Texas that you ever saw. I was part of efforts to disrupt the Democrat good old boy networks and for a time I had to check under my truck before I started it up in the morning to see if there were any funny wires under there. I was warned. 
Don't kid yourself, the movement behind leaving our current system
in place is about cheap labor and keeping migrant workers living
in fear of ICE in order to keep them submissive to the bosses.

Democrats, I found in my years working in human services, are about accumulating power above all else. They will tell you it's all about having the power to "make things right". But they never do. Things always seem to get worse. Too many country club Republicans, though, have become afflicted with the same lust for power and are afraid to do what's right lest it cost them an election. Shame on them too.

It's time someone really helped these people for a change. I just don't hold out a lot of hope. Slavery is too handy a tool for hanging on to your wealth and power. And I am here to tell you, that what unrestricted illegal immigration is all about is virtual enslavement of minorities, particularly Hispanic "undocumented" immigrants. The term "undocumented" is kind of revealing. If they aren't documented, you don't have to pay them much and they can't complain because ICE might catch them and send them back to where they were starving or being murdered in their beds. The workers may earn a pittance for their very hard labor, but they are still slaves in my books.

That's the humanitarian crisis. Remove the fear and create a legal means for refugees to cross the border and you'll solve the problem. The trouble is, if you remove the fear, you remove the necessity to vote Democrat and if you're a good Catholic or Christian and a documented worker so you don't have to be afraid of ICE, you might just vote for a party that shares your family and Christian values, opposes abortion, disapproves of gay marriage, promotes religious and family values and espouses greater opportunity to rise in the world if you are poor.

No wonder Dems support catch and release.
It keeps the fear in place and makes it easier to keep "undocumented" workers down on the farm and subservient.

© 2018 by Tom King

Humanitarian Crisis - True Lies?

Detained illegal immigrant kids circa 2014
My leftist friends say there is no justification for separating children from their parents like this. Let me give them some justification then:

(1) The parents are being detained with other adults in detention facilities wholly unsuited for children - e.g. adult jails. It takes a few days to process them, after which their actual children will be returned to them and the reunited families will be returned to their countries of origin. This is standard procedure when cops raid a meth-making house and arrest the parents of children in the house. DHS takes the kids and puts them someplace safe. Same thing INS is doing.

(2) Among these "parents" who have no documentation are drug mules, smugglers, cartel enforcers, sex traffickers and terrorists. Because they are undocumented, it is not possible to definitively identify whether the adults arrested are the "parents" of the child (see Stockholm syndrome). For the child's safety he is placed in the custody of the Department of Human Services, one of those government agencies you guys on the left are so fond of, which has extensive experience managing displaced children and the children of incarcerated parents. So what are you saying? What DHS does with the children of American criminals is okay, but not good enough for the children of people arrested for violating our borders?  Interesting?

(3) Detention facilities are overloaded because the former president's open borders catch-and-release policies has attracted so much illegal immigration during his administration. When Trump started talking about a wall to shut down illegal immigration, it triggered a flood of illegals attempting to cross the border before the wall goes up.

So what are you Democrats proposing? Should we go back to ignoring the problem and signing up illegals to vote Democrat? Ultimately, illegal immigration is a form of slavery. It provides chicken processing plants, dairy farms, rose nurseries and farmers with a cheap source of underpaid labor and Democrats with a voting block that works even better than copying names off headstones.

President Obama did the same thing Trump's INS is doing.
Obama (and Bill Clinton) actually wrote the policy that separates children from adult detention facilities. While the mainstream media did react to the issue back in 2014, the furor over it was much muted. Now, President Trump is dealing with a sudden flood of illegal immigration and is stuck having to protect children with the DHS resources he has. Suddenly, in 2018, the mainstream media is howling.

