My personal assessment of Joe Biden, is that he, and his family, are thoroughly corrupt - but that's an opinion of mine that has nothing to do with Hunter Biden's laptop, and in fact goes back to the 80's, with his various lies, dishonest and unethical attacks on Supreme Court nominees, bullying of individuals and the press, and that old habit of his of plagiarizing better speakers that forced him to withdraw from one of his 20th Century presidential runs. On top of that, in early 2019 even the New York Times' realized that there had been strong enough circumstantial evidence to suspect the 'impropriety' of the Biden's Ukraine & China deals (until they realized that Biden was all they had, that is), which I would not be surprised to find that Hunter's infamous laptop's will lead to proof of (but that's for the courts - we'll see what we see). But that isn't the issue I have with this despicably dishonest article from NBC. The issue I have with their latest FakeNews article, is its deliberate exercise in spreading Pravda-grade disinformation to save their election, and it is deeply infuriating.
It's not so infuriating for what it says, mind you, but for what it attempts to ensure that you the reader will never ever think of, should you take their story to heart.
It shouldn't be surprising, especially here in the far end of 2020, where it's become so obvious as the Pro-Regressives daily demonstrate how much they prefer fantasy to reality. They've deeply wanted to believe those vague hearsay charges of 'Russian Collusion!' that told them what they wanted to hear about President Trump for the last four years, and now they want to believe the vague hearsay that tells them what they want to believe about Joe Biden, which they're doubtlessly eager to sustain for the next four(?) years. But the fact that that desire means dismissing out of hand, undiscussed, unexamined, unmentioned, the sizable amount of officially verified materials of physical evidence, and open & corroborated testimony given by actual people publicly identified and on the record, is of no matter to them - what they want reality to be, is what they are intently conjuring 'reality' to be.
Sad. The verbal hocus-pocus they perform to accomplish that, is eminently suitable for Halloween.
, and it works on focusing it's naïve readers attention on "...a fake "intelligence" document about him went viral on the right-wing internet..." a month ago that is "...an elaborate conspiracy theory..." about the Biden's. It then spends the entire story dwelling on and 'exposing' the flaws in that irrelevant document and its author, and then by elaborating on that theme for the entire article, it manages to entirely ignore the fact that Hunter Biden's laptop has been in the possession of the FBI since December of 2019, ignores the fact that it is acknowledged by the FBI to be part on an ongoing money laundering and corruption investigation, it ignores the fact that the copies of the Hunter Biden's laptop hard drive which has come into the possession of others, have been verified as legitimate by the FBI & the Intelligence Community, and most of all it ignores any mention of the damning email documents which have just been officially verified as being legitimate. They also manage to entirely ignore the official, on the record testimony, of their former business associate, Tony Bobulinski, and the verified nature of his own documents that he's turned in as evidence. [BTW, if you ever wondered what a 'straw man argument' is, that's it.]
As Bill Clinton once famously conjured "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'IS' is", and the Pro-Regressive's (Left & Right) entire imaginary world depends upon exactly that. This is beyond sad, it's frightening. Happy Halloween.
Understand, I've no problem at all with people questioning the nature and validity of the charges being made against the Biden's. Tony Bobulinski is, IMHO, at best a tainted actor, and his outraged defense of his character and integrity ring at least a little bit hollow to me - he was knowingly doing business with the Biden's & Communist China fer gawds sake (I think some of his outrage comes from Biden's emails that show them cutting him out of some deals and cash)! My problem with this 'article' is that I've never seen a more blatant attempt at faking not only the news, but the contents of the American mind, than this NBC FakeNews story, and that it's doing so with such a transparently ridiculous straw man charge, in order to create the impression that real and officially acknowledged charges, real and officially acknowledged evidence, and real and officially acknowledged investigations, do not in fact exist.
It is truly despicable. There is no hyperbole involved in my saying that this is exactly the scale, scope, and nature of USSR era Pravda. And the media has not needed the power of a totalitarian government, to impose it on us. That should give you pause enough.
For more along those lines, and the Tech Giants as well, I'll recommend Dana Loesh's
For those who're looking for corruption to complain about, this article the self refuting 'NBC News', is the most vile example of media corruption that I've seen yet.
Here's a few related stories for reasserting, or at least discovering, the reality behind the FakeNews's incantations:
"..."The final, precipitating cause is that The Intercept's editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression...."
It's embarrassing how the Pro-Regressive Left has been desperately seeking oppressors in order to justify their existence. And frantic over the Right failing to comply with oppressing them, they've taken to offending and oppressing themselves, themselves, in a desperate bid for power via martyrdom and publicity (hi Jussie Smollett). And what's more alarming than embarrassing, is that they think that they live in a world where that makes sense (are they wrong?).
Is that hyperbole? Look at the way they go about proclaiming what they are adamantly opposed to, while actually doing what they claim to be opposed to, in order to promote themselves as being the anointed ones to defend us against what they claim to be opposed to - it has become the bizarre norm for the Pro-Regressive Left. Examples of this abound today, ranging from the trivial and sad, like Jussie Smollett (and his legion of imitators, from college students, to professors, politicians, and racecar drivers), to the Left decrying racism and blackface while promoting the likes of racist & blackface wearing Gov. Ralph Northum, to demanding that we 'believe all women!' while demonizing conservative women such as Amy Coney Barrett, to Antifa & BLM claiming to oppose racism, fascism and violence, while actively practicing racism, fascism and violence in order to defend us against that fearsomely racist, fascist and violent Right... which still has not complied by employing widespread acts of racism, fascism and violence against them (call me when 'The Proud Boys' have besieged multiple city centers for months and attempted to set multiple buildings on fire with people trapped within them. Oh, and killed people for political positions. Etc.).
That their behavior is not rationally explainable, is an important key to understanding them, and in a nicely coincidental bit of timing for demonstrating that point, some villainous virtue signalers have installed a statue outside of the halls of justice of a New York City courthouse, which glorifies an evil monster having slain a hero.
