Should We Shun Political Correctness?

by Tom King  (c) 2013

I just got jumped on with both feet by a conservative Facebook Friend. She was not happy with me because I posted this in response to another poster who stated that "If I had a nickel for every 'retard' who thinks he can stop the climate from changing......"


I responded with this.

• "Retard" Really? Dan, it's not people with developmental disabilities who think we can stop the climate from changing. I wish you wouldn't use that word as an insult. I have a Down's Syndrome nephew who doesn't believe in global warming either. As President Reagan said, "It's not so much what our liberal friends don't know as it is what they do know that ain't so." IQ has little to do with it. First, let me make it clear, I never said I was offended.  I simply addressed the use of an easy to use insulting expression that I see a LOT of shrieking liberals use that is kind of offensive. They call US that. What I wanted to express was that it is not actually the  low IQ folk who are pushing this. We need not be afraid of ordinary folk or even developmentally challenged people.  It's people with just enough intelligence to think they are smarter than everybody else that think they can run the world. 

Then it got ugly with another commentator jumping in and claiming I was stupid to be "offended" by every little thing and that I was the reason the world was in the shape it is.

So I thought I had a little 'splainin' to do.  I've made this comment to several conservative friends lately with regard to using the word "retard" as an insult.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm not arguing political correctness here.  What I'm arguing in favor of here is the Golden Rule.  It's got nothing to do with political correctness, just kindness.  I think if we're going to argue in the public square against socialism, global warming hysteria, big government or excessive taxation, that we ought to we beat them, not with name-calling, but with logic, reason and facts.

To his credit, Dan did apologize for using the word as an insult and I respect him for that.  It really is frustrating to get pounded day after day with this stuff and to not lash back.

Those of us who are Christians are under orders with regard to the whole name-calling business.  Christ said that he who calls another a "fool" is himself in danger of hell fire.  That's pretty serious and calling someone a "retard" seems awfully close to doing what Jesus advised us not to do.  I say better safe than sorry.


I'm not without sin in this.  I've used words like idiot and moron before and I'm not terribly proud of it.  Sometimes, when frustrated beyond endurance we do resort to name-calling. It's not something we should ever do casually and something we should always be willing to apologize for instantly.  Name-calling is niether a reasonable, rational nor particularly effective argument on behalf of your opinion.  Your ability to put down other human beings on the basis of their disabilities, race, creed or color does not factor into whether or not your ideology is correct.  Usually it only makes you look less credible. After all, if you're reduced to name-calling, how good can your argument really be?


Good manners used to be important.  I miss civility and I believe that, as conservatives, we should embrace a return to civility, lest we find ourselves down in the mud with those who would make our society harder, nastier and more thoroughly enslaved.

My proposal is that conservatives like me and you at least act MORE intelligent than our opponents.  Name calling makes you look like you have a weak argument.  Liberals do it to us all the time and the truly self-centered herd-follower types clap in approval and fall in line behind the name-caller.  Do we really want to encourage that sort of behavior on our side?  To win in the court of ideas, we must be better than our opponents; smarter, kinder and wiser. 

I do understand the frustration with political correctness. But I would argue that good manners is not political correctness - not if you exercise your free will and choose to be polite.  Scripture counsels let your yes be yes and your no be no. The willingness to argue a point on merit alone instead of on mere rhetoric is something else that has been, sadly, rather lost in this debate. 

Political correctness comes from fear of what others think; fear that you might be spurned by the herd.  If you are not afraid of the herd's collective opinion and I am not afraid of the disapproval of the herd, then why don't we choose not to act like them.  Name calling is a technique used by thugs and bullies to keep the herd in line.  It's just not something people with as good an argument against global warming and socialism as we have should dirty our hands with.  That's all I'm saying.

Tom

Marvin the Martian Issues Statement on Illudium P-36 Explosive Space Modulator Rights

NSA wiretaps Curiosity Rover transmission from Mars.

(6/22/2013 - Houston)  NSA wiretaps intercepted the transmission below from the Mars Rover "Curiosity:  As a result the Obama administration is pressuring the Martian government for more restrictive Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator Laws.

Have You People Got Nothing Better to Do Than Attack Paula Deen?

The Food Nazis Swarm

(c) 2013 by Tom King

There was a piece in, of all places, Forbes today with the headline  "Can Paula Deen Survive Without the Food Network: I Hope Not". The snarky piece was written by Caleb something or other (I'm not going to bother to look up his name; he doesn't deserve the effort).  In case you didn't know Paula's been booted off the Food Network for admitting she may have used the N-Word in the past.  They waited till she issued a videotaped apology, then dumped her.  Paula's fans are up in arms as well they should be.

