OReilly v Rivera

Letter to Joanne Ostrow regarding her column, reproduced in the previous blog below.

I've read your poor critique of the O'Reilly v. Rivera dust up from 'The Factor' and watched the video footage of the event.

Your characterization of it is completely wrong and driven by your craven hatred of conservative perspectives on what are rational and sensible principles of justice.

You claim that the debate had little substance and shed more heat than light, but this is shallow and partisan. 

Comparing postures such as "spewing bile" to "forceful objection" is pure sophistry. Both men were equally vehement. Of course, we all know that males engaged in passionate argumentation can only be, if not simply scary, dangerous from a radical feminist position.

It is unfortunate for the left, who battle to stifle debate, that the debate medium is so popular with the right and becomes more so with the general population every day. It flourishes while established media dries and dies on the vine of tacit acquiescence. The value of what you consider unrefined "modern political discourse", "today's cable chat", and "overwrought exchange" is precisely what  perturbs propaganda proprietors such as yourself. As opposed to somber studio diatribes with edited positions, debate shines light on conflicting views, giving consumers clear alternatives from which to refine and enhance their values. Yet you deride that.

Pity you have so little desire to discern truth.

The truth is Bill remained calm throughout the interview. Commendable, having been subjected as he was to Rivera's defensive badgering and filibustering. (It's typical of the left to belittle with incessant meaningless chatter and then cry when someone dares speak over them.) Rivera's defense of this criminal's behavior was devoid of logic, reason and force of law. Only insanity defends such repetitiously illicit behavior without applying appropriate and serious consequence.

I might have had some sympathy for the guy and could understand, perhaps, the leniency he received after an initial offense of public intoxication, but to allow such an infraction as driving intoxicated to happen more than once is irresponsible and falls at the feet of the mayor as O'Reilly suggested.

Rivera brought up an interesting point, "had the perpetrator been Ramoski [sic]", would anyone have cared? The pertinent detail would be whether or not Jaime Ramoski - in my scenario, a Jewish immigrant - were here illegally. If so, I guarantee O'Reilly would still line up on the side of deportation and justice. You and Heraldo probably would also, revealing your bias to make this issue about pc Hispanic sympathy and not immigration or law.

Scott Cogswell

 

O'Reilly meltdown a new low

Fox News talker comes unglued

By Joanne Ostrow
Denver Post Television Critic
The Denver Post

When Bill O'Reilly nearly came out of his chair and across the desk at Geraldo Rivera on his Fox News show this week, he marked a new low in what passes for modern political discourse. Even by the shallow standards of cable news--and "The O'Reilly Factor" in particular--it was a stunningly foul performance. The clip quickly became the talk of YouTube (click here to see the video).
When a girl was killed by a drunk driver in Virginia, a driver who happened to be an undocumented immigrant, O'Reilly seized the moment to turn the issue into a tirade against illegal aliens. O'Reilly spewed racist bile; Rivera objected forcefully. When Geraldo is the voice of reason driving home solid points, you know things are out of hand.
Today's cable chat shows encourage this kind of overwrought exchange, shedding more heat than light and putting the star opinion-meisters front and center. The fact that the clip drew traffic on the internet only enhances its value. You don't see thoughtful analyses from BBC World News or the PBS NewsHour attracting clicks on YouTube.
As the election cycle ratchets up, the provocateurs of cable will be angling for more attention. But they shouldn't be allowed to steer the conversation. Let's take it as an encouraging sign that the O'Reilly outburst is being laughed at in cyberspace more than it's being seriously considered.

When Joanne Ostrow writes about the incident on the O’Reilly Factor where Bill O’Reilly and Heraldo Rivera both nearly come out of their chairs and across the table at each other over the issue of the recent arrest of an illegal immigrant who, with prior convictions for drunken driving, killed a girl with his car while intoxicated (Bill taking the conservative line that this menace should be deported), she marks a new low in what passes for analysis of open and free debate.

Even by her shallow, left-bent standards, it was a stunningly foul and agenda driven investigation.

Who wants to be the star opinion-meister now?