Of course they don't describe it that way. Instead, they've busily spun their own myths out of alternate backstories shorn of relevant context (such as that Perseus had nothing to do with the monster that Medusa became), they present the monstrous snake haired Medusa - whose gaze turned people to stone - in the form of a heroic 7' tall bronze sculpture of her as a victim striking back against oppressors everywhere, holding a sword in one hand and the severed head of the hero Perseus, in the other. This parasitical story mode has become all the rage amidst the ruins of the West's Arts & Letters, where by 'flipping the script' they seek to elevate monsters to a respectable status, while recasting heroes as monsters, and virtue as vice. But the 'fact' remains that Perseus was a hero who was sent to slay the snake headed monster Medusa, a task which many others had died attempting, in which he alone succeeded by cleverly using his polished shield to watch only the reflection of the Gorgon's actions, and preventing it's direct gaze from turning him to stone, Perseus slew the monster by cutting off its head.
Which, as with most true myths, conveys an effective lesson that's still useful for us today.
It's wise to avoid gazing directly into the baseless charges of the Pro-Regressive Left, as they make them not because there is a shred of truth, or respect for the truth in what they say, but only as a means to paralyze you in your response to them. They don't make them because they think they are sensible, they make them in hopes of stirring up confusion and controversy while garnering publicity for their fictional plights, while disorienting unwary onlookers about what is up & down, right & left, good & evil.
If you are baffled by how they think that such a strategy will work for them, your confusion probably comes from a habit of thinking objectively about what others say and do - don't do that with them! Remember Perseus's shield - observe their actions, but don't get drawn into looking directly into the writhing words which are meant only to confuse and freeze you in your tracks. When you cease trying to understand what they mean, and simply observe their purpose, it becomes less baffling. For instance, if you reflect upon what the Pro-Regressive's media mouthpieces proclaimed outright just four years ago, that they'd tested "... the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism", and chose to go with "Objectivity is dead, and I’m okay with it". And if that catches you by surprise, you probably failed to pay enough attention to when Bill Clinton expressed what had already long been the prevailing view of academia (you know, those people you send your kids to be educated by), that whether or not a lie must be identified as a lie "depends upon what the meaning of the word 'IS', is'. IOW, while you, a Westerner, are looking to have thoughts and actions make objective sense, the Pro-Regressive (Left & Right) have abandoned that approach, and the West altogether, and have devoted themselves to spinning false myths to grease the skids of the villain's journey.
Do not try to make sense of what is self evidently insensible - it will turn you to stone (such as attempting to argue with the phrase 'Black lives matter', it's not a statement that's meant to make sense, but only to paralyze you in the face of it) - observe their actions in the media, but keep your attention fixed upon reality. Do that (in part by thinking in principles, and turning away from ploys which reveal themselves to be unprincipled), and you have a chance of surviving your contact with the monstrous nature of the Pro-Regressive Left (and Right).
Which brings us around to the Senate Confirmation Hearings on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court, which the Pro-Regressive Left has been working overtime on getting 'canceled' for her noted lack of having any unconstitutional opinions. I kid you not. So desperate have the Pro-Regressive Leftists been for something to oppose her on, that they have taken to advocating for opposing her nomination to the Supreme Court, for reasons that are, shall we say... counter factual, and then even blatantly unconstitutional.
Demonstrating that first point last week, one of my New York Times morning briefings stooped even lower than normal to grab at America's attention with this headline:
"Good morning. Barrett won’t endorse a peaceful transfer of power."
“Do you believe that every president should make a commitment unequivocally and resolutely to the peaceful transfer of power?”
ACB wisely declined to become stuck to that ploy, she didn't bother engaging directly with whatever he might have meant by that, she simply identified his intentions and cut them off, replying:
"That seems to me to be pulling me into the question of whether the president has said he would not leave office," Barrett said. "To the extent that this is a political controversy right now, as a judge, I want to stay out of it."
At that point Sen. Booker, perhaps embarrassed (as if) by the realization that people of his own political bent have declared that the President daring to nominate ACB justified their threatening to "Burn it all down!", he rephrased his question in a more general context of George Washington, and ACB responded to (the still mostly pointless and worthless, though now disarmed) question, that,
"One of the beauties of America from the beginning of the republic is that we have had peaceful transfers of power," she said. "I think it is part of the genius of our Constitution and the good faith and good will of our people."
Amy Coney Barrett, by refusing to confront the pro-regressive rhetoric directly, was able to safely state that the peaceful transfer of power was a vital and defining aspect of America. Of course that sentiment was of no use to the gorgon headed journalists of the New York Times, who're desperately in search of oppressors to point to their being oppressed by, and so they replaced her actual and easily understood position, with the headline: "Barrett won’t endorse a peaceful transfer of power." Truly, I think the better question is "Will the Left permit the peaceful continuation of power?" That's a reality-based question which the New York Times will not face, let alone raise.
What's even more pathetic, is that in these confirmation hearings for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, our elected Senators are unable to lift themselves to the level of asking meaningful questions, and raising well founded doubts. Instead, they and our media are interested only in promoting disinformation to a (shrinking) public which is more than eager to consume it. Reflecting more of the same, we were also treated to the despicable spectacle of a sitting Senator and Vice Presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, speculating on the possibility that the judge might be a liar who's been lying all along in order to seem sensible, in order to get on the SCOTUS where she might then begin lying more out in the open. This was an especially inept prosecutorial effort, which Sen. Kennedy easily and accurately summed up as:
"‘Senator Harris Just Called You A Liar’"
There are zero instances of such behavior in ACB's history on the bench, or as a Professor of Law at Notre Dame, or as a person, to warrant even raising such an artificial doubt. But they don't ask the accusatory question in order to discover anything true, but only to direct their monstrous gaze to impugn the character of the person that they have no basis in reality for doubting. If the Truth stands in your way, spin a lie around it.
And when lies alone fail, they move on to adding on the unconstitutional. Not only is this despicable behavior, but it is typical of essentially every leftist 'objection' to ACB that I've seen to date, which belies what mostly lies behind such accusations, which is plainly reflected in this meme that is popular with the Anti-ACB'rs:
"If, rather than being Catholic, ACB was a devout Muslim woman who belonged to an extremist Muslim organization that demanded a lifelong covenant, professed a belief that women should be subservient to their husbands, taught at a madrassa, and once said she viewed her participation in the legal profession as a way to bring about the kingdom of allah.
The conversation surrounding her appointment to the USSC would be very different."
Once again, taken on the face of it, this is downright confusing - is this meme a confession of bigotry towards Muslims, or Catholics, or both? Of course it's both and more. Don't engage with their meaningless meaning, don't try to understand or defend what they are attacking, observe the direction of their words, and cut them off. Because unless those covenants the judge has purportedly made include the oath to apply foreign laws - Sharia or Marx - against and over those of our constitution, the only problem their charges point to, is their own unfitness to involve themselves in the conversation at all. I've seen a legion of commenters, desperate to cultivate their outrage, add that,
"She has openly stated that her role as a judge is to bring the country to a "kingdom of god". That's clearly a preference of her religion beliefs over law, constitutional or otherwise."
