The best defense is a good offense

Salon is blaming "violent" right wing rhetoric for the Paris atrocities.   How many people fall for this?  It is the so-called right wing that wants to go after ISIS, Obama doesn't want to very badly.  He's afraid some of his snowflakes might get hurt.

Oops!  I guess that means I'm guilty of hate speech.  Time for the speech police to start arresting all such offenders.

To tell the truth, I'm not all that sold on the idea myself ( of going in there).  After all, that's what Bush did, and look what the left did to him.

Of course, if Obama goes in there, he's a hero.  If he fouls it all up, and a GOP candidate wins and gets in there and the body bags mount up, who will they start blaming?

The blood isn't on the so-called right wing's hands.  It's on Obama's hands.  They know it, so they are telling the so-called right to shut up because it's all their fault.  Sort of like how they handled Benghazi.  There's no video to shift the blame, though.  Not yet, anyway.  So, without the video, the right-wing can do just fine.  The best defense is a good offense.

Coal ash

I wrote a little bit about clean coal technology awhile back, and this is a bit of an update.

Are the clean coal people pulling our legs about clean coal tech?  I am inclined to think not.  Here's why in a Wikipedia article about coal ash.  Consider these quotes:

• After a long regulatory process, the EPA published a final ruling in December 2014, which establishes that coal fly ash does not have to be classified as a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
• in the case of bituminous coal, with the notable exception of boron, trace element concentrations are generally similar to trace element concentrations in unpolluted soils [ so this causes cancer????]
• As of 2006, about 125 million tons of coal-combustion byproducts, including fly ash, were produced in the U.S. each year, with about 43% of that amount used in commercial applications

Okay, that's enough.  It should be noted that this isn't even clean coal sources of ash.  In that case, the coal ash is most likely benign.

I am of the opinion that this is another case in which an energy source is being hampered by hysteria generated by the radical enviornmentalist lobby.  Keep in mind that, although Obama was positive about clean coal at one time, he has cooled to the idea lately.

Whatever he does is political in nature.  If he moves left, it must be for a reason.

Obama before the UN shortly after Benghazi

If you listen to this short excerpt, it may sound okay to you. But there's a problem here. Christians aren't beheading Muslims. The guilty parties for these atrocities are always Islamic.

So, what exactly is Obama saying here? This speech occurs shortly after 4 Americans are killed in Benghazi by what was claimed to be a mob reaction to a video. Or was it a terrorist attack, or a mob reaction? Are we to understand and excuse it even if it was a mob reaction? Maybe Candy Crowley knows the answer to that question.

Insult a Muslim and you must die? But we will only talk ( not actually DO anything ) about how the same Muslims that are always responsible for atrocities, but somehow it is our fault.

Meanwhile, the atrocities continue. Paris has been attacked twice recently. Will we get another reprimand about how this prophet of theirs must not be insulted? What did Paris do this time? Or will we get another reprimand about being intolerant? Were they intolerant? Is this the excuse for the latest atrocity?

If Republicans want to abolish the IRS

then why only cut corporate taxes to zero?

Besides, aren't the Republicans for limited government?  Maybe limited for corporations, not the rest of us.

You see, I don't get where the GOP claims that its pro Constitution, when they should know that the original Constitution did not allow any direct taxes to be laid.  It is was necessary to add the 16th Amendment before the income tax became legal.

Come to think of it, it seems that the Constitution avoided acting directly upon the public.  This was left to the states.  Note that even the states could not do income taxes, if I am not mistaken.

As for cutting corporate taxes to zero, why?  What is so great about corporations?

They don't call it the Stupid Party for nothing.  The GOP's voters are mostly small business people.  The Big Corporate types are typically Democrat.  Why help Democrats and take the blame for being for the rich?

A bit of regret to read this

It was my understanding that the history of Texas was part of the required curriculum in this state.  That may not be the case anymore.

The history of Texas is a good example of what can be done about a tyrannical government.  Keep in mind that the Texans were badly outnumbered.  There were only about 35 thousand white men in Texas at the time of the revolution.  Out of this small number, they had to raise and equip an army that could take on Santa Ana, and an entire nation.