The difference? They liked Obama. They don't like Trump

 And I've got to hand it to Snopes on this one. They accurately reported that the claim that Obama's INS separated kids from families is true. I know they didn't want to say this claim was true, given Snopes' liberal proclivities, but this piece is pretty honest. While the conservative counter-hyperbole does play loose with the facts just like the ongoing liberal hyperbole over the family separation issue, the true story is still damning. And hyperbole wars are notorious for stretching the truth on both  sides. There was some mainstream media coverage in 2014, but that paled beside today's media hysteria. The media, back when Obama was president, stopped reporting on the situation when it started to blow back on their beloved leader. Up beside the howl of despair coming from the MSM these days, the media was relatively careful in 2014 about using terms like "atrocity" and "humanitarian crisis" when a Democrat was president.

They've taken it too far, though, in their efforts to unseat Trump over this issue, to the point of proposing policies that seriously endanger innocent kids.  The media coverage is far more vocal about the situation these days, than they were back in 2014. And its not about a humanitarian crisis. The kids are being protected actually. It's about politics. It's about unseating a kind of conservative president that the progressive left hates because he used to be one of them.

.
© 2018 by Tom King 

Friday, June 22, 2018

Leftist Bureaucrat's Announcement Endangers Children

This woman is going to get some kids killed.
The left is still plying it's propaganda game despite the failure of socialism virtually every time it's been tried and even where it hasn't failed it's only a little more time till they join Venezuela.  Progressives are still playing manipulation games, even in my beloved state of Texas. Their goal is to "fundamentally change America". The change they have in mind is not necessarily good for America.

So there is this West Texas public defender named Maureen Scott Franco (the scary looking woman to the right). She makes her living defending illegal aliens from the INS. To further confuse the already tense situation along the border, she just made a declaration to the media that she had no right to make nor power to enforce. But she has got her announcement out into the news media and her words will soon get out to Mexico and Central Amerca. The humanitarian crisis over illegal immigrant children will get worse. Here is what she had to say.
  • "Going forward, they will no longer bring criminal charges against a parent or parents entering the United States if they have their child with them," wrote Maureen Scott Franco, the federal public defender for the Western District of Texas, in an email shown to the Associated Press.

Democrats and leftists bureaucrats are still trying to make Trump responsible for a mess made by his predecessors. Years of encouraging illegal immigration has led to the kinds of problems faced by the INS when they began enforcing the law once again. When INS stopped doing Obama-style catch and release, suddenly detention facilities were overloaded and conditions for children became dangerous. When INS followed the procedures laid down under the previous administration, children had to be removed from the adult population because we didn't have enough facilities to handle the flood of illegal aliens. 

Until the message finally gets through to our neighbors to the south, that the US has closed its borders, the rush to cross the border before the wall goes up is going to continue. Only now everyone will be sure to grab a child to bring with them in case they get caught because some public defender says that INS won't prosecute if they have a child with them.

God help the children and save them from the "kindness" of Democrats.


© 2018 by Tom King

Sunday, May 27, 2018

Time for Some Reparations.........for Christians

"
The infamous booing of the use of the word God
 I am warming to this whole idea of reparations.  I think there are three groups that I believe have a case for demanding reparations, or at least filing a lawsuit.  They are in order of victimhood.
  1. Black folk. No other group in American history have been persecuted, abused and enslaved like African-Americans. The treatment was horrific and went on for many many years after the Civil War. This mistreatment was committed by an organized party of Americans who should be forced to pay reparations for their past crimes.
  2. Illegal Immigrants. This group of people have been lured to the United States, shoved into villages of tar paper shacks without running water, electricity or sewerage (colonias). They have been employed to do menial hard labor and exploited mercilessly for ages. Again this system has been perpetrated for profit by an organized party of Americans who should be forced to pay reparations for this ongoing crime.
  3. Christians. Bible-believing Christians have been the target of hate speech, loss of employment, marginalization and libel by media personalities and public figures. This has been perpetrated by a specific party of Americans in an attempt to oppress this American minority group
Chief Cochran
Case in Point:  Kelvin J. Cochran was fired from his job as fire chief of the city of Atlanta, Georgia. The reason? On his own time and not in any connection with the city, Cochran wrote a book that mentioned in a couple of paragraphs, the Biblical position on homosexuality. The chief was investigated and the panel found he had committed no acts of discrimination. Cochran had worked for President Obama as United States Fire Administrator, the highest fire-fighting position in the country. The man was the poster boy for tolerance. He started programs in every administration position in which he served to end racial and sexual intolerance, sexual harassment and discrimination on the basis of race and sexual preference.