The materialistic dogma lives loudly in their breast. To take the least important part first, that charge has been a non-controversial one ever since it was first advanced 2,000 years ago and left Pontius Pilate feeling baffled as to how Jesus's claim to a spiritual 'kingdom of God', could possibly pose a threat to the oh-so powerful material kingdom of Caesar. Pilate tried to dismiss the issue and let Jesus go, but then as now, the accusers were desperately seeking to nail someone to the cross, and of course, then as now, those carrying out the charge attempted to wash their hands of the matter, which, objectively, doesn't work.
Don't be distracted, the Pro-Regressive's problem isn't with ACB, or with Trump, or even with America, but with objectivity, reality, and Truth - those concepts not only don't work for them, they are threats to their myths, and they are desperate to wrap you up in their lies, so as to not notice that they are nothing but lies. Cut them off. The truth is that the Constitution permits no religious tests for office. Those opposing ACB serving the Constitution through a position on the Supreme Court, are the ones who are advocating for ignoring and violating the Constitution... which undermines the credibility of their position... just a tad... don'tcha think?
There you go being objective again.
If the Pro-Regressive Leftists have proven anything beyond a reasonable doubt in this matter, it is that by their explicitly citing ACB's religious beliefs as a basis for urging her nomination to be rejected, which is explicitlyforbidden by the Constitution to be applied as a fitness test for any office under the Constitution. There's no need to discuss the 'merits' of their position, they've already demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they themselves have no respect for the Constitution, the offices created under it, or for that sense of justice which the Supreme Court was designed to bring about under a proper application of the Constitution to our laws.
Looking beyond the illusion of their concerns, it becomes apparent that their calling ACB a threat, should prompt you to question what it is that they are really fearful of, and what it is that they find to be so threatening to their beliefs? If you objectively follow that question down the path, you'll be led to the realization that what they fear IS the Constitution, and especially the possibility of its being objectively applied to our laws, and the horrifying (to them) possibility of limiting the power of that government which they seek to gain total power over, and through.
The people peddling this tripe, of course, have no evidence whatsoever of ACB ever choosing religious dogma, over constitutional judgement. None. And so, once again, lacking a problem, they seek to spin one of their own making, which exposes them as unconstitutional zealots frantically opposing a non-controversial nominee - don't distract from that fact by arguing with their point, that way lies madness. For instance, the mavens of Wokeness have offered up this preposterous article in UK's The Guardian, which one enthusiast promoted as having done
"... a great job explaining the concerns with the Republican pick of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. She goes beyond the already misogynistic view of Catholicism..."
,before we let him finish that sentence, take note that he's already given away the 'fairness' game with the wicked huge a slander that "...already misogynistic view of Catholicism...", and without missing a beat, he goes on to say that,
"...read this (and more information) and decide if you think she is the type of person that can set her personal biases aside as a judge."
Do those statements lead you to think that the person who'd say such a thing, is interested in, or capable of, laying aside their own personal prejudices before beginning to 'think'? How likely is it that he has any interest in you doing so? Such mendacious phrases are the signal that it's time to raise the shield, and reflect upon the nature of the wording being used, rather than engaging with what they allege them to mean.
Keep the Pro-Regressive's opinion of Objectivity firmly in mind when considering what they are saying. Note that the article's tagline from the wokety-woke 'believe all women!' crowd, says:
"Amy Coney Barrett went to my all-girls high school. I hope she's not confirmed | Lisa M O'Neill"
Is the nature of that statement one that invites thought, or promises vitriol? That frame of mind is further illustrated in a phrase which the author uses to characterize our nation, its laws, and its people, that,
"...These laws were made by white, cisgender men who enslaved other human beings..."
Does a 'thought' such as that, inspire you with the belief that the speaker is interested in fairness, or justice, or even reality? Does it seem likely that 'white, cisgender men ' are seen as being worthy in their minds, of receiving equal justice before the law? Does offering up blanket hostility and condemnation to a sizable portion of the populace for the sin of being born 'white cis-gendered males', convey anything more than bigotry? At best? The unprincipled, illogical, unreasonable form of the words, makes clear that the writer thinks that her own feelings should take precedence over those who (gasp) think differently from her. Whatever other ideals lurk in such a mind as that, that alone persuades me that their interest is in gaining and imposing power over those lesser 'white, cisgender men', and women like Amy Coney Barrett, any others who dare see things differently from them.
What business do comments such as those, have on the topic of Justice? The line preceding the cis gender one, gives their game away:
"Obedience to the exact original meaning of the constitution without current context is problematic.”
Allow me to hold up the shield's mirror to translate: Objectivity is problematic.
What's quite clear is that any concern that the author might pretend to have about the Constitution being upheld by any judge, let alone by ACB, is an illusion they conjure up as a convenient pretext for attacking it. That such an emphasis that the 'current context' should hold sway over the written constitution, is the ideological ideal of 'living constitutionalists' which has always been about implicitly rewriting the Constitution through a mendacious 'interpretation' of key words and passages, which they will then claim as precedent for justifying the untethering of government power from those limitations that 'white, cisgender men' imposed upon it, by means of our Constitution.
Such minds as these, are unworthy to entrust with political power, let alone judicial power. The interests of this author and those of like mind with her, are not vested in seeing that the Constitution will be respected and upheld by this or any other nominee to the Supreme Court. What they are interested in, is doing away with our Constitution, and with America - and with you as well - even as they proclaim how concerned they are with defending the Constitution, America, and you, from... the Constitution, America, and you.
Doesn't that have a familiar Jussie Smollett-like ring to it?
To be sure, this author, and these people, have the constitutional right to feel as they do, but to expect other people to take their claims seriously, would require the rest of us to be as unconcerned with objectivity as they are, and that, hopefully, is just not the case.
There is a sound and startling difference between giving direct and thoughtful consideration to evidence in light of reasonable laws, so as to reach a just conclusion, and the mashing up of factoids and baseless accusation in order to 'support' a predetermined ideological assault upon the means of clarifying and applying Justice, and this author fails that test, outright.
Justice, and upholding and preserving the individual rights of all, is the furthest thing from their minds.