The way that history is likely to be taught now is that the US stole Texas away from Mexico.  That's wrong.  Mexico couldn't settle Texas because the Mexican people were afraid to come here.  The Commanches and Apaches were too fierce and the Mexicans were just too darned scared of them to come here.  This formed a barrier against settlement.  It is true that this barrier was easier to overcome from the north, but the Indians were no less fierce for the Texans as for the Mexicans.

The Mexicans cut off further immigration, which exposed the Texans to the dangers of the Indian tribes.  They held Protest Conventions and eventually began to rebel.   They were getting beaten badly and almost completely defeated when they got an almost miraculous victory at San Jacinto.

As for the United States, it was mostly sympathetic, but as far as the US military was concerned, Texas was off limits.

Mexico lost to a bunch of what they call pirates.  Pirates or Patriots, they still lost.  And the US military was not involved at all.

Without that history being told, the popular belief that the US stole Texas will become the norm.  Trouble is, it isn't so.

How did Texas become a state then?  By the slimmest of margins.  Sam Houston wanted a treaty, but that was impossible.  It didn't even get a majority in the Senate.  Not even close.  They had to use a joint resolution to admit Texas to the Union.  One may even regard that as unconstitutional, but it happened.

Even the joint resolution almost failed.  As for Texas itself, it was offered freedom from Mexico if it didn't join the United States.  Both options were on the ballot.  The people chose by a 3 to 1 margin to enter the American union.

Although the US took a large portion of Mexican territory in the subsequent war, Texas was already an independent nation and Mexico herself was ready to grant recognition.  Texas joined the union.  It was only able to do that with a reluctant United States, which was badly divided over the issue of slavery.  Anything reported otherwise is false.

Why write this?  Only to show that our country is being overrun and that there's nothing being done about it.

If they don't teach this in Texas schools anymore, it could only be because the Mexicans don't like to be reminded that they lost TWO wars.  One to Texas and the other to the United States.

Obligatory, 11.14.15; Random thoughts

You have to have a title.  I don't know if this ends up as a random thought kind of post, because it all tends to veer back into this word called TRUTH.

Indeed, what is truth?  Truth may mean differing things to different people.  There is a tendency to equate BELIEF with TRUTH, but the two are definitely not the same thing.  An example?  The people who arrested Galileo did not believe Galileo was telling the truth, as they believed that they were the ones in possession of the TRUTH.  If you believe the way those people believed, you would be considered in these modern times to be an ignoramus.  Certainly, the people in Galileo's time and Galileo himself could not both be right.  Postmodernism hadn't been invented yet.  Yes, my dear snowflakes, only one of them had to be right and the other had to be wrong.   We now know who was right and who was wrong.  Galileo was definitely in the minority in his time.  But notice what is believed can change.  The TRUTH itself is unchangeable.  It is eternal.  Sort of like God.

Let me segue into what I read on Limbaugh's page yesterday.  Limbaugh said that Clinton believed in his own lies.  Hello?  Anybody home there in the office of the mayor of "Realville"?  If Clinton believed in what he said, how can he be lying?  Clearly, there must be some confusion in "Realville" about what the word "lying" means.  So, what does lying actually mean?  I could point to the dictionary and get that out, but won't.  My understanding of lying requires that you know what the TRUTH is.  If you believe that you know what the TRUTH is, and you speak to that effect, even though it may be wrong, it isn't necessarily lying.  Lying means to know the truth and DECEIVE another about it so as to prevent the other from knowing the TRUTH.  Clinton could not believe his own lies then and be lying at the same time.  This is a logical contradiction.  I think the word for it is called a tautology.  Therefore, like the people in Galileo's time, if Clinton is wrong, and he believes in what he is saying is right, then he can certainly not be lying about it.  No, he would just be wrong.