Didn't matter; they fired him anyway.

Apparently if you are a Christian and you write a book for a Men's Bible Study group that mentions that homosexual behavior is considered a sin, you have committed the unpardonable sin in a Democrat run town like Atlanta. Chief Cochran's beliefs are, according to mayor Kasim Reed, unforgivable in a liberal Democrat-run city. Public officials who use political correctness as a bludgeon against conservatives (which this guy is not) and against Christians (which this guy is), cannot allow such ideas to creep in to society. The good old Washington Post claimed Cochran's actual sin was "distributing the book to employees" and offered vague "proof" that some employees of the Atlanta Fire Department had "seen" the book and complained. No mention was made as to whether those employees were Christians or in the Chief's off work men's Bible study group. Just the fact that some copies of the book found their way into the hands of some employees apparently was enough to get the chief accused of brainwashing his employees into.........what? Lynching some queer folk? Everything the chief did in his official capacity spoke against discrimination on any basis other than competence as a firefighter - not that requiring competence might not set off some social justice warriors, though. The courts have since ruled against the city in Cochran's favor.

To say homosexual behavior is a sin is unforgivable to the "progressive" left. It doesn't matter whether you discriminate against such people or not. Believing something the left wishes to promote in order to consolidate their power, is a thought crime. Apparently, the narrative is that one cannot believe homosexual behavior is wrong and just go out and suddenly want to lynch gay people. It matters not that we horrible Christians work alongside people every day who, according to the Bible, are sinning by committing adultery, being disrespectful to their parents, stealing, killing, lying, coveting, failing to keep the Sabbath, worshiping idols or kneeling to graven images, or claiming to be a Christian and thinking you can speak on his behalf (taking his name in vain). Evidently, only certain types of sin make us go crazy. Well that's a stupid idea with no basis in fact.


Hosing black folks on orders of which party do you suppose?
Do some despicable people mistreat others, lynch, murder and mistreat people on the basis of their race, religion or sexual orientation? Yes, of course they do. We call those people "bullies". They are an ongoing problem. If they aren't beating up black folks, they beat up on gay folks, or kids who go to church or Italians, or Irish, or Hispanics or old white people or whoever is the target du jour.  Right now, conservative Christians seem to be popular with bullies.

We, Christians, manage to get along with all kinds of sinners every day. We believe that Jesus tells us to treat others the way we want to be treated - no exceptions. If you can't do that, then you're going to hell. It's not negotiable. No unrepentant bullies allowed in heaven.  yet, the narrative that's being promoted is that unless you say LGBTQLSMFT or whatever, is okey dokey, you must be discriminating an you are an intolerant bigot. 

But progressives demands we all treat the alternative gender community as "special", rather like many of us treat developmentally disabled folk. That seems to me to be downright paternalistic. I know I'd get pretty sick of people running around telling people to mind their P's and Q's every time I stepped to within earshot. I'm not a child and neither are the people who engage in alternative sexual practices. If you wish to sin, do so. Don't stomp your feet like a child and demand that people pat you on the head and tell you what a good boy (or girl or transgender, lesbian, gay, queer, etc.) you are. If you want to demand something, demand to be treated like a fully functioning grownup with the right to commit any sort of sin you want to. It's a free country, or at least it is where the PC police aren't running things..

