Watcher of Weasels Keeping an eye on the weasels of the world 2018-05-25T23:36:34Z http://www.watcherofweasels.org/feed/atom/ WordPress Bookworm http://www.bookwormroom.com/ <![CDATA[The choice for California governor: John Cox v. Gavin Newsom]]> http://www.watcherofweasels.org/?p=17415 2018-05-25T23:36:34Z 2018-05-25T23:36:34Z In the battle for California governor, a surprisingly even-handed pro-Gavin Newsom flyer makes an incredibly strong case for voting for Republican John Cox. In an ideal world, on June 5, when California voters go to the polls, members of the various political parties would have a chance to select which [Read More]

The post The choice for California governor: John Cox v. Gavin Newsom appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>

In the battle for California governor, a surprisingly even-handed pro-Gavin Newsom flyer makes an incredibly strong case for voting for Republican John Cox.

In an ideal world, on June 5, when California voters go to the polls, members of the various political parties would have a chance to select which of the candidates affiliated with their party should end up on the ticket in November. But we do not live in an ideal world. We live in California, which several years ago chose to become an “open-primary” state.

What “open primary” means is “no primary” — party members cannot choose their candidate. Instead, an open primary is a “pre-election election,” with the top two winners facing off against each other in November. As I detailed in a post dedicated to the whole misbegotten scheme, the purpose is to remove Republicans entirely from the California ballot every November.

Sometimes, though, even the best-laid Democrat schemes go awry. In this case, two factors are creating the serious possibility that the Democrat front-runner, Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, will find himself running, not against a less popular Democrat, but against an actual Republo-Libertarian, businessman John Cox.

The first factor behind this unexpected scenario is that there are a ton of Democrat candidates, ranging from hard Left to harder Left to hardest Left, and they are literally tearing each other apart. While Newsom will undoubtedly end up on the ballot’s top spot, it appears that the other Democrats will divide the vote so much that none will take second place — which leads us to the second factor: The mini-conservative rebellion in California seems to be consolidating around John Cox.

I have to admit that, of the two top Republican candidates, I prefer Travis Allen. This is not meant as a cut at Cox, whom I’d be very happy to see in the California governor’s mansion. I just like Allen’s energy more.

The numbers, however, seem to be supporting Cox, which is, I assume, the reason why Trump just endorsed him. I don’t see Trump’s endorsement as an actual personal preference for one candidate over the other. I think he’s being a pragmatist and is throwing his weight behind the candidate currently most likely to prevail over Democrats other than Newsom for a spot on the November ballot.

What’s clear is that, now that Trump has endorsed Cox, Democrats are worried. How worried? I received an interesting flyer in today’s mail from the Citizens Supporting Gavin Newsom for Governor 2018, which I reproduce below. So that you can understand it, the flyer is a single sheet of 11 x 17 paper, folded in half. If you were holding the flyer in your hand, you would open it and see pages two and three facing each other:

In the interests of fairness, here’s a nicer photograph of John Cox that does not make him look like a senile dotard. Indeed, having met him, I can say with certainty that he is a vigorous, healthy, attractive man:

John Cox California Governor

Also, before I go any further, I should say that I have long held a very low opinion of Newsom, whom I knew about as a protegé of Gordon Getty, a major Democrat party fundraiser, more than two decades ago, back when I was still a Democrat San Francisco voter. Newsom’s dad, a judge, was a Democrat party operative and his late aunt was married to Nancy Pelosi’s brother-in-law. Those kind of connections tell you a lot about a man. I pegged Newsom as a headline grabbing opportunist when he started issuing gay marriage licenses during his tenure as San Francisco mayor. (There may have been a hidden personal element to his actions — or he’s just a super sleaze.)

Anyway, back to that flyer that came in the mail. I find it fascinating because it perfectly demonstrates the ideological split in California. Let me explain:

Across the middle of pages two and three, the flyer states “Two Different Visions for California” and, boy, is it right about that. What’s really fascinating is that the flyer presents Cox’s vision with perfect honesty because to the flyer’s authors, the bare bones facts are sufficiently off-putting that they need no elaboration. I’ll quote them here so you don’t have to scroll up:

Republican John Cox has been endorsed by President Donald Trump who said John Cox would be the best Governor California has ever had.

John is a conservative businessman who:

– Supports Trump’s tax cuts

– Believes we need tough border security and supports building Trump’s wall

– Is supported by the California ProLife Council

– Will stand up for the 2nd Amendment and says California has more than enough gun laws

Reading all of that, I thought of it as incredible praise for Cox. First, we’re getting reminded that he’s receiving effusive support from a President who is

  • sending the U.S. economy into hyper-drive;
  • presiding over the de-fanging of North Korea;
  • whipping Iran back into a corner while creating opportunities for Israel to live at peace with her neighbors;
  • enforcing our immigration laws;
  • placing on the federal courts judges who believe they are constrained by the constitution, federal law, and judicial precedent, rather than functioning as black-robed Leftist priests;
  • pushing back against the fascistic tyranny of political correctness; and
  • generally making America great again.