Just for the record, it bears remembering that Bill Clinton was caught red handed in one big fat lie about Monica Lewinski.  How can he not be having sex with Monica Lewinski and have his semen stains on her blue dress?  If he believed that he wasn't having sex with Monica Lewinski, then he was like Bruce Jenner in a sense.  Bruce Jenner thinks he's a she, but that is impossible.  There's something wrong upstairs in Bruce Jenner's head if he truly believes he's a she.  Girls don't become fathers.  And semen stains appear on a dress because of what?  The dog surely didn't pee on it.

The accusation of lying is abused in my opinion.  That in itself could be a form of lying.

Why do people lie?  It must spring forth as all actions do--- from some type of motivation.  The motivations can be amongst many, but it can be distilled down into one general one, if I may be so bold.  People lie in order to get something that they wouldn't get if they were truthful.  To put it in another way, a liar seeks to get an advantage.

Now some amongst the conservative side would say to me---who's side are you on?  Why are you defending Clinton, and criticizing Rush?  Don't you know that these Clintonoids are no good?  Rush is the good guy.  Yes, I suspect that the Clintonoids aren't so good.  But fighting them with more evil isn't necessarily going to produce anything good.  To defeat the Clintons, one must remain faithful to the truth.   But you should always be faithful to the truth.  What is it about the Clintons that makes you want to deviate from that?

This was supposed to be a random thought kind of post, but it seems not to be at the moment.  You don't like it?  Sue me.  Bwah, hah, hah!

Seriously, I don't want you to sue me.  I don't want you to beat me up.   I just want you to read my blog. Pretty please.  With sugar on it, even.  Okay, I might be lying.  Just a little about that.  Sometimes, when you tell the truth about someone, you are likely going to produce some anger.  The truth is that I would rather make you mad than have you read my blog.  If my blog offends you, it can only be because you do not respect the truth.  I try to.  Really, I do.  And that is definitely no joke.  Even if it turns people off so bad that they won't come back to my blog.

Notice that I emphasize the word try.  I am only human and I am subject to error.  I realize certain of us are snowflakes and are never capable of even the smallest mistake.  Ever, ever, ever.  But I cannot be confused with the snowflakes.  I make my share of mistakes, believe you me.

Maybe that is enough for now.  Maybe the snowflakes can take just so much.

The Rape of Sweden

h/t  BMEWS

It's hard to watch this.  It pisses me off.

It's not enough to say it.  You're gonna have to do something about it.  Yes, and that may hurt.  I'm sure the little snowflakes cannot bear the thought of that.

Still moving out junk

And I am amazed at how much there is.  A couple big boxes just went out.  Several trash bags yesterday.

There's a lot more.

I gotta say.  This is embarrassing.

As for that last post on Sgt. Hartmann:  I don't really expect the next president to be like that.  Nope.  We'll probably get Hillary or Sanders, which is just the opposite.  Hillary may scream at Bill, but she won't scream at the precious snowflakes.

Obligatory, 11.13.15; Catering to weakness

There was this post recently, in which I discussed courage.  The failure of our political class is that both parties encourage weakness in the population.  They cater to weakness.  They don't push people to become bigger and better people.  They are probably afraid of a backlash, as a pampered and spoiled rotten populace rebels against discipline.

Military service should be mandatory, as in Switzerland.  Every man keeps his own rifle, per second amendment.  Instead of that, we get the volunteer services, which cater to the general population's desire to stay out of the "poop" and "in the rear with the gear".  ( A little Full Metal Jacket lingo there )

While on the subject of that movie, we need a Sgt. Hartmann to whip us into shape.  We have become fat, lazy, sloppy, and stupid.  We are losing our culture and our civilization.

Homosexuality is catering to a weakness.  It should be against the law like it once was.  We have Anthony Kennedy to thank for overturning that law, and instituting homosexual marriage.  It is catering to weakness.  Homosexuals should overcome their weakness.   It should be REQUIRED that they do so.

Abortion is catering to weakness.  Getting pregnant and aborting the child allows both who are responsible to shirk their responsibilities as adult human beings.  Granting the "right" to an abortion only caters to the weakness of being irresponsible.