I am sick of the hit pieces on people like Paula Deen. I'm sick of the smug sense of superiority. When we start calling in the Speech Police, we are living in the world of Big Brother and I don't like it. Paula's Southern cooking style has always drawn the ire of the Food Nazi crowd and they've done everything they could to bring her down.  Anthony Bourdain called her the worst chef in America and accused her of greed and worse in his ongoing one-sided feud with the maven of Southern cooking.  Others have come down on her for not warning people that her cooking was unhealthy and were almost (no scratch that)  absolutely delighted when she announced she had diabetes. 

What unmitigated arrogance.  Anybody who didn't understand that Paula's style of cooking was not "health food" is very probably mentally challenged.  As someone who uses her recipes on occasion, I know what I'm getting into. I know good and well that using all that butter and stuff isn't healthy, but ever once in a while it won't kill you.  It's celebration food. Sunday dinner, not intended for three meals a day.

We're big boys and girls and we do NOT need a bunch of Yankee busybodies telling us how to cook or who to watch on TV.  Paula could retire right now and run her website and stay busy. Her fans are going nowhere.  The politically correct crowd isn't watching her on TV anyway so it's not likely she's going to lose them.  Why should she give a rat's hiney about the opinions of Anthony Bourdain or Caleb Melloy?  I had to look up Bourdain to know who he even was the first time I heard of his attack on Deen.  And I didn't like him nor his "cuisine".  As Paula so eloquently put it, "We don't eat bugs here in the South."  As to the opinion of Caleb what's-his-name?  Meh.  He's one Forbes columnist who has alienated a reader in one shot.

As to Paula's so-called rambling response to some lawyer trying to pin her as a racist, Paula apologized for having offended anyone by saying things in private in a conversation not meant for anyone to hear her.  They had no business listening in on in the first place - snoopy busy-bodies!  And by the way, if someone pointed a gun in my face while holding up a bank like they did with Paula, I might go home and use some uncomplimentary expressions in reference to him and his character too. 

Give me a break.  Paula's one of the most refreshingly sweet people in the food business.  I have no use for "F-word" flinging, angry all the time arrogant chefs who are so wrapped up in themselves they can't take the time to be polite.  It's one of the reasons Paula is so popular with her fans.  She's a nice person and there aren't enough of those on TV.  Her brother's probably an oaf and did get out of line toward one of Paula's staffers.  Who doesn't have a brother like that.  There's probably a good chance that someone everyone calls them "Bubba" probably doesn't have the most refined sense of social etiquette.

I'd be a lot more sympathetic if these people got their panties in a wad whenever someone called me a cracker, a redneck, honky or use the F-word as an adjective like the, a or an, which I find highly offensive toward women.  Nobody cares about that, though, so I, in turn don't care about what Deen does or says in private.  She's polite and gracious in public. I'm far more outraged at the blistering string of profanity Gordon Ramsey pours out publicly on his shows than I am by Paula Deen. Paula doesn't insult my intelligence by reminding me that too much eggs and butter and white flour will do bad things to my arteries.  I'm not a two-year old.

I'm almost a vegetarian in my regular diet.  I belong to Paula's grandmother's church denomination. I know this stuff already.  If I can't figure out how to adapt her recipes to be healthier or eat such stuff sparingly, then I need to stay out of the kitchen and check myself into a nursing home for the feeble-minded.  And while we're banning words why is it that comedians and fashionable celebrities get to use the word "retard" without consequences? That's way more offensive because it's used as an insult and it stigmatizes someone because of a disability and they don't have a National Association for the Advancement of Developmentally Disabled People.

Sauce for the goose, dude. Think I'll write Paula a letter of support.

Tom King

 

Should Obama Also Declare an End to the War on Drugs?

(c) 2013 by Tom King

The President recently declared the War on Terror to be over, ironically just a week or so after terrorists blew up the Boston Marathon. Now people are calling for him to end the War on Drugs.  I saw this cartoon which continues the Lib meme that the drug war is causing more deaths than it's worth:

Some friendly folk in the drug trade who will
be ever so happy with you for trying to end
their lucrative business.

Let's look at the claim a bit more critically.

•  Drug War death toll - 5700 over the past FIVE years (generous estimate found on one pro-legalization website) They had to go to back long in order to get collect a high enough death toll to compare it to US deaths in the Iraqi/Afghan war.

• Death from drug overdoses in the US - 37,792 in 2012 (that's ONE year)

• Drug-related deaths in Mexico under Felipe Calderone - Expected to reach 110,000 by the end of the year.

And the "Drug War Death Toll" numbers include drug smugglers and dealers slaughtering each other over "turf", not just innocent bystanders.  And there is no guarantee that legalizing drugs will stop the internecine conflicts among drug producers or that it will reduce overdose deaths. 

When you surrender to an invasion, that doesn't necessarily stop the killing. The Chinese City of Nanking surrendered to the Japanese.  The death toll stood at 370,000 dead AFTER the surrender.  Declaring an End to the War on Drugs will no more stop the slaughter than will the President's declaration of an end to the War on Terror. Surrendering to evil men only encourages them to commit more evil.