The fact that analyses from the BBC and PBS aren’t highlighted by YouTube, should be a clear sign that you are not getting anything valuable in the way of a cross-section of societal values and perspectives. Opposing positions fuel debate and debate clarifies and unifies understanding.

What should be clear to sensible consumers now living in the 21st century, having access to all manner of opinion, conjecture and sentiment, not to mention good hard data, is the fact that the format of televised debate, which Ms.Ostrow decries as unrefined modern political discourse, today’s cable chat, and overwrought exchange, actually gives consumers a fuller spectrum of ideas and views; a more colorful palette with which to hue the depths of the socio-political canvas.

Thanks to Fox News, and this debate format, intelligent consumers of news no longer need rely on somber studio diatribes with edited positions.

The fact that this ‘critic’ feels it necessary to comment on this ‘laughable’ episode, shows that she is not beyond her own shallow standards, and is no better than her counter parts at avoiding debate.

Joanne Ostrow is clearly partisan and her comments reflect the need to tear down conservative perspective. She has no intention of shining any light of her own, but prefers, or rather, her intellect will not allow, further inspection of the issue at a level beyond her craven hatred of what are rational and sensible principles of justice.

Apparently, male passion, exhibited in the heated exchange of ideas and opinions, is valuable for entertainment, but worthless, perhaps even frightening, at the level of what this female perceives as thoughtful analysis. Of course, the progressive opinion of Heraldo was only “forceful objection” to Bill’s “spewed racist bile.”

From the dissection of this last sentence alone, I see clearly the attitude and poorly guarded ideology of this hateful leftist.

Typical of Democracy

"I will put my family's safety above sensitivity."

The problem is my US senators and representatives don't. Daily.
My local senator and representative don't. Daily.
My governor doesn't. Daily
My local mayor doesn't. Daily. (hourly if you live in SLC)

Every city leader decries racial profiling (only because they have to get votes from those races.) But, guess what... racial profiling works. It works better than any system we have now. Yes, it might not have stopped McVeigh, but it would have stopped or hindered 9/11, and scores of other problems.
Start profiling if it protects my family.
Guess what, if the profile says that white males are the number one terrorist, fine, send me through the extra search line. And if you are one of the white male terrorist, look out, because I'll be the first one condemning you and screaming for the death penalty or worse. I will not be the one whining that you had a rough childhood, or that you didn't get any scholarships because the minorities gobbled them up, or that you lost your job to affirmative action.(these are what Jesse Jackson would be promoting if he was white) I'm tired of the whining. I'm tired of the hypocrisy. I'm tired of the corruption.

Here's the problem. I think government is screwed up.
I'm fed up with it, and I want to do something about it.
But, where to begin. Also, if I do begin, I am one voice and still live in a democracy. How do I convince my neighbors to speak up when I can't even convince my wife that the conversation is important?
There is an epidemic of apathy in this country that is going to be the death of it.

Take heart my friend... This is the war that your Gospel teaches you about.

It won't end today nor tomorrow... Your children will have to engage it once they come of age... And your grandchildren as well.

I can sympathize with your frustration... My wife will have none of it... She thinks it is my hobby, and not a popular one.

You'll help your cause when you realize that we do not live in a pure democracy, but in a democratic republic... We must sustain and preach about our country in that way in order to minimize the affects of radical libertinism.

Russell Kirk said, "Of all the terrors of democracy, the worst is its destruction of moral habits." He then goes on to quote Fisher Ames, "A democratic society will soon find its morals the encumbrance of its race, the surly companion of its licentious joys."

Many of the Christian founders saw the dangers in the Democracies of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. Where there is no prescription, no formal moral or orthodox duty to code, where men happen along their own abandon, the adversary will have strong influence. They had a great example in the French revolution. Based on the enlightenment thought of Rousseau and Condorcet, men had abandoned reverence for antiquity and decorum.

Fisher Ames also said, "Our country is too big for union, too sordid for patriotism, too democratic for liberty. Its vice will govern it, by practicing upon its folly. This is ordained for democracies."