The left advocates these foolish policies.  The so-called right only pretends to be against them.  Once the test comes, they typically fold.  It is up to the people to insist that they shoulder their duties and resist the left.  We the people need to be like Sgt. Hartmann.   No more pukes!

You can go down the line in all the pathologies today, same thing.  Catering to weakness.  Drugs and so forth.  You people need to shape the hell up.

Further reaction to the debate of 11.10.15

Rand Paul may have croaked himself politically with what he said.  Although he did give himself an advantage, it won't last.  That's because it looks like he lied about Rubio's tax plan.  Once that gets digested, Paul is kaput.  He may well have been anyway.  There was also a stretch where he said he believed in AGW.  As far as I am concerned, this may as well croak him by itself.

Rubio, on the other hand, needed help with Paul's attacks.  The post debate spin bailed him out.  That doesn't help unless he can learn from it and be ready next time.  A hit like that in the general election could cause him to lose.

Trump was also attacked by Paul, but Trump responded himself on social media.  Paul's attack on Trump was probably ill-advised as the one on Rubio.  Paul is going up against the big guns and he's got not very good ammo.

Less than two weeks ago, it was written (not by me and no link, sorry ) that the race is down to four to six candidates.  Where is it now after this debate?  I'd say

1. Trump
2. Carson
3. Rubio
4. Cruz
5. Fiorina

With Fiorina fading fast.

It's Carson or Cruz next because the big money boys like Rubio and Trump is loaded.

But Cruz is in good shape money wise.  So is Carson.  Something has to shake out though.  Probably Fiorina is next.  Then Carson because too many influential types don't like him.

Groan. Can the GOP ever get it together?

Came across this at Instapundit.  The article linked to is a criticism of Ben Carson.  The trouble is, I don't see why the reason for the certainty that the man is wrong on some of what he says.

It may be possible that Carson talks a bit much about things he doesn't know that much about.  Hence, some of the unwise commentary.  That could be a product of not being a lifelong politician.  Eventually, politicians learn not to do that, but even then, there are some things that got said last night that were questionable; even amongst those who should have known better.

Why pick on Ben Carson?  He wasn't the only one.  He may have spoke less, but that was because he wasn't asked.  Others interrupted in order to get more speaking time.  It was noted at various times.

Somebody has to win.  Then you'll have to accept it or stay home.  Lots of GOP voters stayed home in 2012.  Enough to lose to Hussein.  Is that what we want?

Is there a candidate who, if he won, it would cause me to stay home?  Maybe Lindsey Graham, if he is still in the running.  Does the writer feel that much against Carson?

Now that I've vented

You may have guessed that I haven't been working lately.  Yeah, lower back ailment.  It is stubborn this time.  Anyway, I'm going to do some stuff around the house.  Earlier during this down period, I cleared out some old stuff.  I'm going to do some more of that.

This time it will be old books.  I'll go through my book collection and get rid of stuff I can't use.  This won't be easy even though some of these books have been in storage for years.

I am limited somewhat physically, so this work will go pretty slowly.

Update:

Gone through most of the books.  There's a little bit left that I haven't checked into yet.  Most of the checking can be done by tomorrow, if I wish.

Trying to enlighten a fool is even worse than being the fool

Could that be the mistake I'm making here?  You cannot reason with a lunatic nor a fool.  If you are going to get people who are like this, and insist upon being like this, then the bravo sierra must come to an end.

Either you listen or there's going to be trouble.  Guaranteed.  No, that's not a threat, it is a guarantee.  You are lighting a match in a room fool of tnt when you don't listen.  You are being a fool.

Maybe I'm giving too much credit to people who haven't got any damned sense.

The title of this post is a paraphrase from the Bible I think.  But I don't remember where.

Does it mean that I'm giving up.  No.  Hopefully, there are a few people out there that are "worth it".

Reichstag Fire

I'm wondering at the moment whether or not the Mizzou controversies are somehow meant as a false flag operation in order to suspend civil liberties.