The Washington Post, a Democrat Party mouthpiece claims this never happened.
What I'm thinking is that we should start calling people bigots who discriminate against blacks, illegal immigrants, and Christians. We should all claim collective victimhood and sue the crap out of the Democrat party. To be fair, the Washington Post, good leftist newspaper that it is claims it really was Republicans more than Democrats who supported the Klan and Jim Crow laws. They go to great lengths in a recent article to absolve the Democrat party of all association with the 1924 Democrat Convention, nicknamed the Klanbake, in the media and among loyal Klan members who were rather proud of the impact they had on the convention. I grew up in the South where Republicans were called "nigger-lovers". And we were. I know I was. Jesus told me to love everybody. He never mentioned anything about skin color.

I really do think black folk in particular ought to sue the party responsible. So which party was responsible primarily for slavery, Jim Crow laws, separate bathrooms and fountains and rampant discrimination that continued for 100 years past the end of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. Which party fought a bloody Civil War to protect its "right" to hold it's fellow human beings in bondage for fun and profit?  Who could it have been?

 In fact, anybody who has ever been discriminated against by officials of the Democrat part should all get together and sue the Democrat Party for reparations. I think that would be just a lovely idea!

© 2018 by Tom King

Friday, May 25, 2018

Encouraging Democrat Cannibalism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxASD4jHgCk

Poor old Morgan Freeman. CNN today descended on Mr. Freeman with a bevy of angry feminists all claiming he made inappropriate sexual comments or approaches to them over a number of years. Freeman is a died-in-the-wool liberal, with occasional inadvertent conservative lapses. You see his positively sensible statements posted on the Internet by conservatives. For doing this, Freeman may not be forgiven. That's what happen to Bill Cosby. Had the Cos remained on the plantation and not said things that could be quoted in Internet memes by conservatives, he'd have been just one more Bill Clinton. Like the proverbial lovable uncle you warn your daughter to not get too close to at family gatherings.

This propensity for liberal to cannibalize their own could well be a useful tool for conservatives. Let me suggest a strategy. I think what we should do is follow their leaders around and on the rare occasions when they actually do say something sensible, every conservative in America should quickly make up a meme of it and flood Facebook, Google Plus, MeWe and anywhere else they can think of with them.

WARNING:  You should not make fun or nasty comments when you post those memes. Be serious. Act like you admire that person. Post it like you are quoting this person as an authority and that you approve of what they said. Just circulate the bare-faced statement.

After about one to six months, if enough people do it, you'll suddenly see CNN report that "16 women came forward to accuse whoever-it-is" or some Democrat Congressman or pundit will call for an investigation of conduct unbecoming a Democrat. I think that we could effectively decapitate the Democrat Party by making conservative darlings out of them. Even Hillary has said some things that are the opposite of what she's trying to say now that can be quoted. Just make sure that what we quote is accurate and that we can document it. Even Bernie Sanders may have said something sensible once a long time ago when he was trying to win a senate seat. I can think of some Shelia Jackson Lee comments that could be tied to some right wing conspiracy theories. Think of it as chum in the water when you are fishing for sharks.
I have included the one above to get you started.

Happy guerrilla warfare!

© 2018 by Tom King

Friday, May 18, 2018

The Myth of "The Right Kind of Ruler"



Comedy Central's John Oliver took on the disaster happening before our eyes in Venezuela and manages not to mention the word "socialism other than to specify that it's not socialism's fault".
The American left never seems to associate the consequences of creating powerful collectivist/socialist states with collectivism/socialism itself. If anyone points it out, they always fall back on blaming the consequences themselves. It was "greed", "corruption", mismanagement, the "wrong people" were in charge, they didn't do it right. Always there is the assumption that it's something else that's the problem and never socialism itself.
 
The difference between socialism and an actual free market democratic republic like America is that for socialism to work you have to have "the right leaders". Where socialism fails, socialists always chalk it up to not having the right leaders. It's exactly like medieval reasoning - there are good kings and bad kings, but we must have a king!

American style republics don't depend on having a "good" king. We depend on the vote of the people and the checks and balances of our three part government. We don't have to have a "good leader" and we can survive bad leaders (see Barak Obama). The republic, because of it's structure, tamps down the depredations of bad leaders. So long as power in this nation remains diffused and decentralized, we remain safe. But if we create a great deal of political power that is housed in one individual, the corruptible will be drawn to that power like moths to a flame.