Despite their proclamations of caring about what We The People want, the 'living constitutionalist's do not give a fig for what 'the people' might want or even overwhelmingly support. If they did care about, or even suspected that their positions had overwhelming support from the people, then they'd use that aspect of the Constitution that was written into it for just that purpose: writing and passing Constitutional Amendments. But because those efforts of theirs have failed to garner that level of support (perhaps their last 'successes' in the 16th, 17th & 18th Amendments, wised We The People up about them? I wish that were true), they prefer the false path of installing ideological judges, while fanatically opposing those who'd treat the Constitution, and its purpose, with respect.
All they have to fear, is... all they fear
What I think that the Pro-Regressive Left is best expressing in their Jussie Smollett & Medusa-like manner, is their concern that their strategy of ideological activism from the bench, has been losing favor and ground with We The People for years, and that they are in peril of losing their foothold in our courts, and in our hearts & minds, and that what they've openly banked upon for the last 50 years for imposing their will, over the will of We The People, is and has been losing its objective value.
I hope that their fears are well placed, and I look forward to their worst fears being realized.
Instead of wasting your time on ideological opinion screeds such as that gobbledygook in the Guardian, I recommend reading ACB's legal thought and judgements and decide for yourself whether or not they comport with the Constitution - that is, after all, the actual task at hand. If you want something more to consider, consider what she herself has had to say about her own beliefs about being a judge.
It's somewhat worth noting that as I am not an Originalist, or a Textualist (which are not the same things), the nomination of an Originalist to the Supreme Court doesn't thrill me in the way that the nomination of someone with the natural law understanding that our Constitution was formed and derived from (think Justice Clarence Thomas), would. But leaving that aside, IMHO, any decent Originalist is far and away a better choice for our nation, and for Justice, than any 'living constitutionalist', whose personal philosophy exhorts them to insert their own personal opinions, beliefs and feelings, into constitutional judgments upon our laws - which is the very thing they baselessly and falsely accuses ACB of doing through her religion.
There is much to admire about Amy Coney Barrett, and there's nothing that I've seen so far that would make me objectively question whether or not she would abide by the Constitution in her duties as a justice on the SCOTUS, or would call into question her ability and judgement as a Judge, and that is the only test that matters. And even though her being an Originalist doesn't thrill me in and of itself, there is no credible, objective reason, for opposing her nomination to the Supreme Court, and a great many reasons for applauding her becoming a sitting justice upon the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
And seriously, to my friends on the Left, if you wish me to take your opposition to her seriously, you've first got to convince me that you give a damn about our Constitution, the ideals and concepts it was derived from, and for America itself.
After hearing some silliness from the woke folk, who fail to give even the slightest thought to the noise in their virtue signaling, prattling thoughtlessly along about wanting to change 'Columbus Day' to 'Indigenous Peoples Day', I do think it's time to re-post this yet again, from Columbus Day, 2015 - Why?
For one thing, as the helpful graphic inset between my Columbus Day pictures below, to celebrate 'Indigenous Peoples Day', over 'Columbus Day', necessarily means celebrating the mass slaughter of indigenous peoples, which some indigenous peoples, perpetrated upon other indigenous peoples, to further the customs of their own (literally) blood thirsty religions, such as the tens of thousands slaughtered in a single day (on a regular basis) to appease the 'indigenous' people's gods of the Aztecs. One thing that Columbus's discovery of The New World heralded, was the putting of an end to horrors such as that, and no, none of the other atrocities attributable to 'The West' come even close to that level of barbarity. And no, such barbarity and slaughter wasn't limited to the Aztecs (or perhaps you were unaware of what Pocahontas's pop was up to prior to the English landing at Jamestown?).
Did some not so good things follow from Columbus's discovery of The New World? Yes. Welcome to human history - do pay attention please, because if you're looking for easy answers you came to the wrong world. And after years of being bombarded with unsubstantiated charges and hysterical outrage from the most outrageous folks imaginable, I think it's time, even with as small a nod as this is, to explicitly disregard the rantings of the failed and the botched, and to lift a glass of cheer and celebrate the heroic adventures of those who actually dared to do what others feared; deeds which, even though tinged with a great deal of error, led to the greatest advances for mankind in all of our nations known histories. Celebrate this day, even moreso because everything it represents is loathed and feared today by those who oppose celebrating this day (as the 'Sultan of Knish' said so well) of commemorating the voyage that Christopher Columbus undertook to take in 1492.
In Other Words: To Indigenous Peoples Everywhere:
Happy Columbus Day!
"In fourteen hundred ninety-two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue..."
If you don't know the rest, or refuse to repeat it, your ignorance is too deep for me to fix in so little time and space. I won't bother a protest, qualification, any hint of apology or take any other sort of a defensive stand on what is and should be recognized and celebrated on this day.
What we like to think of Captain Kirk doing, Christopher Columbus actually did, and he did it without electronic wizardry, without science officers or communication specialists or even replaceable extras in red shirts, but with only wooden boats, a compass and a number of guesses about how the extent of the world might be shaped.
He and some ninety crew, set out on an uncharted ocean with the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria, and it was incredibly brave and bold, and resulted in Western Civilization expanding westward around the globe, and even entertaining the notion that we today need to defend or justify that, is not only stupidity on stilts, but a repudiation of all that is good.
He had three ships and left from Spain;
He sailed through sunshine, wind and rain.
He sailed by night; he sailed by day;
He used the stars to find his way.
A compass also helped him know
How to find the way to go....
If what Christopher Columbus ventured and accomplished isn't laudable and self-evident bad-assery to you, begone and darken my door no more, but do so with my Happy Columbus Day! ringing in your ears.
What is most alarming about Joe Biden saying in last week's debate that antifa is just an idea, is that he seems to think that makes it harmless. Just an idea... hey Joe, what do you suppose that organizations are organized around? What do you think it is that motivates people, to organize organizations, to begin with?
For example, here's a couple other things that Joe might pass off as being... '...you know, the thing...', that've spawned some exceedingly real and substantial organizations:
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
Each one of those catchy phrases, though 'just an idea', led to some momentous movements and organizations, one of which became the United States of America. The other two ideas, unfortunately, though they too were 'just an idea', led to the deadliest and most destructive states in all of human history - from the Terror, to Communism, Fascism, Nazism.