The history of the Reichstag Fire is recounted in this Wikipedia entry.  There is some disagreement as to whether or not the Reichstag Fire really was a false flag operation, or what the Nazis were accusing it of being; a subversive plot by the Communists in order to bring about a revolution.   Thus, I think the key to it is not who was doing it or why, but how it was being used, quote:

...the Nazis used the fire to solidify their power and eliminate the communists as political rivals

comment:

The Nazis eliminated the communist's representation in the Reichstag in order to give themselves a majority, which they did not have before.

The Nazis never won an election by gaining an absolute majority, but they did have a plurality.  With the elimination of the communists, they gained the majority and passed the Enabling Act, which suspended civil liberties.  Therefore, they used the event of the fire in order to suspend civil liberties.  This ushered in one party rule that didn't end until the Nazis were defeated on the battlefield.

So, what are the protesters trying to achieve at the university?  Aren't they trying to get civil liberties curtailed?  "Safe zones" where nobody can contradict the political correctness arbiters?

This may be a trial balloon in order to see if they can get the First Amendment stricken not only on campus, but throughout the United States.  Michael Moore wants this to go nationwide.  Really?  Why?  Because somebody might have called a black guy a nigger?  So that's what is has come to in this country?  How do you know that this even happened?  How do you know that these KKK threats that they are talking about even occurred?  Even if the threats did occur, does it require that they go into hysterics?

You can bring in the police in order to improve security, but they don't trust the police.  Why?  Because they have propagandized against the police in order to set this up.  The police cannot be trusted, who is to maintain order?  Isn't it inevitable then that something is going to happen and they will use this event in order to escalate their demands?  These events could be used in order to demand more and more so as to get complete control over the discussion in this country.

That cannot be allowed.

Molten salt reactor tech takes a small step forward

As Instapundit says, "faster please".  This criticism isn't directed at the companies, but at the foot dragging of the government.

Good to see John Kutsch in the news.

Cotton candy

What is it about tax cuts that the GOP just cannot resist?  Was it Reagan's success with the issue, or is it just some magic words to say that may create success for them?  Magic words or cotton candy.  Either phrase will do in describing the emptiness I hear.

The GOP debate looks a little thin on substance.  It is supposed to be wonkish.  If this is the best wonk they got, they may lose this election.

Update:

Actually, Rubio made a fine little speech that covered all the bases.  Trouble with Rubio is immigration.  He may be soft on that issue, and that is going to hurt him.  Outside of that, he gave a fine answer about 30 minutes into the debate.  He hit all the sweet spots.  But immigration is the sour note.

Update:

Cruz zinged the amnesty lobby pretty good right after Rubio.  So, that one may have directed like a shell lobbed across the bow of the Rubio campaign.  Good job there for Cruz.

Update:

Rand Paul gave a good answer on taxes.  It sounded a little bit like Carson's, but Carson didn't go into as much detail about his.  Rand Paul isn't likely to win.  Cruz talked about his earlier.  Don't really like Cruz's plan.

Update:

Cruz gets his shot at taxes.  He makes a good pitch for his plan.  I'll dial back the criticism just a notch.

Update:

Rubio makes an impassioned pitch for a pro family tax code.  Sounds good to me, but who pays for it?

Update:

Rand Paul goes after Rubio on his tax plans.  How is it conservative, he asks.  I think he scores on this point.

Rubio has a point about families, but the other point is valid as well.  How do you pay for this stuff?


Final Update:

I'll stop here.  It may be about half way through.  There's no mention of a plan to make the country self-sufficient in energy.  Maybe that is just as well, because Nixon did it 40 years ago, and we are still dependent upon exports.  All the same, it could be more specific as to why their proposals would work, rather than just sound good in a debate.

Rubio: "Welders make more than philosophers"

Yeah.  I know.  The welders make more than bloggers, too.

Bwah, hah, hah.  ( a little gallows humor there)

The quote was from the GOP debate last night.  I'm watching it now.

Obligatory, 11.11.15; Hollow society

Last night there was a GOP debate, or so I hear.  As you may note, I missed it.  I don't know if the answers are coming from any of those guys, hence the lack of interest.  Some may be better than others, but none of them are "hitting the spot" so to speak.  Perhaps last night, somebody may have hit the right note.  Generally speaking, we aren't hitting the notes, folks.  There's something out of tune, you might say.  Something's not quite right.