Many of the conservative thinkers in the early founding of the country recognized the importance of enlightened leadership and understood that the success of democracy, and federalism, were based on a fallacious premise: "the supposed existence of sufficient political virtue, and on the permanency and authority of the public morals."

"On the contrary however, passion, deluded sentiment, and a destructive yearning for simplicity are characteristics of peoples who have exchanged the leadership of the good, righteous and enlightened, for the intoxication of self-expression and the negation of discipline." "The people, as a body cannot deliberate; therefore their appetites are flattered by demagogues, who satisfy the popular impulse toward action by the exhibition of violence and the spectacle of incessant change."

The way to combat this change as I see it, would be to give up your glamorous life as an IT Administrator and go into teaching. Our schools are woeful, and corrupted by progressive thought which undermines enlightened and reasoned learning. We will not change our generation, but can be hopeful that persistent effort will reward us with future generations of moral and upright citizens.

One more very interesting quote from this man Fisher Ames: "Popular reason does not always know how to act right, nor does it always act right, when it knows. The agents that move politics, are the popular passions; and those are ever, from the very nature of things, under the command of the disturbers of society... Few can reason, all can feel; and such an argument is gained, as soon as it is proposed."

Much ado about nothing

As a fastener salesman, how would your boss like it if you refused to sell his nails?

Would that be grounds for termination? I suppose it would...

You see, in my opinion, and the opinion of those on the right who respect the constitution, it is the right of the owner of the company to do what he wishes with regard to the decisions he makes... Now, they may be poor decisions, but that doesn't give me the right to interfere with those decisions because it is his business... you know,,, mind your own 'business'.

The same applies with the appointment of federal employees in the Justice Department. The Justice Department is an office within the Executive Branch of government, over which the President presides,,, like your boss, He has the right to hire and fire within his branch as he sees fit.

It has always been the case and should always be the case. The President, who is chosen by the people and is representative of the views and values of the population who elected him, has the right to employ and work with the people within his 'company' that he feels most confident with until which time that he is no longer employed by the people as President. This case is no exception...

Now, there is no one with any standing within the Washington DC community that will say that anything illegal has taken place. So why the big stink by the Democrats? Just another deliberate waste of your tax money, all in an attempt to smear the President,,, and Republicans in general.

The appointment to Federal Prosecutor is a political appointment... meaning that you are appointed there by the President and his staff for your qualifications, politics not excluded.

It can be expected then, that if you refuse to pursue the cases that the administration wishes you to pursue, then yeah, you could and should be fired.

You do know that Clinton fired all 93 Federal Prosecutors in 1993 when he took office...

This is a witch hunt buddy... The Clinton's wrote the book on it and have employed it within the Dem party since Gingrich was shamed out of office in 1997.

The Dems are all about changing the rules and get a lot of help fooling the public from the mainstream news outlets.

The only wrong done here is that an incompetent Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, began apologizing for something which he had no obligation to apologize for in the first place. If he would have come out and made a statement like, "The administration has made some changes within the Justice Department that will more readily address the issues that it feels important to address at this time.", and not said a single thing more, this whole thing would be over.

His incompetence on that level should cost him his job, but it won't happen for the reasons the Democrats desire and it certainly won't stop their incessant hunger for Bush's head.

PS - Howard Dean does not reflect the moderation within the Democratic Party which will be required to win a national election.

Passive Parenting

Passive parenting... a critique of a Kelsey Grammer poem.

Don't take offense, but it is this kind of understanding of the role of the parent that is wrong with the liberal progressive movement in our culture. It has profoundly affected individual perceptions on moral behavior and natural truth.

The reticence of the Liberal left to make moral distinctions, set strict behavioral limits, and impart traditional wisdom in the way of orthodox values and moral principles, leads children to ambiguity.

We are not instinctually good animals. Left to instincts, we would behave with moral repugnance. It is through the principles in Jewish and Christian Gospel that we as man are able to sustain and extend civilized society.

Quite to the contrary, children need the imposition of moral leaders (preferentially parents) and guidance in making specific life choices that will be beneficial, or atleast not harmful to further development.