And do not kid yourself, the folks profiting from the drug trade are evil men and they will not take kindly to efforts to end what is for them a lucrative business.  The only way to end their power and the murders that go with it is for people to STOP USING ILLEGAL DRUGS.

One could safely bet that this pile o' pot
wasn't for "personal" use.

If you are using any illegal substance, you are supporting the drug lords, the cartels and other very bad people. If you want to grow you some pot for personal use, get yourself a couple of nice pots, some dirt and some Miracle Gro.  But do NOT sell it.  Do not distribute it. Do not provide dealers with "product".  If you do any of these things, you are part of the problem and I have little sympathy with you.  If you pickle your brain with the stuff, that's on you.  Don't ask me to approve of you filing for disabilty, food stamps or a welfare check just because you don't care to stir yourself from your chair to go to work.  If you can "handle it", then do so and you'll get no truck from me and probably none from the Federales.

But that's never where it ends with people who want to end the Drug Wars.  Most are ready to set up shop and sell the stuff themselves.  If you do get to legally set up your pot shop, you'll probably go broke. It's too easy to grow as a potted plant.  If the drug rings leave you alone, it will be because pot actually is a gateway drug and they will appreciate you sending business their way.   

If, on the other hand, legal pot really does break their power and destroys their lucrative trade in illegal drugs, then they are going to burn down your pot shop and shoot you in the head for cutting in on their business.  And with the end of the War on Drugs, there won't be any cops around to do more than scrape you off the pavement and file your case under "drug deaths" and then forget about you.  Remember.  They won't be at war with the people who shot you anymore.


I'm just sayin'


Tom King

"Merry Christmas Bill" the Right Road to Take

Perry Signs the Merry Christmas Bill
Standing second from the left is one of
my favorite Texas Senators - Robert Nichols (R)
who helped sponsor the bill

In Texas, Governor Perry recently signed a bill that prohibits schools from banning holiday recognition by schools, especially Christmas and Easter, but encompassing most traditional holidays.  I agree with the Governor on this one.

We are guaranteed freedom of religion in the Constitution, not freedom FROM religion. The government has no power either to establish a state church or forbid a private one.  Forbidding the expression of one's religious beliefs in the public square does not protect the free exercise of religion.  Such prohibitions, rather, establish a state religion - atheism and demands obedience to its precepts by all.

Atheism is based on faith as surely as Christianity.  In the case of atheism it is faith in a theory supported by science which changes its "facts" every half century or so in response to the latest theory.  Faith is protected whatever it is.  When we start enforcing faith by law, whether it's faith in a deity or faith in the absence of one, we start down a dangerous road.

And I do not care if Muslim kids pray to Mecca three times a day.  Give them a place to perform their religious duties.  There's nothing wrong with that so long as you allow Christian kids a place to pray or even Buddhist kids a place to meditate so long as it doesn't interfere with the school day. Expressing one's faith in prayer or meditation or even a moment of silence should not be a problem, so long as you aren't dancing naked in the lunch room, singing hymns out loud while people are studying or sacrificing a goat in gym class.

If the football team wants to pray, why not?  Nobody is required to join the huddle.  If a child feels intimidated by this, let him or her learn to buck up and serve their God with courage. Our teachers ought to encourage their students in that instead of trying to make schools a place where only atheism is encouraged and courage is, well, discouraged.  It's just wrong!

(c) 2013 by Tom King

Shooting Ourselves..............Why we're losing the ideological war.

Conservatism is the antithesis of the kind of ideological fanaticism that has brought so much horror and destruction to the world. The common sense and common decency of ordinary men and women, working out their own lives in their own way-this is the heart of American conservatism today. Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from a willingness to learn --not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before. Ideologues fit the world to their minds; conservatives fit their minds to the world. Ideologues believe politics is only a part of life. Ideologues believe they possess an abstract, absolute truth that can compel an imperfect humanity to attain a terrestrial paradise; conservatives believe in self-- evident truths and traditional rights and duties.                                                                                                      - Rep. Thad Cotter

Conservatism's greatest enemy at this time is lodged firmly within our ranks. Today's conservatism has degenerated to a guerrilla campaign, increasingly dominated by ideological hard-liners who responds to any attack from the left by shooting a handful of our own guys first before firing back in any meaningful way.  The person next to you is always easier to hit and these guys seem to be more about shooting someone than winning the war, no matter if it's someone on their own side that they shoot.  If these guys detect any hint of ideological impurity, they're going to open fire on you.  No one is safe; not Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or even Ronald Reagan. The holier-than-thou right is, as far as I'm concerned, like having Al-Qaeda in our ranks. I rather wish they would form a third party. It might save the country yet.