Second, Cox himself is supporting the same tax cuts that power-charged the economy, promising to protect our Southern border (which badly needs protecting in California), standing against the Democrats death-cult worship of abortion, and (hurrah!!) openly supporting the Second Amendment. This is my kind of candidate.

I was so thrilled by the above info that I double-checked the flyer’s last page to confirm that it really was from Gavin Newsom groupies — and it was. You see, in the divided state of California, cold, bare, honest facts that I consider absolutely wonderful are so bad in Leftist eyes that they believe those facts entirely disqualify a political candidate.

Let me say that again: According to Leftists, a candidate who wants Americans to pay lower taxes, to have strong borders, to have the right to self-defense, and to defend the helpless among us, is evil without further argument.

And what does the Left believe is a qualified political leader? Again, the Newsom list is simple and honest. The positions that make you and me recoil instead make Leftist hearts sing:

Democrat Gavin Newsom will stand up to President Donald Trump to protect California’s interests.

As Governor, Gavin will:

– Combat climate change and put California on a path to 100% renewable energy

– Protect immigrant families

– Fight for health care for all and protect a woman’s right to choose.

– Continue to push for tougher gun safety laws.

I would phrase things a different way. As Governor, Gavin will:

– Act to ensure that California becomes like Germany. Germany too opted to have 100% renewable energy, resulting in soaring energy costs, rolling brownouts, and poorer people entirely without energy. Moreover, as is true in Germany, California will inevitably be forced to buy cheap, dirty energy from other sources because there is no way in Hell that renewable energy (i.e., sun and wind) will ever power a state with around 40 million people.

– Continue to act as a sanctuary state for illegal aliens, all of whom are criminals simply by virtue of being here, and some of whom are violent criminals who commit a wide variety of crimes, ranging from pedophilia, to assault, to manslaughter, to out-and-out murder. What’s noteworthy is that, aside from the DUI deaths, most of these crimes prey on California’s most vulnerable poor and minority people. In order to increase the California Democrat voting bloc, Newsom wants to continue a policy that harms blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and poor people generally.

As you contemplate that fact, keep in mind that these crimes could be avoided simply by complying with federal immigration law. Also, I think everyone should recognize that this same “state’s right” attitude, which benefits the ruling class and harms blacks is the same as the “state’s right” attitude that allowed the antebellum South to justify slavery long after the north had recognized its immorality.

– Continue to have the shrinking California middle class fund everyone else’s socialized medicine, including medicine for illegal aliens. (Really — there’s a pending bill about that.) We know from looking at all other places with socialized medicine that the end of the road is always rationing, with the government deciding who lives and who dies.

Ostensibly socialized medicine worked in Europe as long as it did only because hard-working Americans were paying for Europe’s defense costs, freeing up money for that much-vaunted “cradle to grave” care — care, moreover, provided to homogeneous societies that had the same ideas about lifestyles, including everyone contributing to socialist policies. Now that American funding is drying up (and thank you again, President Trump, for forcing Europeans to step up to their NATO obligations), and now that Europe has invited in millions of Africans and Middle Easterners who don’t share in the homogeneous belief system about contributing to socialized medicine, European medical care is beginning to stink up the room with dead and dying bodies.

And here’s another interesting point: If you want to know who’s making bank on Obamacare (and CaliforniaCare) look no further than one of the sponsors of this flyer: Blue Shield of California. For those unaware, that’s a health insurance company. Don’t let its not-for-profit status fool you. It’s in the business of making money for its employees, if not any shareholders, so those who work for it are deeply invested in forcing consumers to pay for its services. I wrote on the eve of Obamacare that greedy insurance companies were salivating for it to pass because it would get them millions of new — who cares if they’re unwilling? — customers. As Blue Shield shows, they’re still salivating.

Regarding abortion, that’s a moral issue. After growing up supporting abortion, I’ve changed my mind and, indeed, have written repeatedly about the Leftist death-cult obsession with slaughter babies is so disturbing I want no truck with it. I’ve also written about the fundamental lie underpinning the Democrat abortion obsession, which is that we’re still living in the same moral world as in the 1950s and before.

— Continue to disarm Americans. Newsom is driven by an ignorant fear of guns and an inchoate sense that it’s always better for those in political power to preside over a disarmed citizenry. Regarding that fear about guns, it matters not that a CDC study shows what Second Amendment supporters have argued all along, which is that guns are used more often defensively, than offensively — much more often.

Never mind that logic and fact show that concealed-carry decreases mass shootings. You can’t shoot fish in a barrel if the fish shoot back.

Never mind that school shootings have consistently been minor tragedies not major tragedies when a good guy with a gun was on site at the time of the shooting. And of course, regarding Newsom’s sense that the only good gun owner is the government, never mind that the greatest killer of all is not a crazy high school student, a person hopped up on drugs, or even an MS-13 gang but is, instead, government acting against unarmed citizens (or more accurately, disarmed citizens).