That antifa is 'just an idea', is hardly a meaningless statement. The Tea Party was 'just an idea' without formal or uniform organization, yet millions of people were able to rally behind it and alter the well laid plans of government. The question to ask is, what kind of idea is it? Is the 'just an idea' in question, one that, like the Tea Party, values human life, does it stand for people living in an expectation of liberty and justice? Does it recognize the fundamentals of the American system, such as this mere idea of from John Adams':
"Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist."?
, or does Antifa & BLM use simple ideas to intimidate people, such as 'check your privilege', and to undermine the basis of their lives with 'It's only property!', does it lead the people who have 'just an idea' in their heads, to force people to obey and to conform and to submit to the power of those massed in the streets, does it endorse accosting and intimidating people, demanding that they bow and 'say their name!,' proving that they accept the new revolutionary social standards. This too was 'just an idea' of Rousseau's,
"whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free"
, but that idea in the head of Robespierre is what drove the French Revolution's Terror and sowed fertile ground for the deadly weeds of the 20th Century. Just an idea. Here's a collary of these ideas, which history demonstrates over and over again, that ' by tolerating property being destroyed, innocent men are and will continue to be killed'.
I have some good friends, and virtual friends, who think Antifa & BLM are swell, that they are 'doing good' and that while they destroy property, it's warranted and excusable. The fact that the actual fascists intimidated people in the streets, destroyed property, and caused injury and even death, doesn't cause them to check the premises of their ideas in the least, they seem comforted by the fact that antifa and fascist are different names. When I point out that it doesn't matter if the names are different, when, where it counts, they are the same, they laugh 'Antifa aren't fascists, they fight against fascists!'. Try and pin them down to what they mean by that, and they refuse to say what, if anything, they think it means. They're not, you know, gonna be pinned down by me and my terms of truth & liberty, they reply, in so many words, that they have,
"...contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth..."
, they are for relativist concepts, that 'my truth' isn't 'their truth', or as Joe Biden might've put it, 'Ya know... the thing...', which doesn't surprise me at all, because another fellow who expressed much the same frustrations, and expressed an admiration for relative truths, unconcerned with how they might be practiced in one place or another, said:
“... relativism is simply a fact.... Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth … then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity... From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable...."
And you know what? It doesn't matter much whether you put a name to it or not. It is easiest to understand an idea by seeing the results of it being put into practice, and though it is hard to believe it needs to be said, it does: The disregard & denial of Individual Rights is the defining nature of Tyranny, and whether you name its practice as being Antifa, Alt-Right, Fascists, Nazis, Communists, KKK, Black Panthers, etc, each by any other name would reek as foul. Whether the tyrant prefers to tyrannize by race, class, religion, economics-are but fashion choices -Tyrants they are, and those of you who won't 'say their name' will be their target.
Or are you one of those saying
"No hold on, no one's advising fascism, we just think you should be more pragmatic about these matters with antifa"
Funnily enough, both Mussolini and his ghost-author and intellectual guru, Giovanni Gentile, were also deep admirers of the Pragmatism of William James & John Dewey, you know, no 'dogmatic principles or ideals', just doing what works - that was what they saw Fascism as being - taking action to do what works. The problem is, that despite the efforts of tyrants to peddle their notions as 'just an idea', those ideas, when men attempt to organize around them, the nature of those ideas tend to organize men into unprincipled, undependable, passionate forces of despotic violence and destruction.
Let's be clear: If you think that roving gangs of ideological zealots, masked and armed to intimidate and injure, should be the arbiters of public speech, then you are a fascist. If that gang calls themselves 'anti-fascists', the only fascists they oppose are the other competing brands.
One of the best reasons for not voting for Joe Biden, is the fact that he brushes off a group of people who've self organized around passionately tyrannical ideals, as 'just an idea', without the least inkling that that idea is the stuff of apocalyptic nightmares.
So I watched the Trump/Biden 'debate' tonight. What came to mind was this, from one of America's greatest essayists, writers and orators, Fredrick Douglass's "My Bondage and My Freedom", who educated himself via a collection of classic forensic & oratorical speeches in the Columbian Orator - not because something said tonight reminded me of these speeches - please - but because absolutely nothing said tonight, reminded me of any of these speeches, or of those minds capable of and interested in grappling with them, or of a people interested in listening to that effort. The direction and theme of modern education (first floated in the 1830's, BTW), was that reading and learning the speeches of people like Cicero - the type of learning that our Founder's generation and America was formed from - was 'elitist'. Well, beyond who you or I believe 'won' or 'lost' this debate tonight - whether the debaters, the moderator, or a good chunk of the audience - what they most definitely did not bring to mind, was the image of important ideas, delivered in an eloquent and forceful manner, that once marked an educated American mind. What was on display tonight, was the fruit of the deadened heart and soul of modern education (get your kids out).
IOW, neither the debaters, moderator, commentators, showed an understanding of the importance of an educated - not schooled - mind, guiding or moderating their words and manners. There was no sign of the following, in this 'debate':
"... When I was about thirteen years old, and had succeeded in learning to read, every increase of knowledge, especially respecting the FREE STATES, added something to the almost intolerable burden of the thought—I AM A SLAVE FOR LIFE. To my bondage I saw no end. It was a terrible reality, and I shall never be able to tell how sadly that thought chafed my young spirit. Fortunately, or unfortunately, about this time in my life, I had made enough money to buy what was then a very popular school book, viz: the Columbian Orator. I bought this addition to my library, of Mr. Knight, on Thames street, Fell’s Point, Baltimore, and paid him fifty cents for it. I was first led to buy this book, by hearing some little boys say they were going to learn some little pieces out of it for the Exhibition. This volume was, indeed, a rich treasure, and every opportunity afforded me, for a time, was spent in diligently perusing it. Among much other interesting matter, that which I had perused and reperused with unflagging satisfaction, was a short dialogue between a master and his slave. The slave is represented as having been recaptured, in a second attempt to run away; and the master opens the dialogue with an upbraiding speech, charging the slave with ingratitude, and demanding to know what he has to say in his own defense. Thus upbraided, and thus called upon to reply, the slave rejoins, that he knows how little anything that he can say will avail, seeing that he is completely in the hands of his owner; and with noble resolution, calmly says, “I submit to my fate.” Touched by the slave’s answer, the master insists upon his further speaking, and recapitulates the many acts of kindness which he has performed toward the slave, and tells him he is permitted to speak for himself. Thus invited to the debate, the quondam slave made a spirited defense of himself, and thereafter the whole argument, for and against slavery, was brought out. The master was vanquished at every turn in the argument; and seeing himself to be thus vanquished, he generously and meekly emancipates the slave, with his best wishes for his prosperity. It is scarcely neccessary(sic) to say, that a dialogue, with such an origin, and such an ending—read when the fact of my being a slave was a constant burden of grief—powerfully affected me; and I could not help feeling that the day might come, when the well-directed answers made by the slave to the master, in this instance, would find their counterpart in myself.