We want to remember in our zeal for defending our liberties, that we NOT lose sight of who our enemies are. It's always much easier to shoot your own side first. Our friends and fellow travelers are focused on the obvious enemy to our rights and liberties.  We always are surprised by the bullet that comes from behind.  These self-proclaimed pure conservatives have a lamentable tendency to aim at the closest target when seeking blame for why they are losing the war. That's why liberals are steadily overwhelming us. They defend their own. The holier-than-thou conservative attacks his own - FIRST!. 

Which kind of army would YOU rather be in if it came to war? The conservative side has collected an element with every bit as rock hard an ideology as radical leftists. They even share many beliefs with the leftist militants like drug legalization and political isolationism. They're ready to create a modern day "Trail of Tears" in order to meet the letter of the law on immigration - marching 15 million illegal immigrants, men, women and children back across the border into poverty, drug wars and bloodshed. Many Americans would have a hard time with that on humanitarian grounds.  If we set aside our humanity, our willingness to listen to a different side of the story other than the one we think we hear at our first knee-jerk reaction, then we set aside the best principles of conservatism that Thad Cotter is talking about. I'm here to tell you that it isn't always as black and white as we suppose.  The principles of Reagan conservatism - the kind that the American people embrace - call for us to look at how things are and not how we think they ought to be.  

We've been treated to a century of progressive socialists, in the name of ideological purity, trying experiment after experiment in Marxism and failing miserably time after time. We do not need the spectacle of the radical right trying to force it's square peg ideology into a world that doesn't work that way either.

I watch us carry on bloody debates among ourselves and I can see exactly why we are losing elections despite the fact that our cause is just. We claim to hate the Islamist culture where strong men bully their way to lead a divided and bullied rabble that is constantly divided and fighting among themselves for preeminence, but when it comes right down to it, too many who wear the conservative mantle spend most of their time trying to bully their way to the top among our conservative brethren.

It's little wonder we get compared to Facism. It's not a fair comparison in general, but the special brand of heartless, iron-willed, nobody's-opinion-but-mine conservatism does bear a striking resemblance to Nazi and Islamic ideology as it turns out to be in actual practice. It's hard tor Golden Rule conservatives to get behind that sort of thing.

I recently suggested caution after a story came out about the school district in Texas that pulled the plug on a student who deviated from his graduation speech.  All I did was suggest that we might not want to tear into the Joshua School district based on hysterical stories in a conservative blog. I know that school district and they are not intolerant of religious speech.  Quite the contrary.  But by piling on them, we may make it impossible for them to allow any leeway at all in the future.  School districts have a tough enough time allowing freedom of religious expression without someone making a huge issue of it and attracting lawyers.  I'm pretty sure the only thing that will come out of this young man's "attempt to exercise his right of free speech" is that lawyers will force the district to ban all public expressions of religion including prayer at ball games and saying "under God" when pledging allegiance to the flag. 

Sometimes I think we are our own worst enemies.  We certainly know how to demoralize our own supporters.  I think the same one who is behind the progressive socialist movement is also supporting the radical right's remorseless and demoralizing attacks upon its own side.

This has been described as the "devil did it" theory of human history. I don't find that at all funny, nor will I be bullied into believing it's not true. 

You know, I really dislike bullies!

Tom King (c) 2013 

The Intolerance of the Collective

The key difference between a constitutional republic - one in which individuals have rights and the government has privileges granted by those individuals - and a progressive/socialist/Marxist/communist state - one in which human beings are but cells sublimated to the will of the state - is that the republic can tolerate the existence of the collectivist (Marxist) state but the Marxist state can NEVER tolerate the existence of a free constitutional republic anywhere on the same planet.  It is why Nikita Kruschev pounded on the table at the UN with his shoe and promised to "bury" us all.



It is for the same reason that sinners cannot tolerate saints, that the stupid and brutish cannot tolerate the intelligent and peaceful or that Democrats cannot tolerate Republicans.  I am only half-kidding on that last one.

It is also the fundamental difference between a Christian nation and an Islamic one.  It is no accident that wherever Christian nations spring up, inevitably the idea of the value of the individual over the nation-state becomes the law of the land.  In the early stages the nation accepts that the rights of the individual are granted him by the state or the sovereign.  But soon, it becomes apparent to all that if God so loved us that He gave His son for our salvation, then the individual must be important. If God Himself gives us the right to choose for good or ill and does not lift his hand to force us to do otherwise, then the right of the individual to choose his own destiny must, therefore, be the fundamental principle of the universe.

And before you complain about the ten commandments and all those laws in the Old Testament, let me point out that God tolerates disobedience to His law.  He could well squelch all sin and turn us into obedient robots which have no choice but to obey. He does not. Instead God offers to scrub our souls and help free us of all the negative habits, passions and lusts that hijack our free will and to deliver back to us ourselves - as we choose to be and free from all our demons. We are people of the law because we choose to be, not because we live in terror of the state.  That is an enormous difference.