I find Newsom’s positions appalling. They’re either illogical or immoral on their face or stupid, harmful, and expensive in practice. Yet, as I said, Democrats believe that all good-thinking people will review this flyer and pull the lever for Gavin Newsom.

My hope is that, this year in California, we have our own populist uprising. In a just world, California’s still sane citizens, the ones pushing back against the sanctuary state, the ones drowning in taxes, the ones struggling to pay their energy bills, the ones unable to afford health insurance, the ones seeing illegal aliens commit heinous crimes, will look at this very same flyer and, rather than seeing it as an encomium to Newsom, will do what I’m going to do: Vote for John Cox.

The post The choice for California governor: John Cox v. Gavin Newsom appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>
0
Bookworm http://www.bookwormroom.com/ <![CDATA[President Trump, our behaviorist in chief, schools Kim Jong-un]]> http://www.watcherofweasels.org/?p=17413 2018-05-24T19:54:20Z 2018-05-24T19:54:05Z Kim Jong Un’s temper tantrum upon mention of Libya was predictable, so I’m betting Trump put that out there on purpose to continue using behaviorism on Kim. Back in my kids’ pre-school days, one of the moms told a very funny story. She had been struggling to get her three-year-old [Read More]

The post President Trump, our behaviorist in chief, schools Kim Jong-un appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>

Kim Jong Un’s temper tantrum upon mention of Libya was predictable, so I’m betting Trump put that out there on purpose to continue using behaviorism on Kim.

Back in my kids’ pre-school days, one of the moms told a very funny story. She had been struggling to get her three-year-old to put on his shoes before he left the house. He thought this was a terrible idea and would throw a temper tantrum every time she told him to put on his shoes. When the tantrum ended, and he put his shoes on, she would give him a cookie to reward him for putting on his shoes.

It was only after going through this routine for several weeks that she realized that her son thought that the tantrum was a prerequisite to the cookie. In other words, she had managed to train him to tantrum first, put on shoes second.

What my friend described was behaviorism gone wrong. Good behaviorism, though, produces better outcomes. Before I go further, I’d better explain what I mean by “behaviorism.” Wikipedia offers a leaden definition:

Behaviorism (or behaviourism) is a systematic approach to understanding the behavior of humans and other animals. It assumes that all behaviors are either reflexes produced by a response to certain stimuli in the environment, or a consequence of that individual’s history, including especially reinforcement and punishment, together with the individual’s current motivational state and controlling stimuli. Although behaviorists generally accept the important role of inheritance in determining behavior, they focus primarily on environmental factors.

Yeah, whatever. Let me try to explain the concept as I understand it:

When you are dealing with a third-party (or a dog), and you want to change that third party’s (or dog’s) behavior, the reality is that, absent brute force, you it’s almost impossible actually to change someone else’s behavior. Like the famous light bulb, they have to want to change. The best that you can do when your current behavior is not effecting a change in the other person or dog is to change your behavior to see if that affects their responses. It’s essentially motivational training.

Dog training offers a good example. The old way of housebreaking dogs involved screaming at the dog if one found a puddle in the house and then rubbing the dog’s nose in it. This effectively terrorized dogs, but that did not mean they associated our behavior with the principle that they should do their business outside. Our psychological cues made no sense to them.

Sensible behaviorism says that we should create conditions within which the dog will succeed: Because dogs do not like to soil their immediate environment, we should keep them in that environment in the lead-up to their anticipated walk to prevent pre-walk accidents. Then, when the time is right, we take them outside and expose them to scent stimuli that will encourage them to do their business. Immediately upon their having done so, we praise them or give them a treat. Our behavior is no longer irrationally punitive but is, instead, purposefully positive. This encourages the dog to change its own behavior and to view the back yard, rather than the living room, as its toilet.

The same holds true in dealing with children. I will deny with the last breath in my body that I was a very good parent. I did figure out, however, that a child who is having a tantrum is demanding attention. The best way to deal with a tantrum, provided that the child is not hurting himself, someone else, or your house, is to ignore the child. The result was that my children never threw tantrums because there was nothing in it for them to do so. 

A hallmark of behaviorism is that if you reward a behavior you will get more of it. For the last thirty years, ever since President Clinton’s administration, every time North Korea had a temper tantrum — which took the form of threatening to build nuclear weapons, attack South Korea, or engage in other destabilizing conduct — America rushed in with promises of aid. Over the decades, our presidents and foreign policy mavens trained North Korea that it would receive substantial rewards for bad behavior.

Trump, who is a behaviorist extraordinaire, refused to follow this pattern. Instead of rewarding North Korea for poor behavior, Trump threatened it. When North Korea made threats and demands, Trump didn’t offer money. Instead, he said explicitly that America would hit North Korea twice as hard. That was his behavioral stick to discourage bad behavior.