That is why socialism inevitably fails. The collective depends too heavily on the "natural goodness" of man. Man is NOT naturally good and because of this, there will always be an abundant supply of evil, power-hungry human beings to rush to seize power over their fellows and it always turns out badly at some point, despite everyone's best intentions.

The checks and balances of our democratic republic assume that too much power in any one man's or party's hands is fatal to the natural rights and liberties of our nation's people. It was an incredible piece of wisdom on the part of our founding fathers and just at the right time as the powers that ruled the Old World were busily trying to root out the sort of troublesome people that actually believed they should be able to speak, write, worship, and defend themselves without the permission of human authority. Scripture talks of a place near the end of time where the children of God might seek refuge from persecution by the powers of darkness. Well, America is it. We are a nation of refugees from religious and economic persecution, As it turns out most of that economic persecution was against people because of their faith. Nothing like America had ever been done before.

I believe the devil hates this place that God has given us and seeks to restore the authoritarian power of the Old World, here in the New. Karl Marx and Charles Darwin offered the Old World elite a justification for a revival of the ruling classes. The fittest were by right our rulers and we must serve the states represented by these smart, special people for the "good of all". 
 
I do not hold to that. As my favorite spaceship captain has said, "I aim to misbehave!"  We must not go gentle into that good night as Welsh poet Dylan Thomas advised his dying father. We must rage, rage against the dying of the light. A fight is coming if we are to hold on to the gains our country achieved. As a favorite president of mine once said, "We are a shining city on a hill."  Someone out there is trying desperately to extinguish the lights.

We know how it's going to go. Revelation is full of the dire warnings as to how badly it will go toward the end of time. We will have to fight with our backs to the wall for what is right and good. And just when we think that all is lost, it is then we will see our salvation coming in the clouds. Remember this. The Second Coming is not a conquest, but a rescue mission. Sin and evil must finally destroy itself. For the first time in history, man has the power to turn the Earth into a lake of fire and destroy himself utterly.

I don't think God will need to kindle the fires of hell. Men like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez and others have shown that sinners are quite capable of wreaking fire and desolation and destroy themselves utterly all by themselves without God's help. But we shall return and upon the ashes of evil, we will rebuild this beautiful world one day, but the end must be what it is, for the wages of sin truly is death and it must come to it's own sorry end if it is never to rise again throughout eternity. The universe must see it for the lesson to sink in. It's the only way to inoculate the future against the disease that is evil.

Just sayin'.

© 2018 by Tom King

Friday, April 27, 2018

The Myth of a Conservative Theocracy

The pigs are not who the media says they are.

I have no interest in a Theocracy.
It's odd that so many who fear that conservative persons of faith want to establish some sort of church-run government (which is not true) and yet want to tell me how Jesus would run the nation if he were in charge (which is always some complete Marxist fantasy). All I care about is whether the government is going to abide by the First Amendment and allow me to worship as I please, assemble as I please, say what I want to say, print what I want to print and believe what I want to believe. I've only heard one party boo God at their convention. I have never had a Republican say that I could not speak openly about my faith in the public square or teach my children in a parochial school setting or challenge my right to hang up a Christmas wreath in front of my store.

We are promised freedom of religion, not required to be atheists protected by some kind of misguided freedom from religion imperative to be enforced by government. Government, constitutionally, has no say in how or where I practice my religion. It cannot stop me or a group of us who agree to do so, from offering a prayer in the public square or invoking God's name when we speak. The constitution merely says the government cannot force you to worship in my church or any church. If some of my Democrat friends had their way, I would be forced by government, as Russians were by the Soviet Union, to worship at the altar of atheism.Now THAT would be a violation of my first amendment rights.