A parent should not be a passive bystander, available only for those instances where a child is seeking comfort for a poor and undirected decision, but an active participant and advocate for a course of action that will ultimately lead to righteous and moral behavior.

Kelsey, and people like him - based on the errant theories of enlightenment philosophers like Jean Jacques Rousseau and influential psychologists like Dr. Sigmund Freud and Dr. Benjamin Spock - believe that a child should be left alone to develop their own individual ideas and understanding of the world based on some genetic or inherent character. The only inherent character a child has is that of the Holy Ghost which resides in his soul, but if the child is not coached on how to be attentive to its promptings, the child will fail to make valuable behavioral and moral decisions.

Kelsey would rather, based on this poem, leave it up to his daughters 'innate character' to combat the influence of demoralizing television programming, gangster fashion and Ebonics, and the liberal socialist culture of the public school system.

The idea that a child develops its character primarily from the inside out is ridiculous. A child seeks guidance and tutelage from birth. It requires feedback from its environment to learn and grow and if one as parent is not providing such, the child will find that feedback somewhere else. In this society of violence, sexual explicitness, strong cultures of drug use and disrespect for authority, sorry, I would choose to hold a little influence over my Childs development.

...But that's just me, the fundamentalist Christian that I am.

Individualism doesn't come from filling the human brain with ideas, notions, and options without any underlying property or principle which discerns a common and beneficent goal suitable for both the individual and society.

It comes as the combined understanding of such in a uniform and cohesive ideology reflective of successful societal prescriptions, historical contexts, and individual standards, and in the ability to make the distinctions that further advance society's cooperative progress.

Media Influence Demoralizes Culture

In response to a letter from a friend who critiques Michael Medved's evaluation of media bias. Michael's column is linked in the title of this post.

The basic assertion is that Michael is wrong and that news purveyors are only giving news consumers what they want.

I disagree...

We all understand that news agencies and corporations need to make money and are in competition for viewer/readership.

If you want to say that consumers drive news I have no problem with that as long as you can define news effectively for me and as long as you consider the various factors that affect their choices.

If you define news the way I would, you would have to give it the value of neutrality. News, like ‘data’, is anemic. It only derives value based on context. It is animated and made dynamic by the purveyor’s rhetoric and the consumer’s pre-existing disposition.

The persuasion of rhetoric can be so subtle in news it seems even you have fallen prey. A glowing adjective to describe the ‘committed’ relationship of a gay couple here (though contrary to statistical analysis), a repugnant adjective describing the ‘debacle’ of a war there; this dogma dropped often enough in the casual parlance of newspeak is enough to convince those out of touch with decorum that they have accepted these as truths, or at least ought to.

It is in this way that Old Media, which includes Hollywood and its influence, defines culture. It is through consistent redefinition of liberal culture that the consumer, without alternatives, acquiesces, his old morals replaced is obliged to accept the new.

Like it or not, the bias exists and exists for ‘progressive’ thought and against conservative thought.

Consumers drive the news only with respect to acceptability (see previously - ‘pre-existing disposition’), and cultural acceptability is driven by media if you partake and lack principled perspective, and personal morality and historical context if you do not.

The introduction of greater and greater levels of negativity and pessimism (not to mention perversity, licentiousness and a prevalent disrespect for refinement) degrades democratic society through news outlets and television programming in general.

It should be apparent that it is the views of the ‘newsmen’ that drive cultural positions to the extent that the culture is unprepared or unwilling to recognize or reason an alternative.

I can state a myriad of examples where this is the case, but the most obvious is the Iraq war. According to the media, consistently and verifiably pacifist, this war is a failed policy. But would the public view it as such if the reporting were not so defeatist, or perhaps were even sometimes optimistic?

Briefly, I think you underestimate its influence. If ‘news’ were to reject the current trend of vulgarity and champion the ideas that make society more principled, refined and virtuous, the consumer would accept them wholeheartedly.

Was it Public Education?