Because Trump is a master behaviorist, though, he knew that he needed a carrot to elicit good behavior. The carrot was said he engaged in back-and-forth directly with Kim Jong Un, raising Kim’s status, and that he made it clear that if Kim Jong Un would behave sensibly there would be rewards for him. With Trump’s new tactic, which broke the old paradigm, Kim Jong Un also engaged in new tactics: He met with the South Korean leader, released hostages, and closed his nuclear testing site. Oh, and he agreed to meet with President Trump for peace talks.

Even with good behavioral stimulation, though, it still takes time for people’s learned behaviors to change. Kim Jong Un was raised in a tradition that promised him temper tantrums receive rewards. Like the three-year-old who still slips up after having been trained out of temper tantrums, he is still going to have periodic temper tantrums, so the behavioral work needs to be ongoing.

What triggered Kim Jong Un’s most recent temper tantrum was that both Ambassador Bolton and Vice President Pence mentioned Libya. Wow! We all know what happened there. In response to the threat of an American invasion, Qaddafi had agreed to destroy his weapons and behave. Moreover, he kept his promise. Nevertheless, Secretary of State Clinton (arguably at Sidney Blumenthal’s behest) announced that it was time for regime change in Libya, and President Obama support her. It was inevitable that Qaddafi would be murdered, and probably predictable given the world in which he lived and the enemies he’d made that he would be brutally sodomized for good measure. No wonder Kim Jong Un panicked when he heard the word Libya.

The question then becomes how stupid can Bolton and Pence be that both mentioned Libya? I happen to think that neither is stupid, so I must assume that they mentioned Libya on purpose. And this gets back to Trump’s behaviorism: The way I see it, President Trump is still training Kim Jong Un, and anyone else who is paying attention, that if you deal with Trump on his terms he will treat you well. Alternatively, if you do not play Trump’s way, he will treat you badly.

To keep the training going, Trump had his team deliberately speak a word that was a trigger for Kim Jong Un — the word “Libya.” Trump knew how Kim Jong Un would react, which was to throw a temper tantrum and refuse to speak to President Trump.

Instead of rewarding this behavior as past presidents have, President Trump again broke the paradigm. Instead, he repeated his earlier behavioral training with Kim Jong Un — serious threats for bad behavior coupled with promises of substantial rewards (including that huge intangible of good will) for good behavior:

Trump letter to Kim Jong Un

Trump probably had this letter drafted before either Bolton or Pence said a word about Libya. There’s a new sheriff in town and he knows how to motivate people.

One more thing: behaviorism is not a master-slave or boss-subordinate thing. It’s perfectly possible for an employee to train a boss, simply through the employee’s changing his own behavior in a given situation. Should Kim Jong Un ever stumble across this post, I’m not trying to say that he’s a dog and Trump his is master. I am saying, simply, that all of us have a certain amount of control over other people by changing our behavior in a way that inevitably changing their responses.

The post President Trump, our behaviorist in chief, schools Kim Jong-un appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>
0
Puma ByDesign https://pumabydesign001.com/ <![CDATA[Darwin Agrees with God about Man’s Thirst for Liberty]]> http://www.watcherofweasels.org/?p=17410 2018-05-24T18:03:42Z 2018-05-24T18:03:42Z Vassarbushmills (Note: I’m trying to reformat a book about the Constitution and the Common Man, so I began rereading a lot of scientific literature about evolution, natural selection, territory and instincts, provocative things I’d read in the 70s, then laid aside as they had no immediate impact on me, since [Read More]

The post Darwin Agrees with God about Man’s Thirst for Liberty appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>

Vassarbushmills

(Note: I’m trying to reformat a book about the Constitution and the Common Man, so I began rereading a lot of scientific literature about evolution, natural selection, territory and instincts, provocative things I’d read in the 70s, then laid aside as they had no immediate impact on me, since I was still in my 20s and predictably stupid back then.

(I now plan to “prove” that the thirst for Liberty is innate in Man and can be proved scientifically as well as through Morality, Reason and Logic, themes we dwell on all the time. I decided to make this the book’s hook, that Man’s desire and right to be free is agreed upon by both God and (some) Darwinists. And  since God is much older, He still gets top billing.

(This article is only a synopsis of the lynchpin theme in my book, introducing this thesis, the chapter itself rather long. I think you’ll find this entertaining, and just a little intellectually challenging, especially for those of you who thought all evolutionists moved in lock step with all those creepy anti-religion, anti-liberty scientists who seem to do the Left’s bidding these days. They don’t.)

   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

In the 13th Century there was an interesting Franciscan friar named Ramon Llull (pronounced “yoohl”), who, like another philosopher 400 years later, was also a noted mathematician. So Llull understood both the immutable laws of logic and God’s laws.  He was also something of a charismatic, which even in the days of the Crusades was rare, and rarer still, any day, for a mathematician.