This, however, was not all the fanaticism which I found in this Columbian Orator. I met there one of Sheridan’s mighty speeches, on the subject of Catholic Emancipation, Lord Chatham’s speech on the American war, and speeches by the great William Pitt and by Fox. These were all choice documents to me, and I read them, over and over again, with an interest that was ever increasing, because it was ever gaining in intelligence; for the more I read them, the better I understood them. The reading of[124] these speeches added much to my limited stock of language, and enabled me to give tongue to many interesting thoughts, which had frequently flashed through my soul, and died away for want of utterance. The mighty power and heart-searching directness of truth, penetrating even the heart of a slaveholder, compelling him to yield up his earthly interests to the claims of eternal justice, were finely illustrated in the dialogue, just referred to; and from the speeches of Sheridan, I got a bold and powerful denunciation of oppression, and a most brilliant vindication of the rights of man. Here was, indeed, a noble acquisition...."
No matter who you or I might've favored in the 'debate' tonight, none of the parties involved showed any notion that words and how you use them is important to living your life, none displayed anything worth aspiring to. It's safe to say that nothing from this debate will ever be positively used by anyone in the future - there will be no future 'Columbian Orator' containing any of the text of this evening. Does that matter? Well, do you really think that We The People will long survive having the power that America has, without having minds that even aspire to a familiarity with, let alone mastery of, the sound reasoning and eloquent expression of those ideas that alone can direct and restrain that brute power?
The President of the United States of America is elected to a term of four years, and during any day, hour, or minute of his term, he has the power to nominate a new Justice to the Supreme Court, with zero restrictions on that nomination as relates to the age, gender, race, political leanings or dying wishes, in who he chooses to nominate.
The nomination of a justice to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, by the President, obligates the Senate to give 'advice & consent' to that nomination.
Was it - technically speaking - giving 'advice & consent' to President Obama's nomination of Garland, for Senator Majority Leader McConnell to say that the senate would decline to approve any nominations made during that year? Sure. But it was a cowardly evasion of responsibility for the Senate to consent in doing so.
As Sen. McConnell obviously had the votes to decline to take up the nomination, he also had - if either he or his fellow senators took their responsibilities seriously - the votes necessary to properly examine the nomination of Merrick Garland, and if they had done so, they would easily and rapidly have found abundant evidence (some of which I pointed out in this post) that Merrick Garland, due to egregious and deliberate misinterpretations of our constitution, and an appalling lack of respect for the individual rights of the citizens of the United States of America, was manifestly unfit to sit upon the Supreme Court. Not only did they have the votes to do that, they also had the rare opportunity to demonstrate and teach the American people, and the anti-American contingent amongst us, exactly why nominees such as Garland were unfit for office on the SCOTUS, or in any branch or agency of our nation's government.
But the GOP led Senate punted instead. Opting for the juvenile (and soon to be empowering) 'no nomination will be considered', option.
The fruit of that pathetic 'easy out' have been on abundant display in the media, such as when former Clinton campaign chairman and chief of staff George Stephanopoulos, now charting unbiased news (*cough*cough* B.S fake news*cough*cough*) on Sunday mornings for ABC, to ask Sen. Cruz:
"Do you have the votes ... to confirm before the election?"
“We’ve got the votes to confirm Justice Ginsburg’s replacement before the election,”
to push through Trump’s Supreme Court nominee before the election, based upon counting political noses alone, without any regard for the qualifications of the Justice being nominated to the court, which is unavoidable, as that potential justice HAS NOT EVEN BEEN NAMED YET.
Additionally, past performance being a definite influencer of future action, it also helped shape the appalling spectacle of the President of the United States of America, being heckled while paying his respects to the deceased Justice Ginsberg at the Supreme Court's building, to the despicably barbaric caterwauling of those who've been been burning up our cities, tearing down our statues, and spitting upon the United States of America in general and directly and indirectly heaping vitriol upon the Constitution by which We The People formed our nation through.
There is, and necessarily always has been, a political component to nominating and voting upon justices for the Supreme Court - and there should be, that represents our, you know, We The People's, voice. But where it should be an aspect of the process, it has now, through a long, long, string of events across decades, it has now become the primary step in all such nominations, and Justice, and We The People, can only be the poorer for it.
President Trump has the absolute constitutional power to name a new justice to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, yesterday, today, and every day until the end of his term. I just wish that through the costs of all of the lost opportunities, I could see equally clear evidence that We The People are deserving and worthy of it.
The word 'about' can be interesting in the way it often directs our attention. It can send us on towards where it's wise to go, but more often than not, it sends us on to where it's easier & more pleasing to go, while dragging you and all of your baggage along with it. If you've seen such matters playing out with your otherwise reasonable friends, probably especially over the last few weeks, you know how disturbing it can be. But what about if it's you?
Of course the most obvious example of this today, is where our attention tends to go to at the mere mention of a certain person's name (perhaps one comes to mind for you?), and as the pitch and intensity of the voice audibly rises - an inflection so pronounced that it's even detectable through text - how aware are we that others might be aware of that inflection point in us as well?
It's something worth being concerned about, because it's concerning to see - words matter, and your use of them matters, and because ideas - or the lack of them - have consequences, even for yourself.
You should be concerned about what happens to you through your words, as when, following that inflection point, you allow your words to describe the person in question in cartoonishly one-dimensional terms - pro or con - it's disturbing for others to listen to. Are you are aware that since what your words describe (in outrageous charges or praises & inappropriate terms) are not describing someone who's recognizably human, they're unlikely to influence the other person's thoughts about the inflected person in question? So not only are they wasted words, but more to the point, as such feverish descriptions are unworthy of serious consideration, do you really think that your words are going to let you escape from serious reconsideration, for having said them?
And then there's the point where 'About' can lead us eagerly unawares into false assumptions about what we're even being asked to think about.