[excerted from an email conversation with a High School friend]


I too was proud then of my Reagan vote and even more so now.

I'm sorry for the questions, but finding someone who actually understands and cares about the state of the culture and affairs of the country, especially in this time where I believe so much is at stake, is a treasure. So many don't realize that when they are not engaged, they allow the most radical in society to determine the course of national ethos. Alarmingly, those are they who loath American institutions and moral culture.

My father was fairly ambivalent with regard to politics. I didn't really pick much of it up from him, other than his value for self preservation.

Looking back I think just living in a family where the mother and father are committed and loving parents and where personal responsibility plays a big part, generally gives one good perspective.

I really wanted to find out if you would give some credit to your education in the public school system.

I figured since we went to most of the same schools we would have the same opinion. Mine is not a good one. I think there are lots of problems there. We no longer teach values, morality, preservation and esteem for democratic principles. Shouldn't we have known who Edmund Burke was by 6th or 7th grade? What about key Supreme Court decisions that impacted the country in profound ways? I don't even remember studying the Constitution that completely... ever. Am I mistaken?

I've learned so much more on my own. I cannot say enough for books, the internet, and talk radio. I have a television, matter of fact I have three, but do you think they're ever on? Its like a sewer pipe. Every image attempting to turn my son into a 'playa', my girls into Paris Hilton, and my wife and I into prescription drug addicts.

We've let the 60's radical culture do so much damage to this country. Drugs, sex, Rock-n-Roll!!!

I suppose, at the risk of offending you, it has to be the Gospel of Jesus Christ that has taught me the most. It has been the catalyst for the kinds of changes I've made in my life that have led to the clarity with which I see the designs of evil among men. Two forces exist and are in constant opposition to each other in all things. When one makes scriptures a companion, and sincerely understands that man has poured centuries of civilization, history of thought, and divine translation into these books, one must come to the same conclusions about our temporal existence.

God wanted all of us to return to live with him again, but made men free to decide their fate. He offered them a way to return to him that would exalt them, but it required self restraint, integrity, morality and personal accountability. Satan had a plan too. He would guarantee that all souls returned, but through deceit, coercion and intimidation.

Apply this to the opposite forms of government, democracy and communism (tyranny... despotism), and you begin to see the distinction I am making.

The danger is that Americans will not endeavor to remain free by staying informed and educated, but will slowly acquiesce to subtly greater and greater levels of constraint and captivity. It is an historical cycle.

When education fails to teach this principle, or even denies its transcendent quality in an effort not to offend, then it becomes worthless.

I am sorry for going on and on, but I'm just so fired up about the elections coming up and all. We stand to lose a lot.

I appreciate your complement. I simply express my feelings and try to look deeply for the right words. When you know that words have meaning and can elicit certain responses and feelings, it should be important for you to use them effectively.

Rhetoric persuades and I wish to be persuasive.

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
- James Madison

Media Matters

Our perceptions frame our reality. When what we choose to perceive in this age of unlimited opportunities for clarification is only partial truth, or perhaps outright deceit, well then we our fools.

A Letter to a Friend

Hey, listen… I only bring this up ‘cause I care deeply about the perceptions people have of this country, its history and founding, and current understanding of its institutions.

 

It would not have had any affect on me otherwise were I not so respectful of you, your faith in the gospel, and your intellect and acumen in general.

 

However, I was miffed to hear you say that you believed the Constitution to be a living, breathing document open to interpretation.

 

Was it your intent to declare that this democracy would be better served by a handful of unelected expositors than by a representative congress?

 

I know that it’s a fashionable meme of the progressive movement, but may I say that this is a dangerous argument.

 

Perhaps you will accept my defense that the Constitution is a legal document and is binding on all men who would avow to live under its authority and that scholarly honors are not prerequisite for its understanding or application.

 

It is fixed in time certainly by divine consent and is not amenable but by the weight of a righteous and scrupulous citizenry who endeavor to maintain the liberties and agency of man, and who seek to preserve, protect and extend civilization with respect to supernal law.