A couple things were said after the 9.11 atrocity that have stuck with me over the years.  On the Chris Baker show on the date of 9.11 itself, a caller said that a Muslim once told him that we don't defend our culture.  The second thing  I recall hearing at that time was what a prisoner at Gitmo said about the West--- "you are hollow".  So, what does that mean?  The second may be more informative than the first, but they both point to the core of the problem.  Something is missing.  What is that?  What makes our enemy say that we are hollow?

I note that left doesn't have much problem defending what they want from this society.  But the so-called right seems to have a problem.   If you observe from the Missouri situation, those people are willing to endure something, and do things.  The right just has words.  I think that is a big clue.  It's not that the left is more courageous, though.  The right will take on the jihadists, but they won't take on the left in this society.  When it comes to confronting the left, the so-called right goes wobbly.  I don't know if the Missouri university president was on the political right, but he was probably a heckuva lot more conservative than the thugs that are terrorizing the university.  His response to their demands was to cave in.  The so-called right is very good at caving in to the left.  But the left won't take on the jihadists.  You might notice the tinge of fear in that.  I think the fear is what motivates them, not any principle.  The left isn't courageous in principle, they are just bullying the cowardly right.

What is missing is courage.  Neither the left nor the so-called right has any.  The left pushes the so-called right around because they haven't any guts to resist.  The so-called right won't resist even if the facts are overwhelmingly on their side.  Instead, they just cave in time and time again.  Meanwhile, the nation crumbles before our very eyes.

What do I mean by courage?  I once read the definition of it to be the capacity to endure hardship and adversity with fortitude.  Perhaps it could be stated as the willingness to endure some pain in order to get some gain.  The so-called right just has words.  They won't even have words when the political correctness police crack down on them.  The left will take on the right, because the so-called right are such through and despicable cowards that they will give in even when they are indisputably correct.

At some point you have to be willing to "die on a hill" for something.  What are you willing to die for?  Anything at all?

Probably nothing.  That's the kind of thing that the jihadists can point to and say that we are hollow.  We won't defend our culture.  We won't muster up the courage to defend what's right.  Collapse is inevitable unless some courage is found.

A thousand debates won't make the difference that one show of courage can make.  From the appearances that I read about yesterday, it won't begin in Missouri.  And it won't end there either.

$20 Homemade 12 Gauge Shotgun

What I'm trying to do here is to show that you cannot completely suppress gun ownership because the principles involved in their making are fairly simple.  You'd have to have a totalitarian state in order to enforce gun confiscation.

No?

Alright, but just realize that the government would have to break the law in order to confiscate weapons in the first place.  What would stop such a government from taking even more aggressive steps?

What they are proposing won't work.  But that's not the real point of all of this anyway, is it?

Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World

People seem to want to make fun of what Ben Carson said about the Holocaust, but this Swiss man pretty much saw with his own eyes, and he said the same thing.  Who do you believe more?  This man, or someone who is dangerously naive?  Incidentally, the video was made in 2009, well before the name of Ben Carson became well known.

How Far Will a Bow & Arrow Kill?

You want gun control?  What about bows and arrows?  These can be even worse.  I remember reading about the Indian wars in Texas.  Texas Ranger Rip Ford said that an Indian with a bow was the equal to man with a six shooter at close range.  After watching this, you can definitely see how that could be true.  An Indian could handle his bow and arrow with great strength and accuracy.

You can even make a bow and arrow.  It ain't high tech.



Here's a crossbow that can fire over 300 fps.  

The most powerful crossbow v. the body armor.  Who wins?

Coal Gasification Overview

Interesting to read one of the commenters.  She claims that these really aren't clean as they say.  What strikes me as strange is that this stuff (coal ) already existed.  How can using some of it be good, but the rest bad?  They have some explaining to do.  Of course, you may have to wait a long time to get an answer.

I think this could work pretty well.  That's why it won't be tried.