Heaven will be heaven because it is the land of ultimate liberty, peopled entirely by those who believe utterly in the idea that one should treat his fellows as he himself would want to be treated.  I do not believe God will have to destroy evil men.  I believe that God need only withdraw the good from the Earth and leave them to their own devices.  Evil will destroy itself I believe and needs no help from anyone to do so.    

The progressive/socialist/Marxist/communist believe that man can be perfected by the law and punishment and that there are certain men who are destined to wield great power and to direct the collectivist state because of their talent and ability.  Those who believe in the Golden Rule also believe that no man can be trusted with absolute power or even permanent power of any sort.  Kings and princes, dukes and barons are not trust-worthy because they hold hereditary power and power tends to corrupt.  While I don't believe that power inevitably corrupts, I do believe that power inevitably attracts the corruptible. 

There is a scene in the Lord of the Rings at the edge of the volcano Mt. Doom where Frodo is supposed to complete his mission and throw the "One Ring to Rule Them All" back into the fires.  At the moment of truth, Frodo falters.  The temptation to power is overwhelming. It takes an act of God (in the form of Gollum's attack) to enable Frodo to complete his task. The temptation to power is terrible. Gandalf articulates that when early he says No to the ring when Frodo offers it to him. "Don't... tempt me Frodo! I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand, Frodo. I would use this ring from a desire to do good... But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine."

It is why, inevitably, Christianity, despite its emphasis on obedience to God's laws (or more likely because of it), tends to produce the societies with the most personal liberty. The true Children of God do not believe any man can be trusted with power, especially absolute power over his fellows. It follows inevitably from the Golden Rule. Tolkien's life's work was retelling that to a post-modernist world that doesn't believe anything really matters so you might as well grab what you can get. Tolkien says, "Yes. There is something that matters."

Again as throughout history the great battle lines are drawn between Good and Evil.  That doesn't mean evil guys don't fight among themselves. They do.  They constantly vie for power and most wars are ambiguous to that extent.  But the great over-arching conflict in this world turns out to be between those who believe that Might is right and those who believe that Might must only used for the right.  You can always tell the good guys.  They are the ones that didn't choose to fight, but were drawn into it against their will and who do not keep their conquests when the war is over. Sometimes, however, both good and evil are represented within the same army. 

It makes the battle lines a bit muddy sometimes.

Tom King

Meals on Wheels Fur Dogs and Cats

Only in East Texas

KETK, the Tyler Texas NBC affilliate posted this story this past week.  A new nonprofit charity has been organized in East Texas to provide food for pets belonging to elderly folk.  Dubbed "Meals Fur Pets", the organization is mostly volunteers and works with Meals on Wheels to deliver pet food to elderly folk along with their meals on wheels lunches. 


Somebody figured out that seniors with pets are healthier and live longer than those that don't.  They also figured out that some seniors were sharing their meals on wheels with their pets because they either couldn't afford pet food or couldn't get to the store to buy it.  In short order, a new program was organized and began collecting donated pet food and distributing it to seniors through Meals on Wheels.


This is a lovely idea. Meals on Wheels is already delivering food to seniors.  Throwing on a few bags of puppy kibble and kitty chow isn't a problem and the benefits for seniors is huge. This kind of projects is one of the reasons I believe that private sector charity is more humane than government charity. If this had been done by the government....

1. It never would have been done, especially in East Texas which is hard shell conservative and no friend to the folks in DC.  Our Congressman, Louis Gohmert is a perpetual thorn in the liberal side up there.
2. It would have taken an act of congress to get approved and two years to get the enabling legislation through committee.
3. There would have been a three million dollar rider attached to the bill providing funding for the Barney Frank Center for Alternative Lifestyles.
4. It would have required 300,000 new federal workers to administer and 60% of the budget would have been "admin costs".
5. There would have been 25 pounds of paperwork required to even qualify for the program.
6. You'd have had to prove you belonged to a minority, were an illegal alien, refugee, were disabled or a registered Democrat to be eligible.
7. You'd have had to be able to get into town to the Office of Companion Pet Food Distribution because the website would be beyond the average seniors capacity to locate on the Internet.
8. You would have had to wait for six hours in the waiting area at the OCPFD before a surly little man took your 25 pounds of paperwork and set an appointment for you to return in 3 weeks for an evaluation of your application.
9. The program would not be promoted or advertised for fear that the program would be flooded and the government would not have enough funds to insure that everyone approved received services.
10. Finally, you'd have had to prove your dog or cat was a registered Democrat in good standing. 
    

Instead a bunch of volunteers put the whole thing together in a few weeks, found a way to distribute the food, store the food and collect the food and just started doing it.  No permission needed.  They get tons of corporate support from local food store chains and distributors.  People buy pet food and leave it in collection barrels at stores, churches, schools and community centers.