 

Interpretations of the Constitution by secular humanists interjecting rights and permissions simply not contained in the document is not what was intended of the Judiciary. Its prescribed process was to apply the law as written by the democratic representatives in our congressional houses. It is tragic the way it has fabricated from whole cloth a leading role in the legislative process overarching democratic rule and subverting the system for laws formulation.

 

The battle now waged by the conservative movement is for a more subordinate and resigned Judiciary; a Judiciary that understands its role as applicator; fully supportive and subservient to the democratic process of rules making.

 

We simply cannot have the will of a democratic people being thwarted by the ideals of a handful of unelected elite.

 

For clarification’s sake… I happen to think that it is of the upmost importance to advance truth and to cut away the clouds of misunderstanding; and in all respects of course, the nascency of evil formulations.

 

 

 

 

Take it a step further...

Jim Calkins, the self-described self-interested blogger (It’s all about ME!), goes a long way in explaining the concept of ‘sight conditioning’, parlaying the psychology into a discussion on television viewing and its influence on perception.

In a talk I gave to a congregation in an LDS conference a month ago, I referred to a phrase, coined by the 19th century computer scientist Charles Babbage that has applications in social science and psychology. Mr. Babbage posited that a computer would only produce results concordant with the quality of data that is input, hence the phrase Garbage In, Garbage Out.

In an effort to explain the benefits of scripture study, I hypothesized about the importance of ‘good input’ in developing a healthy psyche or moral opinion, and further inferred, logically, that if the scriptures are the Word of God, and, God is Truth, it therefore stands that there is not a more pure form of Truth available to man than what is contained in the Bible and what are considered the standard works of the restored Church.

It is my opinion, and the opinion of many prophets and leaders of the Mormon religion that our sole spiritual endeavor on this earth is to know God more fully, which means he has called us to undertake a serious and inexorable search for Truth.

Jim has attacked specific media fare that he feels is explicitly detrimental to the mind and applies his understanding of the nature of 'sight conditioning' reasoning that “every single time we compromise with sin is when Satan gains more power over us. We get conditioned., and in short, we get duped.”

This evaluation is more relevant than ever given the preponderance of retrograde and fallacious dogma. Man’s general understanding, without the exercise of the Light of Christ - an inherent and divine elemental safeguard – and a commitment to heed the promptings of the Holy Ghost, is a product of empirical evidence. The counter culture of the 50’s and 60’s foisted upon us much in the way of false and dangerous doctrine and ideology which has been extremely persuasive and continues to re-invent the spiritual and moral righteousness of Americans particularly.

Our culture has become increasingly accepting of ideas, behaviors, and movements which, when subjected to the lens of God’s righteous desires, appear as malignant and metastasizing tumors of deceit and moral corruption. Spurious ideas of multiculturalism, tolerance of deviancy, and compassion for ignorant, destructive, even violent behavior, are peddled on the television and in academia reinforcing the selfish and nihilistic modern man to the exclusion of the paramount principles of unification, moral and civilized behavior, and the rule of law.

What must be taken from this critique, and from the further investigation of this psychology of ‘human’ and, subsequently ‘cultural', conditioning is the understanding that at the most subconscious level our perceptions, values and behaviors are being continuously modified either toward or away from those that our Heavenly Father has designed. Therefore, if it is not edifying it is not doing anyone any good and is certainly not challenging us to greater humanity, civility, or spirituality.

One World Socialism Equals Tyranny

Where do you put your faith? In the sovereignty of the nation that made men free… or in the conglomeration of nations, many whose leader’s human rights atrocities go undetected, are ignored, or even often are explained or excused away.
You had better believe that Western Civilization is under attack like never before. The influence of millions, if not billions of dollars, appropriated to spread the ideas of World Socialism and Communism, is corrupting our Congress. By lining the pockets of Congressional Democrats, Soros will attempt to usurp American sovereignty and convince us that through coercive taxation only will we manage the hardships that exist in the world.
Certainly, Americans bear a great burden in the advance of civilization and the progress of humankind, but this vehicle is nefarious. We must maintain our sovereignty to ensure that no 'One World' body, whose members include some of the worst regimes and examples humanity has to offer, ever becomes so powerful as to relieve us of the rights set forth in our constitution.
It is our responsibility to beat back this agenda and to recommit to a level of humble respect and appreciation for what liberty truly means. We need to continue to support the leadership role America plays in global politics by bringing its values to the rest of the world. We cannot be successful by subverting the goodness of this country through legislated coercion at the hands of a world body, but can only realize the dream of a world brotherhood through America’s continued prosperity.