Llull was born on Majorca, an island off the coast of Spain, so wanted to convert his people under the dominion of the Muslims in Spain. Now in those days the Arabs of Spain and North Africa were hardly the grimy camel drivers we see killing people in Syria, Iraq and Libya.  This period was probably the height of Muslim arts, architecture and scholarship. Their philosophers matched the best in the West and Byzantium; great minds such as Averroes, Avicenna, and Ibn Khaldun. (I studied these men in college, so know how to spell their names.) Llull knew he could not simply march up to people like that and begin pointing to Christian scripture (called “Bible-thumping” today) knowing that these people had their own holy books. Instead, he engaged in a process called “disputation”, which for those of you who’ve followed Plato, Socrates and Aristotle, was a form of argument, involving step-by-step logic, thrust and parry, and which carried the argument to a certain conclusion. If you’ve followed the arguments of Richard Dawkins, the anti-Christian animal behaviorist and William Lane Craig, the defender of Creationism, or the more entertaining Dinesh D’Souza-Christopher Hitchens debates on the subject of atheism versus religion (you can find these on YouTube, and are well worth the 45-minutes of your time), you’ll get some idea how the “disputation” style of argument works. No matter which side you’re on, it’s very edifying for it leads up to a point, if the cards are played well, where one side simply cannot answer one final logical question. Thus is was with Richard Dawkins, who has refused to debate Craig any longer, since Craig posed just that sort of question.

Sadly, this happened to Llull as well, in Tunisia, where he’d forgotten all about the home field advantage, and the Muslims stoned him to death. At age 82.

Llull’s lesson for us today is that it really is of no purpose to thump the Bible to people who either have another book, or no book at all, and are proud of it…if your purpose is to bring them around to seeing your way of thinking. Being a mathematician Llull learned that there were logical flaws in the Muslim philosophy of the day, and drove those points home. He succeeded in his arguments because he explored the logic of the faith of his enemies. It’s that simple and is a lesson we must learn if we are to do battle with the Left successfully.

Men like Llull usually had two purposes in their arguments. The first was to sow seeds of doubt in the scholars on the other side. Call it a slight vanity. Christopher Hitchens died doubting, unsure of his atheism, in all likelihood because of D’Souza’s arguments, but also the unrelenting love of his brother Peter, who was also a Christian. Richard Dawkins also probably carries doubt now, only his vanity has been bruised and his arrogance wounded so he can’t say it out loud. Besides, intellectual atheism, even the pseudo- variety,. pays so much better than Christian apologetics. He’s been asked questions he cannot answer about a subject he thought he had down cold; the non-existences of a guiding Force in the Universe. Nothing can be more humbling to a scientist than to deny, with certainty, the existence of a thing, then learn you cannot prove that it does not exist.

But sowing this seed of doubt was not Llull’s main purpose, just as it shouldn’t be ours.

His second purposewas to persuade the general population, not just the scholars; to actually gain converts. The same sort of people Christ preached to. Here we are talking of a different audience, the man in the street, not the cloistered scholar. When you can win the hearts and minds of the people in the street you can change the politics of a nation. It was that threat Llull posed that caused him to be stoned.

And this brings to where we are today in America, for our battle is twofold as well.

Even if, with the snap of a finger, we could pass new laws undoing all the old laws that the Left has foisted on us the past forty years, and which have made the American ground more fertile for their brand of culture-destroying supervision, making possible the sort of sterile political life the Left has in mind, we would still have to go out and first retake, then re-till and replant that lost ground. After all, we’re the ones who sat idly by and allowed all that ground to be spoiled in the first place, in the naive belief that as long as we kept our own yard clean, that would be civilization enough to keep the barbarians at bay.

Since Bill Clinton was elected our public schools have pumped out approximately four million students per year, graduates and dropouts combined. That’s 80 million, ranging from 18-to-38 years old in twenty years. How many of these came from broken or single-parent homes? Close to half, maybe more. How many were raised without any moral education based on any religion at all, outside the public schools, where situational ethics are considered moral teachings?  Probably more than half. And how many of those were raised in strong enough moral settings to strengthen rather than weaken the bonds of marriage and family as their own lives moved forward, thus providing fertile ground for that family to move into yet a third generation with the same core foundations?

This is the generational multiplier theory that is tilted downward, and algorithms are probably available to show this mathematically.

If you think I am speaking here as a moralist, well a little, but I am also speaking as a Darwinist, for these same “survival” indicia in our society are as important to them as they are to constitutional conservatives. Moreover, in these days, that 80 million I just mentioned are more apt to respond to, and respect arguments that are scientific in nature than those underpinned with moral principles, for the simple fact that our God-based foundations have been stripped away, stone by stone, in their world, while we’ve idly watched, for over forty years. “Love thy neighbor” is still a good rule, but it is no longer good because it comes from On High. It is good because it meets the approval of whatever commission that has been appointed to approve such things. And forget that “as thyself” part altogether.