Using it for the grid may not make as much sense as using it for automotive fuel.  I figured out once that it costs over 60 cents per kwh equivalent to use an internal combustion engine to produce power from gasoline.  It is cheaper to produce fuel this way than from oil, but supposedly the money isn't there.

I think that excessive regulations prevent this, not a lack of profitability.

WND / Clout Poll: 85% likely voters say US headed in wrong direction

wnd

quote:

That belief is held by 51.9 percent of Democrats, 83.9 percent of independents and 87.4 percent of Republicans.

It would be interesting to know what the independents think about who is the most responsible.

If there's one thing that liberals and conservative agree upon: both say by a 9 to 1 margin that things are on the wrong track.  Evidently, nobody knows who the fault belongs to, as Obama is still near his usual poll ratings.

Krugman blames the GOP, as usual.  He throws in the Bible Belt, too.  If you believe Krugman, all we need is a lot more spending and higher taxes.  That'll fix everything.

Left-wing censorship

Mob violence is thwarting the reporting of what is going on at the University of Missouri.  Where's the media on this one?  Mobs forced the university president to resign over nothing.  The guy did nothing wrong.

You won't hear about it because the media won't report it, nor the scandalous behavior that forced the president to resign.

With the media being the way it is, it is probably smart politics to keep the focus on the corrupt media.  Without the truth, the people won't even have the chance to do the right thing.

The right thing would be to force Hillary out of the race.

Update:

The university president was blackmailed out of his office.  He had to quit because of the harm that it would do to the university if they could not fulfill their obligations to play a game.  Charges could be filed for extortion based upon the open admission of the writer in that link.  Nothing in that link describes a single thing that the president did to warrant his being forced out.

The real reason why Carson can't win

American Thinker



quote:

The Democratic Party cannot win without the black vote.  They need for blacks to think that whitey is holding them back and that only the government can take care of them.  That is why, in my humble opinion, a black Republican will never make to the White House.---Patricia L. Dickson

comment:



Exactly.  That's why it is disappointing for a guy like Dick Morris to start echoing the line about Carson's alleged lack of integrity.  Consider where the charge is coming from:  people who don't care that the Clinton's are crooks.  Now these people are coming after a guy for nothing worse than an imprecise use of language.  Talking about Al Capone complaining about someone spitting on the sidewalk.



The real reason is that people love the darkness rather than the light.  They'd rather believe a lie than the the truth.

Morris really, really doesn't like Carson

Dick Morris stretches things himself when he goes after Carson's credibility.  It lists a whole bunch of "whoppers" that look to me to not be that at all, but a difference of opinion.

If Carson is wrong about the Pyramids in Egypt, it doesn't make him a liar.

If Carson says he could have gone to West Point after talking to Gen. Westmoreland, it doesn't necessarily mean that he's lying because he cannot prove it.  An example?  I can say where I lived when I was 8 years old, but if it no longer exists, and I can't prove it by showing it, it doesn't mean I'm lying.  I can give a LOT of examples like that from my own life.  An examination of Carson's background shows that he could have gone to West Point if he wanted to.  There's no there there.   Westmoreland is dead, you can't ask him if he ever met Carson.  The accusation of lying is way the hell over the top.

If the point of Morris' video is to convince someone like me to go against Carson, he has failed.  He hurts his own credibility.  This was a shoddy attempt to harm Carson.  He's got to do a whole lot better than this if he wants to question his viability as a candidate.

But he might be right.  Since so many people are ready to vote for Hillary even though a majority do not think she is trustworthy with regards to the truth, I don't get the point of Morris' argument even if he was 100% correct.  It is this society, a society that can vote for a woman like this in the first place, that is the problem.  At worst, Carson is a very minor offender.  He cannot compare with the likes of the Clintons.  The comparison is not apt.

Update:

It looks like Morris may have gotten some of his material from a New York Times editorial.  Really, Dick.  You have to be a bit more critical when you read this stuff.  What happened to critical thinking skills?

Morris is sloppy sometimes.  Maybe more than sometimes.