Republican Legacy

Rebuttal worth noting:

 

Keith’s post linked in title:

 

Stats Don’t Lie in Civil Rights Voting

 

Keith Baker, in a public forum posting of 8/24/06 - Salt Lake Tribune - criticizes Craig Monson’s post in the forum 8/12, by first stating that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not, as Mr. Monson attempts to point out, a Republican triumph but, through failed logic of his own, reverses the success of the project and awards it to the Democrats. Secondly, he attempts to peg Abraham Lincoln as a modern day Howard Dean. Does anybody buy that?

 

Keith’s assessments are shallow and un-researched perspectives typical of the left and their tendency for an emotional conception of history.

Though John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, presided over the Act for most of its process, he was not, based on his record as a senator and subsequent campaign for the Presidency, particularly fond of the issue and much like the rest of the nation had complicated and sometimes contradictory views about civil rights.

 

             Keith’s citation of congressional voting statistics to bolster his argument is fragmented and is camouflage for the deeper truths. Simply stating that 19 more Senate Democrats and 17 more House Democrats voted for the Act is misleading and reveals an elementary level assessment. Considering there were 248 Democrats and only 178 Republicans in Congress, a majority by a third, it is inevitable that there would be more “aye” votes cast by Democrats. With that said, the figures that bear out the truth more fully are that 80% of Republicans in both houses voted for, with only 19% against, contrasting that with 61% of Democrats for and an astounding 38% against.

 

A stronger case is made by reviewing the voting records of congress prior to the building social unrest over the civil rights issue that began in the 1950’s and culminated in the early 60’s with the passing of the Act. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80% of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96% of the votes.

 

To address the second issue, Lincoln’s primary requisite as President was the unification of the Republic in the face of pressure from the south to secede. Though he was keenly aware of the battle waging to free the slave, his focus was on preserving the nation in its expansion. Keith’s assertion that Lincoln belongs in a class with the gay rights activists of this day is absurd. Though he presided over a war, as much economic as it was ideological, that emancipated thousands, his intellect and respect for moral traditions would have him viewing today’s moral dilemma with an eye to the appalling.

 

 

Vice and the Careless Man.

My buddy Jim - jimcalkins.blogspot.com - blogging about the snare of ignorance and the attempts by a certain evil force to use particularly influential people and their promotion of vice to subdue human reason, alludes to the example of television as a narcotic for the masses in dulling their senses to the current dangers of liberal ideologies.

What is ironic about Jim's argument is that, at the same time 'television' is numbing the human mind to the realities of an existential war with Islamo-nazism, a culture war with 'progressive academic groupthink', and the advocacy of a multi-cultured America with values no greater respected than those of the worst dictatorships, 'the programming' is promoting the self-same ideas in a subsconscious 'mind-meld' with the viewer.

Looking more clearly at the issue we see that the situation is always agenda driven. We can no more blame the television for the morose attitude against nationalism than we can the bottle which contained the vodka which quashed the libertarian desire in Russia.

Just as Lenin and Stalin attempted to dull the perspective of the Russian people through its influenc, and as Soros - wielding the heavy weight of the Democratic Party - attempts to use the legalization of Marijuana to captivate and usurp the agency of the American people, so the adversary, employing the apple polishers in Hollywood and main stream media, bids for our collective soul.

The Radical Left and the New Dems

VIEW THESE PHOTOS AT YOUR OWN RISK! THERE IS SOME NUDITY.

Anti Americanism runs deep on the left.

http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/

The Democratic Party will tell you that the anti-war movement is mainstream. That the majority of moderate Americans support it.