American youth, as you already know, are perfectly OK with what many Darwinists and religionists agree are survival-endangering behavior, from indiscriminate sex with each other, and of either gender, having nothing to do with bonding, procreation or permanent relationships and a complete abjuration of the duty of self-sufficiency, or the simplest economic principles of personal survival.

Close your eyes and imagine the task that lies ahead for us then;

1) Saving the coming generations politically, which entails restoring the legal supremacy of the family, and its underlying traditions and institutions, then preventing the Left, with or without the Supreme Court’s help, to waylay our children in the public schools, which entails taking back the schools from the grass roots;

2) Taking back the public highway, which entails bringing a measurable percentage of those 80 million lost souls back over to our side of seeing the life-saving necessity of liberty in Mankind’s life, and the reciprocity and duty this involves, and to know what those building blocks of freedom mean in Darwinian as well as moral terms…and that they are almost the same.

If we don’t, the other side wins.

Darwinism is not all we have been led to believe, sometimes by our own preachers.

First, it never was a scientific movement marching in lock step. They disagree with one another all the time. Second, Darwin’s Theory is just a theory, many of its grander precepts, especially a direct link between ape and Man, are not proven. But the fact that humans, like other vertebrates, evolve within their own species is not really in doubt, or that our evolution is a result of new environments we’ve encountered, even over the past hundred years, e.g., smaller ears and bigger derrieres. The average man or woman today couldn’t fit into the seats that served as the audience of a Chicago opera house in 1898.

There’s Darwin-the-theory as science, and Darwin-the-theory as religion and Darwin-the-theory as politics. I only say this for amusement, for Darwin-religionists are just like the Muslim scholars Llull wanted to debate just for the fun of it, an academic adventure. Interestingly, these seeds of doubt are being sewn everywhere in modern science anyway due to the growing exposure of the climate change hoax, a different science field altogether, but which has exposed  1) the power of politics in the fact-based scientific community, and 2) the power of the pursuit for status (peer pressure) and money within several scientific disciplines which will cause men to lie, fudge numbers, cook the books, just like commonplace government bureaucrats…just in order to maintain their standing in their field and to continue to get those grants every time some Pavlovian handler rings a bell and offers some more cash.

So just like Law, accounting, business, even some churches, Darwinism, and its whole evolutionary grab bag of disciplines have always been contested between what can only be called “honest scholarship” and “dishonest scholarship.” This has nothing to do with Darwin’s Theory itself, but a more basic principle, i.e., whether factual evidence has been put forth honestly. Just like the rules of evidence in law, science has a process of approval for any thesis, called the Scientific Method, which is actually more rigorous than Law. Like the Talmud, The Hebrew Law, it is to be protected at all times. Or is supposed to be.

So, if one can prostitute that process, which consists of a jury of peers, then you have the rest made in the shade…until, as we’re seeing with global warming, climate change, when the whole house of cards suddenly begins to come tumbling down.

Enter Karl Marx and why all this matters to conservatives. The god of Marxism is science. But Marxists being what they are, they have always tried to make science comport to their contrived unscientific view of the world, and how mankind fits within it. I’ve never known any leftist who was the least bit intellectually curious about anything except how to steal some man’s bus ticket. It has always been this way.

True scientists are at heart ethicists, for the Method is sacrosanct with most of them. Like personal honor, it’s not for sale. These scientists see no Truth as being higher than scientific Truth, and trust me, this is a Good Thing for our world (Aristotle, Aquinas, Natural Law) for it has enabled science to achieve many wondrous things on Mankind’s behalf over the centuries.

Now I can’t say exactly when Marxist “science” began to try to steamroll the academy, since no one was really looking at it in those terms until the 1950s. F A  Hayek encountered it in England in the 30s and 40s, but in a book of essays he edited in 1963, Capitalism and the Historians, he chronicled socialist historians and economists fudging numbers in academic tracts going back into the 1870s.

The term “political correctness” had not yet been invented yet, but Robert Ardrey, in his 1966 The Territorial Imperative, mentioned that academic discussion about the existence of instincts in Man, a central subject of the Natural Right of Freedom thesis here, suddenly disappeared from scientific inquiry in America in the 1920’s, which coincidentally, was the period in which the Soviet Union and their Marxist views of “scientism” first arose.

Ardrey was one of the early writers of science who was excoriated by the American left because he discussed observations and conclusions about Man’s instinctive behavior contrary to Marxist scientific holy writ. That’s why “instinct” is my jumping-off place here, for Darwinists acknowledge it in lower animals, but since the 1920s, have gone mute about it in man, and apparently for political, not scientific reasons.