For instance, for most people, when someone has brought up an unexpected over reaction to a scenario, it's a typical reaction, and a very reasonable response, for them to bring up a similar situation, so as to ask what led you to be inflamed about the one, and yet dismissive of the other. That is not an attempt to ignore whatever problem it is that you're inflamed about, but an effort to discover how you distinguish one from the other, in order to either see what they themselves might have missed, or to point out something significant in what you might have missed.
But, the year 2020 being what it is, today such questions as honestly asking 'but... what about...' can come freighted with so many false assumptions, blind spots, and baffling misdirections, as to get you accused of fallacious reasoning for daring to try to understand the other person's outrageous position. For myself, I confess I can't help myself from, not infrequently, dropping an 'about' like a banana peel in their verbal path, just to see if the inflected person I'm talking to will watch their step and consider the nature of the question asked, or... will they instead blindly skip on down the path of the easy out, escaping into charges of 'Whataboutism!', making the issue less about the question involved, than their own inability to reasonably consider any questioning of their inflection point at all.
If you've been lucky enough to not be familiar with the newly re-popularized charge of 'Whataboutism!', it's a tactic that was last popular with defenders of the USSR, as a means of escaping attention and judgement for something that was clearly wrong, by citing what might narrowly and ambiguously be called a similar situation, with the implication being that by means of that thin similarity, you are no better than they, and so have no moral authority to denounce their actions. For instance, Americans might once upon a time have brought up the USSR's political persecution of Solzhenitsyn's freedom of speech, or the killings of the unexpectedly politically incorrect such as Leon Trotsky, at the hands of KGB assassins, to which the defender of communism might've responded with "What about America's persecution of Al Capone for breaking the IRS's rules, or the FBI's killing of John Dillinger?!", essentially 'arguing' that 'Two wrongs make... it all, alright'.
That is what 'Whataboutism!' is all about, using false comparisons and ambiguities to deflect and escape from the task of making, or facing up to making, an honest evaluation.
It is not 'Whataboutism!', however, to ask about a reasonably similar situation in order to try to identify and clarify what you think makes the two things different, but it is a form of 'Whataboutism!', when you attempt to evade making those clarifications by calling their effort 'Whataboutism!'!
And so, yes, with that very much in mind, I'll often ask a person about a similar scenario, with particular attention to my use of the word 'about', in asking something along the lines of:
"I see that you're upset about this, but what about when [Trump, Obama, Bush 43, Hillary, Clinton, Bush 41, Perot, Reagan, Carter, etc., etc., etc.,] did something similar with '__[yada, yada, yada]__'?"
, for myself at least, my 'about' actually is an effort to get the person I'm talking with, to give their judgment of the differences between the issues; but the point of my comment is not only what [etc., etc., etc.] did when doing '[yada, yada, yada]', but what their own reaction to the comparison in question, was. Not the '[yada, yada, yada]' itself, or the [etc., etc., etc.] who did it, and NOT whether they themselves approved or disapproved of it, but what their response to that situation was then, and what their response is to making a reasonable comparison to it, now.
IOW, the About in question is NOT'about' either situation in question, but their own ability, or inability, to reasonably consider and respond to their own inflection point. And if they were able to respond reasonably to that instance of '[yada, yada, yada]' by [etc., etc., etc.] then, what do you suppose it is about the person in question, that causes their voice and intensity to rise so high, and their own reasonability to fall so low?
Hmm? What about me? I'll admit... though I don't think there are any people who inflame me like that, there are some topics that can quickly get a rise out of me, but I'm aware of and on the lookout for those situations, and being aware of your own weaknesses, means that they're unlikely to escape your attention for more than a moment, and will rarely drive you through an entire argument.
For some such inflection point to routinely drive you into instant and lengthy rants, or to in any way direct or drive you through your days, implies not only a lack of awareness about yourself, but about what's important in your life, and doesn't wasting your time on words without meaning, mean that you're missing out on what it should all be about?
Are you aware of your own inflection points?
You should be aware that when your words have no visible basis in reality, not only are they are unlikely to cause another person to think differently about the person in question, but they likely will cause many of us to have 2nd thoughts (and often 3rd & 4th ones) about you, and about your ability to think about [etc., etc., etc.] & '[yada, yada, yada]', today.
Don't get me wrong, there may be an argument to be made for the 'side' you see yourself as promoting, but you aren't making it! And you're damn sure not helping to spread it.
In this case at least, in jumping to the easy out of 'about', you only succeed in making the issue all about you.
Today, a day that hasn't warranted a 'Google Doodle', is the 233rd birthday of the United States Constitution. Peruse it or lose it... and the liberty it was written to preserve.
What was signed as completed upon this day, two hundred and thirty-three years ago, September 17th, 1787, by thirty-nine of the fifty-five Framers, was the Constitution of the United States of America, and whether you stand in respect for, or disrespectfully turn away from, the Flag, the National Anthem or the Pledge of Allegiance, you do so in reference to that document which is the oldest existing instrument of its kind, still in operation.
Why?
Is it simply a list of rules for governing by? Is it nothing more than a favorite fossil of 'white people'? A document of oppression? Frederick Douglass once thought so, but because he was a thinker in order to understand what was true, he didn't stop with answers that were given him by others, but continued on thinking upon the matter, and discovered the Truth which such vile falsehoods seek to smother and erase.
But today I'm really not much concerned with your answers to those 'points', but am only interested in whether or not you are familiar with the ideas, principles and purposes which animated the writing of it - are you? And if not... what worth can your opinion - pro or con - have for me, or for anyone else?
Whether you mouth its praises, or make showy protests against it, without understanding what it is you are referencing - your praises and protestations fail to even rise to the level of being wrong, they are but verbal dust to be brushed away, meaningless and of no consequence. But if you are one of that thoughtless many, you may take comfort in the knowledge that you are in the happy company of millions of such Pavlovian 'Conservatives', Pro-Regressive Leftists and Libertarians, for whom the United States Constitution is little more than a paper bell which they bark at.
But for those of you who do see it, not as a mere object of ink upon paper, for those of you who don't insult the memory of they who strove to produce it as having been anything other than men of flesh and blood, for you who understand that it was written so as to give physical form to, and to best enable, the implementation of some of the greatest political ideas of Western Civilization -
that men who understand that are capable of self governance,
that well ordered argument can lead to a self-correcting means of governance,
that such a system, established by such a people, can enable lives lived in liberty while in society with others, so long as the beast of Power is bound down and limited by laws whose purpose is to uphold and defend the Individual Rights of every person
, and that for such a people, intellectually armed through a document such as this, Liberty is possible.