We're treated to propaganda constantly that says evil right wing Christian corporations are going to pollute the world and then when it collapses, we'll use the ensuing chaos to seize power. We Christians just can't wait to oppress the masses, exploit women like cattle, brutally murder anyone who disagrees, and cover it all up in religion sauce.  Don't believe me?  Watch a couple of episodes of "The Handmaids Tale" on Hulu. It won Emmy's last year for tarring Christians with a Stalinesque brush. The very methods by which socialism murdered hundreds of millions of human beings in the 20th century are portrayed as something that Christian Conservatives just can't wait to get enough power to do. Leftists use this propaganda technique to hide their own sins. Even Hitler, a socialist to the core who claimed he had a better more efficient form of socialism is supposed to be a model of unbridled Christian conservatism even though he  was a vegetarian, environmentalist who was spiritual, not religious by his own claims. It's the old "I am rubber, you are glue!" tactic from second grade on an international level.

And let me make this clear - Christians despise greed as much as anyone. It's the tenth commandment on that stone tablet leftists have removed from public grounds. One cannot enforce standards against greediness by creating enough government power to protect greed. In a free-market capitalist economic system, greedy people who don't give their customers value for their money, who obstruct free trade and attempt to manipulate the system are punished in three ways. 
  1. Customers stop buying their products and they stop making money and the whole bloated edifice collapses.
  2. The free market and government fair trade laws punish them for their greed and mismanagement through fines, jail terms and bad bad PR.
  3. If they behave criminally, then they get sued or arrested and the law steps in.
When Bears Stern and Morgan Stanley went nearly bust back in 2008-9, George W. Bush, whom I liked as a wartime president, messed up when he agreed with the Democrat Congress to bail them out with taxpayer money. Obama doubled down on it. If Bush had allowed them to collapse, small businesses and entrepreneurs would have stepped in to fill the gap and, while the economy might have taken a hit, it would have bounced back. That is if we hadn't elected a Democrat who, like FDR, hadn't meddled with the economy. The result was an 8 year recession. For many of us it was an 8 year full blown depression.

When we don't allow natural consequences to happen to these greedy people running some of the big corporations, when we protect them by bailing them out, we punish rank and file Americans to prop up bad business practices and greed. AIG should have failed along with all the rest of them. Someone leaner, faster and harder working companies would have stepped in to take over the market abandoned by these bloated behemoths. 

And contrary to the media's narrative, it wasn't conservatives that protected greedy executives' multi-million dollar bonuses and golden parachutes. It was government bailouts demanded by Democrats and Republicans who were in no way shape or form conservatives. Give me a Democrat who is a free market capitalist and I'll vote for him over any Republican who is in the tank for corporate interests. 

Unfortunately, these days when I look at the two parties, I that see one of 'em is by and large way deeper into the corporate pig trough than the other and it's name doesn't start with an R. That doesn't mean Republicans are without sin, but at least some of them are in favor of reducing the size and scope of government power. On the left side of the aisle, I can't find a single one anymore. On the right side of the aisle, it's easier to hold their feet to the fire.

Just sayin',

© 2018 by Tom King

Sunday, April 22, 2018

Trump Catches Flack for Potential Johnson Pardon

Jack Johnson in his prime
President Trump is getting flack from the left for considering a pardon of black boxing great Jack Johnson who was convicted of transporting a (white) woman across state lines for immoral purposes under the Mann Act. Although the law was created supposedly to stop forced sexual slavery of women, the phrase "immoral purpose" in the statute allowed an extremely broad application of the law. A later United States Supreme Court ruling in Caminetti v. United States (1917), held that "illicit fornication", even when consensual, constituted an "immoral purpose."* Johnson had beaten white opponents and even married a white woman, unforgivable sins in the Democrat South. So when he crossed a state line with a white woman (the woman he later married), he was arrested and prosecuted. Johnson was convicted by an all-white jury in June 1913,** despite the fact that the incidents used to convict him took place before passage of the Mann Act., eventually serving time in Leavenworth. Several Republican congresses have sent bills to various presidents urging a pardon for Johnson, even after a movie about him came out. Even Democrats urged President Obama to pardon Johnson posthumously, but he refused. 