A scholar could do a much better job than I can in chronicling this story of academic discrimination against any theory that highlights man’s innate instinct for freedom instead of trying to confirm his innate malleability for servitude, but I have another objective to serve with this book. Following Ardrey’s cue, I can simply pull that one un-Marxist piece of science from the pile, the instincts of Man, and carry that thesis forward to establish all I need in order to prove that the thirst for freedom is innate in Man, and that it cannot be conditioned out of existence, destroying all the Leftists’ hope for a scientific basis for their invasions.

Marxism believes in the “perfectibility” of Man through science. Namely socialization and conditioning, much like Pavlov conditioned his dog, with a whistle and bite of food. But simply by connecting a few scientific dots, Marxist science completely unravels once it can be shown that Man’s instincts cannot be conditioned out of him. He will always resist.

And always has.

If Man is hard-wired to mate (pair bond), acquire and defend territory (and property) and to provide for a place to breed, and nurture young, so as to extend  the species, just like any other animal, and to be part of a larger group (genetic population) with which he also identifies, and works together for mutual benefit and protection (reciprocity)…

…then Man is hard-wired to strive to attain this if denied it, and to resist once taken away.

Territory = Property = Status = Mating = Heirs = Genetic Population (community or nation = Survival of the Family Blood Line into the next generation.

Collectively Ardrey said this equation amounted to a “biological morality.” I can add that his biological morality is very similar to the moral antecedents found in Jefferson’s “pursuit of life, liberty and happiness” clause of the Declaration, and the moral and ethical underpinnings of the Constitution found in The Federalist Papers. They knew of what they spoke.

If this is true, and many evolutionists insist it is, then Marxism and socialism becomes unraveled at it very roots, fails, and is exposed as nothing more than a power-grab based on a fraud.

This we already know, but we should find profit in being able to explain Liberty in this way, to newer sets of ears who are not yet ready to appreciate the Invisible Hand.

This is the tale we need to tell non-believers about freedom. If they want to go against Nature, and many will, they must know, as “mutations,” nature has its own ways of dealing with them, which, again, is not unlike how God promises to deal with them. By telling them in this way, through disputation, you can lead them all the way to the end of the story before they finally reject you, which is much better than have them shut you down before you can get the first “God loves you” out of your mouth. We are planting seeds, and trying to restore our country, not getting them to join our church.

Marxist science is the mad dog I want to shoot down in the street, and if shaking hands with a bunch of honest Darwinists will help me in this endeavor, I’m all for it.

*******************************************************************************

VASSAR BUSHMILLS

Contact:           vbushmills@yahoo.com

Twitter:           @Bushmillsvassar

Publications:  Famous Common People I Have Known and Other Essays

                       Donald Trump, the Common Man and the American Theology of Liberty

(Both books in Kindle format only, Publishers and agents welcome, as both need to revised)

Support:         Yes, I’ve never been paid a nickel to write.

Donations can be made to vbushmills@thesandsinstitute.org via Paypal

The post Darwin Agrees with God about Man’s Thirst for Liberty appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>
0
Bookworm http://www.bookwormroom.com/ <![CDATA[Bookworm Beat 5/23/2018 — the #Spygate edition and open thread]]> http://www.watcherofweasels.org/?p=17403 2018-05-24T00:41:20Z 2018-05-24T00:41:20Z Now that Operation Crossfire Hurricane is official, how could I not have a #Spygate edition for the Bookworm Beat? The posters are, as always, superb.

The post Bookworm Beat 5/23/2018 — the #Spygate edition and open thread appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>

Now that Operation Crossfire Hurricane is official, how could I not have a #Spygate edition for the Bookworm Beat? The posters are, as always, superb.





































The post Bookworm Beat 5/23/2018 — the #Spygate edition and open thread appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>
0
Puma ByDesign https://pumabydesign001.com/ <![CDATA[The Ingraham Angle: Did the Obama administration spy on the Trump campaign?]]> http://www.watcherofweasels.org/?p=17395 2018-05-23T13:14:48Z 2018-05-24T00:18:57Z Published on May 22, 2018 by Fox News Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich joins ‘The Ingraham Angle’ to discuss whether counter-intelligence tools were used to target of informal or low-level Trump associates to get information on higher-ups.

The post The Ingraham Angle: Did the Obama administration spy on the Trump campaign? appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>

Published on May 22, 2018 by Fox News

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich joins ‘The Ingraham Angle’ to discuss whether counter-intelligence tools were used to target of informal or low-level Trump associates to get information on higher-ups.

The post The Ingraham Angle: Did the Obama administration spy on the Trump campaign? appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>
0
Bookworm http://www.bookwormroom.com/ <![CDATA[Frank Bruni’s anti-Mueller opinion piece is an insight into the Leftist mind]]> http://www.watcherofweasels.org/?p=17400 2018-05-23T23:12:16Z 2018-05-23T18:24:24Z p style=”text-align: center;”>With the Mueller investigation discredited, Frank Bruni suddenly realizes that Trump used America’s winner-take-all system to enact conservative policies. Frank Bruni’s latest opinion piece at the New York Times — Robert Mueller, You’re Starting To Scare Me — is a fascinating window into the Progressives’ narcissistic mindset. Superficially, [Read More]

The post Frank Bruni’s anti-Mueller opinion piece is an insight into the Leftist mind appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>

p style=”text-align: center;”>With the Mueller investigation discredited, Frank Bruni suddenly realizes that Trump used America’s winner-take-all system to enact conservative policies.