But it is only possible for those who understand that.
For those intemperate folk who simply wish to sing the praises of, or rain curses down upon, that
Remember, Remember the 11th of September
And now it is September 11th once again, and once again it is time to remember. We remember September 11th because of what happened upon September 11th, 2001. September 11th is not 'Patriot's Day', and it's damn sure not 'a day of service' (other than military service). September 11th, 2001 is a day to remember that the full brutality and destruction that man is capable of was deliberately visited upon America in New York City, Washington D.C. and Shanksville Pennsylvania. We should remember. We should reflect. Those responsible should have been and should be destroyed, and those whose negligence had enabled it, and those who excuse it, and those who minimize it, should be despised and reviled by all who remember. We must remember so that the horror of September 11th, 2001 is confined to the past and is not allowed to slip past us and out into another clear blue sky in the future.
Screw healing.
We should pick at the wound, keep it burning. Remember the parents on the plane heading in to strike the Towers, their child sitting next to them... remember the people in the Tower on the phone to 911, crying, scared, burning from the heat, and then screaming as the impossible happened, the tower collapsed beneath them into nothingness. Remember the wives, husbands, children, of those who just went to work that day, and had their lives and world stolen from them by islambie thugs.
Remember that no matter what idiot politician or educationista prattles... we are a people who have known, and still know freedom and liberty and law, a people who believe it is good to live a moral life and pursue our happiness where we see fit to choose to. Remember that there are alleged human beings who wish nothing more than to destroy that possibility.
Remember Sept. 11, 2001. Be angry, feel hatred, seek the destruction of those who seek yours. It is altogether fitting and proper that we do so, and remember that those who lost their lives, and those who have since given their lives in this cause, have hallowed this day far beyond and above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say today, but History - in reflection and action - will remember what happened, and it will take note of whether or not we remember. It will take note of whether or not we take note of those who had taken, and those who have given, the last full measure of devotion -- and it will judge whether or not we here are highly resolved that these dead shall not have died in vain; whether or not this nation, shall continue to give birth to, and stand up for and defend freedom, and it shall judge from that, whether or not government of the people by the people for the people, shall, or shall not perish from the earth.
And it will judge and act accordingly.
Remember September 11, 2001.
In remembering what happened on September 11th, 17 years ago, I've patched this post together from a number of memories and posts and comments I've made from then to now. Where they began, of course, was on the morning of September 11th, 2001, when my wife, who was a flight attendant with TWA, called me as I was driving into work on I-70, just passing through Earth City, to tell me a plane had just crashed into the World Trade Center.
I was thinking a Cessna, but she said it sounded like it was larger, the impact too large. I knew a plane had once hit the Empire State building on a stormy night, but she said the weather looked clear, how could that be possible? As we were talking, another jet hit the other tower.
That made it clear what was going on, we decided that she'd pick the boys up from school and bring them home.
I continued on into work, and news came that another plane had hit the Pentagon.
A blue streak of horror and animal fury blasted back at my radio as the news came that one of the towers was collapsing. As I walked into work, 7th floor of A.G. Edwards, people were crowded around the T.V. in the lobby and the second tower came down.
I went to to my desk, one of the guys there was trying to get a hold of his son who worked in one of the World Trade Center towers. I to our project coordinator and told him I wouldn't be working that day, and headed for home.
I told the boys the obvious as we watched the news, that the world had just changed, we were at war, and nothing would be the same.
To those who want to think of this day as a time for healing or a day of service, Fuck You. We are not going back to the reflexive evasion of reality which is what made this day possible.
Political Correctness began its well deserved death that day ten years ago today, it may be a long, agonizingly slow death, fitting perhaps for the cancer that it is, but it was the beginning of the end of the view that it is in any way good or proper to pretend a lie can pretty up the truth.
The lie is nothing but darkest evil, and the light of Truth chases, confines and obliterates it... as we have, and will do, to those who did this evil – you are nothing, and to nothingness you will be returned.
And yet there are those who will shake their head and ask "How do you kill an idea?"
How do you kill an idea? If it is an idea that people are not open to discussing, an idea that will not tolerate reasonable alternatives, an idea that requires your death or your submission, then the answer to that question is a very simple one:
You cannot defeat an idea.
All you can do is make physically certain that those of the enemy who might survive a war with you, would live in constant fear and dread at the thought of that idea ever again being in their head, let alone upon their lips. You cannot defeat an idea, you can only make people determined to no longer entertain them, because of the memory of the war they fought with you over it, and the fear of the possibility of such a conflict ever happening again, is too painful to think about
How do you kill an idea? By killing its hosts, and causing everyone else to fear and dread the thought of thinking it.
Screw healing.
We should pick at the wound, keep it burning. Remember the parents on the plane heading in to strike the Towers, their child sitting next to them... remember the people in the Tower on the phone to 911, crying, scared, burning from the heat, and then screaming as the impossible happened, the tower collapsed beneath them into nothingness. Remember the wives, husbands, children, of those who just went to work that day, and had their lives and world stolen from them by islambie thugs.
Remember that no matter what idiot politician or educationista prattles... we are a people who have known, and still know freedom and liberty and law, a people who believe it is good to live a moral life and pursue our happiness where we see fit to choose to. Remember that there are alleged human beings who wish noting more than to destroy that possibility.
Remember Sept. 11, 2001. Be angry, feel hatred, seek the destruction of those who seek yours. It is altogether fitting and proper that we do so, and remember that those who lost their lives, and those who have since given their lives in this cause, have hallowed this day far beyond and above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say today, but it will remember what happened, and it will take note of whether or not we remember.
A proper foreign policy is "Mind your own business & we'll mind ours. Mess with us or ours, and we'll destroy you. Period."
Anything less, reasoning with those who are unreasonable, giving measured responses in reply to savagery, etc., are concessions and only serve to enable those who wish us harm.
Perhaps more than anything else, remember that forgetting how and why the attacks of 9-11 were made possible, guarantees that its horrors will be revisited upon us, courtesy of our willful inability to recognize their approach, and the cost of that will be history rhyming itself once again, as the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more:
AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Please, try to remember 9/11 as the lesson we won't have to learn once more.
Reality will not be denied, and Evil will not be turned aside because you choose to turn away from it. Deny that, and the Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return. Please. Just face the facts and learn the lesson so we don't have to learn it once more.