And that's how conservatives solve a problem!  Hey, even East Texas liberals get in on the act too. We know how to work together, we Texans.  Makes me proud to be a Texan.

Tom King (c) 2013

I've decided to stop humoring the lunatic fringe - both the liberal ones and the conservative ones.  They're two peas of a pod.  I am deeply conservative in my politics, but not that deep.  I'm not liberal phobic either.   Some of my best friends are liberals (in the classical sense). Actually the term "liberal" used to mean one who believed in the equality of all men and that human beings had inalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is very different from the "progressive" socialist or the manic facist right-winger who believe there are special people endowed by their genes with special privileges, among which are the right to tell everyone else what to do, the right to being richer than the rest of us and the right to take for themselves anything they think they need to in order to manage the rest of us. I even leave that stuff up if they want a nice clean debate. I'm talking about the slavering paranoid racist supremists that try to sell themselves off as "real" liberals or conservatives and only make us people with sense look like idiots.

What I find particularly distasteful is the rise of the new antisemitism, particularly when it comes from Europeans who ought to know better.  I've seen a spate of attacks recently on Jews that trouble me. They are disturbingly familiar in theme, dwelling on Jewish conspiracies, Jewish bankers and alleged stealth-Jews in positions of power.  These new attacks claim the poor innocent Muslims are victims in all the recent unrest and not in any way the cause of it, despite the overwhelming amount of in-your-face evidence to the contrary.

The only Muslims I see as being victims in Europe or anywhere else are those who actually do seek peace and freedom (and there are plenty). Unfortunately, jihad is built into traditional Islam and it is VERY dangerous for any right-thinking Muslim to speak out against them. If you are a "good Muslim" you're a dead Muslim in many Islamist dominated countries. 

The Jihadis I have no sympathy for. The guys like the one in London that took off the head of a British soldier and then rambled on about on camera telling us how the guy deserved it and threatening to bring this down on the rest of us if we didn't submit to Islam was evil. And that seems to me to be the real threat. 

I believe there's a shell game going on here that relies on moral cowardice to be successful. It's easy to accuse the Jews of all sorts of evil. I've not seen crowds of Jews drag someone out of their car and behead them in front of their family because the weren't Jews. It's easy to blame it on Tea Party members. Have you seen the old geezers who show up for those.  They even stick around to pick up their trash afterward. These are not people to fear, unless you're afraid they might not watch your TV channel or they might vote you out of office.  I've not seen Jews OR Tea Party folk attack or kill people because of their race, religion or political opinion.

I have seen Muslims do just that and do it with malice aforethought. It's little wonder people are afraid to say anything negative about them. Poor old Salman Rushdie has had to spend the rest of his life in hiding because he wrote something  Islamic sensibilities because an Iranian mullah put out a Fatwah (death order) on him. It troubles me that any religion would even have a special word for "death order).

Muslim rebels in Syria have exterminated whole villages of Christians just in the past few months and we remain silent about it. We don't even talk about it on the mainstream news channels. Muslim Brotherhood supported groups have attacked and murdered Coptic Christians in Egypt. We are silent. We even had Muslims kill a couple of Coptic Christians here in the US and chopped them up in parts. Not a word on the ten o'clock news. The Boston Marathon bombing was the work of Muslim terrorists. They killed a nine year-old kid. Jews didn't do that. But the news and the president tried to blame it on Tea-partiers, mysterious homegrown terror groups and George Bush until it became obvious it was an Islamic terrorist act. Then they went silent.

It's as if we hope that if we don't criticize Islamic terrorist outrages or if we blame all the trouble on someone else and we show the Muslim fanatics that we also hate Jews (and, by the way, all the conservatives who criticize Islamists), then we think that somehow, maybe they won't hurt us. The Jews are under attack by people who want them dead and gone and the sooner the better. The Jewish people have decided not to go quietly. I applaud that, even when they get a little testy with me. You can hardly blame them for seeing a growing threat to them in this increasingly antisemitic world.

If we don't wake up to the fact that Islam has declared war on the rest of us, we're going to wind up precisely where we were in the Autumn of 1939. The Poles of all people should remember how that went and who their friends were and yet there are increasing rumblings against Jews even in the land that saw the horror that was Auschwitz built on their own soil by the Nazis.

13 year old girl, gang-raped by Muslim males,
is stoned for "fornication"

The guys I've started boycotting are the folk are largely those whose constant, unremitting claim is that the Jews are to blame for how people treat them. It's like saying to a woman, if you were raped, it must have been your fault. And that IS is common practice in Muslim countries. A woman who is raped and complains about it can wind up stoned to death. I've seen the video. What I want to know is where in the world is the moral outrage about that????