That's what I've been trying to do

Meaning that I have been writing stuff like this, but it isn't gaining the kind of traction that you'd think.  On the other hand, since people don't give a poop about the truth, it doesn't matter then that I've been dead on accurate for the longest time.

The facts that show the gathering forces and what they portend for the future:

• lower birth rates
• homosexuality
• leads to: unlimited immigration and disintegration of nation states
• over reliance upon money
• limits to growth
• lack of true growth in the economy as measured by the gdp per capita in gold
• leads to: the collapse of economic and military strength
• abandonment of morality and of religion, even the redefinition of it
• lack of true scientific and technical advances, and the rise of phony technical advances as evidenced in virtual reality
• the falseness of society, the hostility to truth
• leads to: total collapse of a civilization analogous to the fall of Rome with no virtuous forces left to save it

It ends up distilling it all down to falseness.  We live in a false age.  The gathering forces are those that must pick up the pieces somehow when it all comes crashing down.  Will there be enough virtue left to salvage anything?  Virtue comes from truth, not from falseness.

Reality cannot be denied forever.

Dirty Harry - The Cross Scene

Dirty Harry carries a knife with him on the meetup with "Scorpio", the serial killer.  Maybe he should've carried two, and used the second one immediately after the first to completely cripple the bastard.

What I'm getting at is this:  even a light armament is better than nothing.  But these bozos today want to ban everything that can help you ward off such an attack.

It's not that they're stupid.  No, they are eliminating a threat to themselves.  It's not to help YOU.

Obligatory, 11.9.15; Abortion and pro-life

This is one of those posts in which I will be discussing how I am skeptical of what people say are their reasons for doing what they do.  You see, I am becoming quite cynical about people.  What they will tell you isn't necessarily so.

If you are "pro-choice", then you will say that this gives women some help in a cruel world that won't help them.  This may be so, but it isn't always so.  There are some cases in which adoption could work.  Indeed, this gave me an idea this morning that I thought I'd share.

The idea is that the woman could be offered a choice to take some money for her unborn child instead of aborting it.  If you really wanted to save the lives of these babies, you'd be willing to do something like this, instead of just blaming the woman ( and the man ) for causing this situation to happen.

Millions of dollars or perhaps billions get spent on the politics of the thing.  If they really wanted to stop this from happening, they could organize for that end, as opposed to giving some politicians some money so that they can have power for themselves.

There'd be adoption agencies set up to distribute the money in exchange for the child.  The children can be sent to a good home that will raise solid citizens, provided that liberals don't get hold of them.

This already exists?  Then expand it.  Fund it.  Don't fund the politicians.

Obligatory, 11.8.15; Sunday shows and miscellany

Need to post something today.  I did add an update to the post before this one.  It is rather chilling that this kind of stuff is going on just south of the border and involved a border agent.  This is another red light on the dashboard.  One of many.

So, my day today?   I did something I don't usually do:  I watched one of those wretched Sunday shows on TV.  Steffie Stephanopolous' show whatever it is called now.  It used to be called "This Week" with David Brinkley.  Back when there was a bit more class, but I repeat myself.

Anyway, the part of the discussion was about Ben Carson.  These guys aren't going to drop this scholarship nonsense.  Now they are saying is that he should have used more precision in his language.  Hmm.  Okay, let's give an example of how silly this is.  Let's say an interior decorator takes issue with you for calling a color green instead of chartreuse.  "He" will probably say that you should be more precise in your language.  Yeah?  Almost everybody will see green and probably not want to even pronounce that other word.  Get it?  We are being lectured by interior decorators on the name of colors.  Carson used "scholarship" when he was technically wrong, like saying green for chartreuse would be technically wrong.  Who doubts that he could have gotten into West Point if he wanted to?  It's a total non-issue.

What I saw on the show was a lot of attention paid to non-issues like this.

As for the rest of my day so far, I worked a little.  Then I cleaned up a little.  I used six trash bags so far to remove a lot of old clothes that have to go.  About two bags will contain clothes good enough to donate to charity.

A day in the life.  Whoop-de-doo.