Look closely at these people. They do not represent me, my extended family, my neighbors, friends nor community... nor do the ideas presented represent anything in the way of general knowledge or moral judgement. Fabricated conspiracies and wildly exaggerated tales of American deceipt and national corruption quash rational evaluation, and blind hatred fuels a marginalized constituency which will only become angrier and more violent.

This is the radical left, supported by; The New Democratic Party, (see Lieberman vs. Lamont - http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06226/713379-152.stm) with special recognition going to Howard Dean, John Kerry, and (don't let her fool you) Hillary Clinton, and funded by George Soros and moveon.org. These are the 'useful idiots' defined in American history as early as 1948 who's job it is to assist in the advancement of socialism/communism.

This is not mainstream America. Mainstream America has an education not obscured by drug use, is family oriented, and lives by a moral code - also not obscured by drug use. But the radical voice of this very small minority enjoys a predominance in the media. It is scary to think of the influence it has on an ambivilent mind.
-Maurice

Benighted Cultures

It is unfortunate that man has not matured at the same rate across the globe, but that we must, so vehemently, defend liberty and agency.

What should be apparent to all is lost on those whose heritage has existed under an oppressive doctrine, a religion based on conquest and the subversion of the spirit of God.

Like all failed hypotheses, there is little doubt that this too should come to some ultimate demise but for the immutability of sin; the pride and covetousness… envy and anger.

Jim's Blog: Death of a salesman

Jim's Blog: Death of a salesman

This guy definately has a lew fews scroose.

Liberal 'Boomers' take credit for others hard work.

This contains a great analysis by Shelby Steele of current liberal psychology on the subject of war.


James Taranto gives an historical snippet of the civil rights movement which the Boomers take undue credit for.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008452


-Maurice Enchel

Renaissance of the Homeless

This article provides the consummate clarification of the failure of Secular Humanism and its derisory quest for a societal canon.

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/mhelprin/?id=65000507

 

Man, ever striving to construct a top-down working societal discipline in an effort to replace God’s law, creates only anomie. Why? Because man is not accountable to man. It is as simple as that. “I’ll not have you tell me what to do!”

“But God… God holds the key to your salvation young man and you better shape up or there’ll be hell to pay.”

 

You cannot hold man accountable to the rule of law when the consequences are so moderated or even repealed as the humanists have done over several decades.

 

The founders of America were successful because they recognized their inability to develop something more suitable than the doctrine found in the old and new testaments so used IT for the basis of law, referring to God often.

 

 

Dharma Bums relent

The debate over the SWIFT program’s utterly contemptuous disclosure by the Venerable – see ‘Godless’ by Ann Coulter – NY Times, is, in my estimation, over.

 

The logic follows that if we are at war with a murderous ideology that could well last for decades - putting a burgeoning generation of children at risk of increasingly devastating attacks on their economic inheritance and Constitutional patrimony - then proper action should be taken to frustrate, subdue, and eventually retire all aspects of this religious hegemony.

 

Americans are progressively concluding that the actions undertaken by this subversive organization, and liberal media in general, are bare knuckled assaults on this elected administration’s effort to prosecute this war contending nothing else but the sheer hatred for the ideologies of conservative politics and religious values for which it stands.

 

The liberal meme; lie, cheat and steal to get your way or otherwise follow the radical play book, courtesy Alinsky (see ties with Hillary Clinton), is rapidly being exposed by the ‘Radio Patriots’; Hewitt, Limbaugh, Medved et alii, and by the internet blogosphere. These mediums provide the magnification and illumination required for rooting out false doctrines and dangerous gospels, and for propelling an invigorated morality.

The gig is up on the mouvement progressif. The Democrats have animated this philosophy to its breaking point with diminishing returns and now it’s time for the sleeping giant of reason, thoughtfulness, and the overall tenability of conservatism, to dwarf this shallow, dishonorable and nefarious Beat-ism.

-Maurice Enchel

 

 

Jake is cool

I think Jake is the best son in the whole world.

 

DAD.