If a conservative had denied the same woman the right to an abortion, you could have heard the howls of outrage across the planet. It would have been the subject of special news reports on the network channels and a flurry of new laws designed to put an end to the Tea Party menace. This solves two problems for our cowardly ruling class.  It allows you to attack people who are not likely to strike back by blowing you up or kidnapping and beheading you and at the same time appeases people who WILL blow you up or kidnap and behead you.

If a redneck Tea Party Patriot had showed up at Fort Hood and shouted "Praise Jesus" and started shooting people, the government would have had 500 conservatives arrested by sundown and we'd still be seeing Michael Moore documentary retrospectives on how terrible the Tea Party is to this day. Instead, the Fort Hood shooter, a Muslim psychiatrist who went into an area crowded with soldiers, shouted "Allahu Akbar" and gunned down 35 people, was arrested and to this day sits in jail, still drawing his full military pay ($275,000 to date).  He isn't even scheduled for trial.  And his crime has been reclassified as "workplace violence" to boot.

Now that gets my attention. 

The fact that there are some bankers out there who are Jewish bothers me not at all.

Tom King
(c) 2013

Christie's Not So Stupid as the Fringies Would Have You Believe

(c) 2013 by Tom King

I think New Jersey's Governor Christie did a smart thing when he replaced the recently deceased Democrat Senator Frank Lautenberg from New Jersey with unknown New Jersey Republican attorney general Jeff Chiesa to fill the post. I think it was also smart to call a special election for October to fill the seat more permanently. Chiesa has said he won't run for the post, but will instead concentrate on carrying out the duties of the office. Now, that's downright refreshing.

By doing this, Christie lets the people of New Jersey decide who THEY want for senator. At the same time, He deflects criticism that he's completely circumventing the will of the voters, since this new guy is only temporary and isn't running this fall.  His replacement will be elected by New Jersey citizens in just a few months.

This leaves Chiesa free to act upon his conscience up there in Washington without having to worry about the impact of anything he does on his chances for election.  I think Christie is a very smart man.  One really good thing about Christie is that he is NOT afraid of the voters. We need more Republicans that trust the people's wisdom that much.  The country club Republicans would have appointed a Republican for the remainder of Lautenberg's term figuring on people "getting used" to having a Republican in the Senate before the next election.  The political strategerists at the RNC keep trying to trick people into electing Republicans by crafty machinations and by portraying Republican candidates as both moderate liberals and moderate conservatives, hoping they'll get the "moderately confused" vote I suppose.

If the voters like Jeff Chiesa as much as they seem to like Christie, it strengthens Republican chances in the October senate race.  If the voters are as smart and as conservative as Christie thinks they are, he may be able to make an incremental change in balance of power in the senate.   

Christie's move at the very least tells NJ voters that their governor respects them and trusts them to make a wise decision. His appointment of Chiesa also tells them what kind of man the governor thinks New Jersey should send to the senate. If only the RNC will just get out of the way and not try to tell grass roots New Jersey Republicans who to vote for in the interests of "the party".  The voters will do just fine on their own.  Republicans may lose this election, but the contrast between an honest campaign and the kind the Dems tend to run will get the Republicans more love in the long run than running a Democrat style campaign ever will.  When you do that, the voters have a hard time telling the difference between your candidate and theirs.

Why can't the RNC get it through their thick heads that the people don't need to be manipulated to select the candidates that the RNC thinks ought to be elected.  They need to take a lesson from Christie and get out of the primary manipulation business and let the grass roots pick em.

Just my opinion.

Tom King

Is Walt Disney Responsible for America's Slide to Progressive Socialism?

I blame Walt Disney.  Let me get that out there first.  Don't get me wrong I love everything the old man did and he's not the only one that's done it.  He was just the best at it.  His movies were the themes of my childhood.  We had him on movie screens, on TV and even in those Friday afternoon educational films we watched when I was at Keene Public School in the room where we pushed back the desks, set up projector and screen, opened a curtain and set up chairs to make a makeshift auditorium.

And I don't think Uncle Walt intended to be a shill for the progressive elitists.  He was always a great one for promoting talent, for recognizing ability and he had a real problem with unions.  He was a capitalist of the first order.  He built amusement parks that were of the highest quality and, by example, taught the American ideal that the product with the finest quality will outsell cheap crap. For that I revere the man.  When he told stories they were always finely crafted and he wasn't afraid to alter a story to make it better.  That is in the finest tradition of American craftsmanship.  It's the reason we're the most powerful country on the planet.

So what went wrong?  I think it was the stories he chose. Admittedly, he chose wisely.  The stories were familiar - Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty. Disney turned them all into "underdog triumphs" stories that appeal to American audiences. There was nothing morally ambiguous about a Walt Disney picture while Uncle Walt was alive.  It was the deep core idea behind the old fairy tales that was the fatal flaw I think and it would have been hard to root out.  Generations of children before and after the Disney era had heard all those fairy tales from the days they were children.  Disney cleaned them up some for the 20th century, but the core theme of the stories was still there, full of kings and queens, nobles, princes and, most importantly, princesses.