The ever-progressive New York Times at the time wrote this of a fight between Jack Johnson and a white opponent. "If the black man wins, thousands and thousands of his ignorant brothers will misinterpret his victory as justifying claims to much more than mere physical equality with their white neighbors."

Johnson was hardly a moral man or a terribly admirable man. He grew up in a mixed race community in Galveston, Texas where whites and blacks mingled freely. White moms gave him cookies and he failed to learn as a child that he was inferior to whites. This put him at odds with much of society during the Jim Crow era during which he regularly beat white opponents. Perhaps Trump should pardon him for that. It is, after all, difficult to accept being abused and looked down on because you believe you are as good as Democrats and white folk and refuse to step and fetch-it for "progressives" who think people of your color are racially inferior and need to be "taken care of" (See progressive movement founding father HG Wells' "History of the World").

Johnson's conviction was certainly racially motivated and I agree with Sylvester Stallone who has urged Donald Trump to pardon Johnson. The law was not kind to uppity black folk in those days and Johnson's pardon is long overdue. Someone should have done it a long time ago. It was a monstrous miscarriage of justice

© 2018 by Tom King

* https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-passes-mann-act
** "Cleveland Advocate 2 October 1920". Dbs.ohiohistory.org. Retrieved September 30, 2014.

Thursday, April 12, 2018

Marching For Feelings

Lots of emotion. Very little substance!
Getting a wee bit tired of gushy articles praising the "emotional impact" of "March for Our Lives". This “spontaneous” march was little more than a heavily organized propaganda effort funded by Progressive political organizations who want to, as President Obama so delicately put it, "fundamentally change America,” as though the most civilized, wealthy and safe nation in the world needs to be made into something else. Like what? China? The Soviet Union? Cambodia? Vietnam? All those worker’s paradises built on lakes of blood?

These kids are given a microphone and coached to espouse a “solution” that, so far, has never solved the problem they want solved. These kids believe gun control will stop people shooting up schools. They cite places like Britain and Australia where massive gun confiscation ostensibly made things safer by reducing “gun deaths”. Mass killings and gun deaths are two different things. Will eliminating guns stop the killings is the better question. Let’s look at that shall we?” 

I've written two books on the subject, Give Guns a Chance (available on Amazon) and They Shoot Rednecks Don't They? (currently completing publication).  Great Britain's ban on guns in the 1920s is often cited as an example of how taking guns away from citizens makes them safer. That's deceptive. Britain’s gun confiscation was a thinly disguised effort by the upper classes to maintain control, because they feared a progressive socialist peasant revolution such as happened in Russia during the Great War. Several things happened as a result of the confiscation.
  • Gun deaths did decline slightly. 
  • Murder by other means like bludgeoning, strangulation, poisoning, stabbings, drowning, vehicular homicide, arson and bombing rose more than enough to cause the murder rate to continue rising more than making up for the decline in "gun-related deaths." 
  • Criminals lives were saved and their profession was made safer.
  • When the Nazis threatened to invade, the Home Guard was practically unarmed.
When Churchill made his brave speech about “fighting them on the beaches, fighting them on the landing grounds," he was bluffing.  After the speech, he reportedly turned to someone on the stage and said, “Of course we may have to fight them with broken beer bottles.” Had not America shipped millions of guns to the Home Guard (many donated by American private citizens), the nation would have been unarmed had the Nazi invasion come. About the only useful thing about Britain's gun ban is that mystery authors like Agatha Christie and Arthur Conan Doyle had to come up with more inventive ways to murder the characters in their novels. Criminals did likewise.

In Australia, the same sort of thing happened. Mass murders continued. Regular kinds of murders went on apace. The killers merely changed weapons and tactics. Mass murderers resorted to arson and bombing people when they wanted to pump up the death count up. In both places the actual murder and crime rates rose. The only class of people in that statistic whose death rate declined was that of criminals. Gun confiscation in both cases protected the lives of criminals while increasing the vulnerability of people to strong on weak crime like muggings, beatings, rape and strangulation.

During the Carter administration two studies were commissioned designed to show what kind of gun control best reduced crime. They chose two groups of reliable scientists who were liberal and supported gun control. To their horror Dr. James Wright’s study found that no gun law or combination of gun laws ever passed could be shown to reduce crime. To their horror he released the results of the study in a book titled Under the Gun.

A second study was also commissioned by the Carter Justice Department hoping, I suppose, for a more agreeable result. Florida State University criminologist, Gary Kleck, another self-described “doctrinaire liberal” conducted that study and found that two million crimes per year are foiled by citizens armed with privately owned guns. In most cases the guns were never fired. Kleck published Point Blank, a book that argued against the efficacy of the trademark gun legislation of the liberal left that had funded his research. The left was NOT happy!  Both studies showed in painful detail that gun control laws do not, in fact, reduce crime in any way that can be shown to prove a direct cause-to-effect link between gun control and crime rates. And yet these kids blithely claim that gun control will do precisely that.

Ultimately, these kids are tools in the hands of people who seek to disarm the citizens of the United States in order to make people "better" by writing laws. The assumption is that guns themselves are somehow, responsible for making people want to kill and that if you take away guns from everybody, and let the government protect us from bad guys, everyone will be safer. People believe this despite the government's notorious lack of zeal for enforcing those laws. But the kids believe the narrative. Gun laws will make them safer. The government will protect them if we just have the right laws.

Ironically, these are the same kids whose government failed them 39 times at the sheriff’s department, multiple times at the FBI, repeatedly at the school and by local authorities who failed to report the shooter’s previous history of violence so that his background check came out clean. There were plenty of laws on the books that could have protected these kids. The very people who are supposed to protect them failed massively and yet these are the guys they believe will somehow protect them from a determined killer who could just as easily have built a bomb or brought a couple of swords or a compound bow through the front door and done as much or more damage and death to his fellow students.
 
It wound up that the only protection they got was from people on the scene, not government. An unarmed football coach shielded kids with his own body as he tried to stop the shooter. He died in the process. A fellow student kept his head and held open a door under fire so his classmates could escape and was severely wounded for his courage. The government they want to be responsible for their protection, meanwhile, was waiting outside, guns drawn, but under orders from their commanders not to enter the building. Deputies had to listen to shots being fired inside knowing that kids were dying. That government failed them at every level.

And yet we are treated to a spectacle, organized and financed by progressive socialists who wish to disarm us all in order to safely create what CS Lewis describes as the “tyranny of omnipotent moral busybodies”.  This easy cure they devoutly believe in, despite the fact that the system they propose to adopt has failed everywhere it’s been carried out to its full power. In places where this system has been tried, like the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, China, Vietnam, Cambodia and Venezuela where citizens were disarmed for their own safety in order to create worker’s paradises. The cost of those "paradises"?  Hundreds of millions of lives. 

The herd instinct is powerful in people and if you notice in the flood of articles being written in praise of "March for Our Lives", the appeal is not to reason and logic. Instead the articles talk about the good emotions and the sense of belonging to a great movement like all the really cool kids. The theme of marches like this is that somehow, if we just have the right laws, people will become “better.” To quote devout liberal Joss Whedon’s creation, Malcolm Reynolds from “Firefly”, “I do not hold to that…………I aim to misbehave!”

Liberals seem to be confused about guns, especially the leaders of this so-called grassroots movement. They buy into the feel good narrative, but down at the ground level the liberals know that for people who are not Jedi masters with their own light sabers, there’s nothing quite like a good blaster when you’re threatened by a corrupt government like the Empire or the Alliance………or by a criminal like Jabba the Hut.

….or Greedo.

If I’d been Han, I think I’d have shot first. He already knew where that conversation was going….

Just one man’s opinion.

© 2018 by Tom King
author of “Give Guns a Chance
Coming soon,  "They Shoot Rednecks Don't They?"