In so many stories the hero is the true prince or princess that somehow becomes lost.  Then through a combination of hard work and magic, the heroine or hero overcomes and takes his or her true place as king or queen over all the realm and rules wisely and everyone lives happily ever after.  All those fairy tale princesses and princes inadvertently taught generations of American kids that there were certain "special" people out there who were the only ones truly fitted to rule. This was so because they had "royal blood" in them. Walt chose stories that would appeal to children.

What little girl doesn't want to be a fairy tale princess?  What doting parent doesn't want to convince her she is one.  To Walt's credit, his fairy princesses were all decent girls, kind and brave to a fault.  They had been mistreated, beaten down by evildoers and evil circumstance.  They triumph on their own merits and if he'd stopped there, he'd have been okay.  But there's always the discovery at the end that the hero or heroine is a real prince or princess after all - one of the elite ruling class by blood - that is the problem.

It's in most children's films of the time and even lingers today.  The ultimate rags to riches story of this generation, "Shrek", falls into the trap. Shrek was by no means an elitist.  He was not of noble blood. He was an ogre. He even marries above his class and she elevates him to the kingship.  But in the Shrek film cycle, old Shrek is not comfortable in his new role as ruler of all the kingdom.  His is a rags to riches to rags again story.  Shrek gives up the throne he had won, but was never comfortable with, in favor of cousin Arthur who is of the real "royal blood".  Once he shows Arthur he really is king material, he slips back to the swamp WHERE HE BELONGS! And there, my friends is the real message. If you're not one of the ruling class, you need to stay quietly in your swamp, play in the mud and let the nobles do the really tough work.

Do you see what I'm getting at. I'm not big on vast conspiracy theories.  I don't think human beings are that organized. I think people act in concert because they share similar selfish interests.  Too many of us have bought into the idea that there are some that are called to lead and others who are, by nature, merely followers.  We tell stories to this effect because people like those stories. Those stories sell books and movies because, secretly, we all want to believe we are special; that we secretly have noble blood and should be in charge of things by right of birth.  Disney's tales and those of his imitators also taught us that true princes and princess always have magic to help them - a fairy godmother, a genie, a magic unicorn or a crusty old sorcerer who would help save the day at the crucial moment if you only believe. This belief that magic serves the ruling class would explain Obamacare and the bailouts.

We want to believe that there is an elite "special" group of genetically smart and capable people that are qualified to rule over us all who can make magical things happen. We were raised on this idea and, because we are convinced this is so, we defer to those people who present themselves with confidence and authority as our heroic princely rulers, even though these guys really are as cowardly a bunch as you'll ever find anywhere.  And, if you study history, you'll soon discover that most of the so-called "nobility" have always been a pretty cowardly lot.  That's why nations have risen and fallen for thousands of years.  If one of the noble class accidentally has even a modicum of real courage, he will run rough-shod over the others and create for himself a bully boy's empire.

The nouveau nobility that has arisen in the past century and a half is a rag tag assemblage of politicians, journalists, university professors and corporate barons. They believe that their willingness and ability to bully, cajole, manipulate and buy their way to power makes them genetically superior to the huddled masses who just want to go quietly about their own lives and not bother anyone.  And most of us who are contented to go about our lives in peace defer to these ego-maniacal narcissists and, thanks to all the Disney movie and fairy tale propaganda to that effect, some of us believe that this is as it should be.

And these guys get away with that because it takes a great deal of abuse by our betters to get us farm folk and working stiffs riled up enough for us to risk the little we do have by taking up our torches and pitchforks and throwing out the bums.  We do it once in a while, though and that's what terrifies the new noble classes.  They live in constant dread that we're going to rise up and take away their privileges.  Anytime they see peasant unrest, they toss the proletariat some bread and put on a few circuses hoping to quiet them down.

Appeasement soon becomes the diplomatic technique du jour for our betters and cowardice becomes ingrained.  Then we declare an end to the war on terror. We try to demonstrate to whoever happens to be the scariest most threatening people around that we are really harmless lovable fuzzballs in the vain hope that they will not harm us.

And what's truly outrageous is that the great and noble leaders of the planet all treat it like it was a big game and we ordinary folk are mere pieces on a chessboard.

I love Walt Disney, but his movies should have carried warning labels.  Something like this:

• Warning!  Characters in this film are in no way intended to reflect reality.  There is no such thing as a "real princess".  You're all princesses and princes and no one has any divine right to rule over you and if anyone tries it, you should pitch them into the nearest ice cold body of water - preferably something with icebergs.

Jesus said, "The meek shall inherit the earth."  Fortunately, He's bringing a large army of angels with Him when He comes to make sure that happens.  I don't think the princes and princesses will go quietly.

I'm just saying.

Tom King