Frank Bruni’s latest opinion piece at the New York Times — Robert Mueller, You’re Starting To Scare Me — is a fascinating window into the Progressives’ narcissistic mindset. Superficially, the column has a single point: the Mueller investigation is sucking so much oxygen out of the room that nobody is paying attention to what Trump is actually doing. In reality, though, it presents a world in which there can be only one point of view and one way to do things. All other viewpoints aren’t just different, they are unacceptable, even in a two-party democratic republic.

Before I get to the “Trumpian horrors” that Bruni lists, I want to take a minute to comment on his overarching thesis (that Mueller’s investigation sucked all the available oxygen out of D.C.’s news reporting). Much as it pains me to agree with Bruni, I have to. He’s perfectly correct that the Leftist media’s obsessive focus on the elusive Russian collusion theory has left them without time or energy to talk about the other things that Trump is doing.

However, while I’m always happy to blame Mueller for lots of things, the reality is that the silence on Trump’s other activities isn’t Mueller’s fault; it’s the media’s fault. Just see my reference, above, to the media’s “obsessive focus” on Mueller. Nobody is making them devote 90% of their time to that story; it’s their choice.

Bruni’s plaint probably explains why Trump didn’t exercise more executive authority over the past year to constrain the Mueller investigation. It wasn’t just the bad optics of doing so or the fact that Trump is a law-abiding executive and therefore was unwilling to interfere with a process he knew would reveal him to be innocent anyway. It probably suited Trump just fine to have the media off screaming about Mueller’s investigation, leaving him free to govern.

Just because Mueller Bruni is right about his major thesis, though, doesn’t mean he’s right about the minor thesis, which is that Trump has been committing governing atrocities all over the place. Apropos governing atrocities, when I think of them, I think of acts that violate the Constitution or the law of the United States. Some examples would be (1) allowing administrative agencies to legislate, as was the case with Obama’s HHS and EPA mandates; (2) weaponizing the IRS to shut down conservative groups during an election year; (3) spying on reporters; (4) entering into multi-million and billion dollar deals with foreign governments (the Paris Accord and the Iran Deal) without getting Congressional approval; (5) going into war in Libya without Congressional approval; (6) illegal gun-running into Mexico; (8) unilaterally changing Congressionally-legislated immigration laws to align with the Democrat Party platform, etc.

In all the examples I mentioned above, the problem for me is not that I disagreed with Obama’s policies. That’s a given, because Obama comes from a political ideology I oppose and, with him in the White House, I knew that his executive acts would run counter to my desires. However, that’s the way things happen in a “winner takes all” two-party democratic republic. The real problem for me is that each of the above acts exceeded Obama’s executive power under the Constitution or out-and-out violated federal laws. It’s one thing for an executive to pursue legal and constitutional ends that jive with his political ideology, even if I disagree with that ideology; it’s another thing entirely for him to go rogue.

I’ve talked before about the malignant narcissism that is a built-in feature on the Left. One of the things that characterizes malignant narcissists is that they’re always in a majority of one. Everything else is invalid. In their minds, no one has the right or the power to hold their positions that differ from the narcissist’s. Their world view holds that everything that’s not in accordance with their way is wrong, illegal, and needs to be destroyed using means both legal and illegal.

The following are Bruni’s examples of Trump’s alleged fascism that Bruni now realizes are much more important than the whole Russian-collusion dead end. First, there’s the horror of the unsecured Twitter phone:

Maybe the just-published Politico report of Trump’s deliberate, cavalier use of a cellphone that doesn’t have strict security safeguards would be getting extra attention. The story outraged me, because it’s yet another glaring example of Trump’s dual set of rules — proper ones that apply to others and nonexistent ones that let him and his clan do as they please — and it puts the lie to his supposed horror over Hillary Clinton’s sloppy email habits. Not for the first time or for the last, he’s being a raving hypocrite.

Let’s be clear here what the Politico article is talking about: it is talking about a phone that is dedicated to tweeting:

The president uses at least two iPhones, according to one of the officials. The phones — one capable only of making calls, the other equipped only with the Twitter app and preloaded with a handful of news sites — are issued by White House Information Technology and the White House Communications Agency, an office staffed by military personnel that oversees White House telecommunications.

While aides have urged the president to swap out the Twitter phone on a monthly basis, Trump has resisted their entreaties, telling them it was “too inconvenient,” the same administration official said.

Put another way, Trump is resisting the inconvenience of swapping out a phone that is used solely for an app that has been repeatedly hacked anyway and on which he makes short statements for immediate dissemination to the world. To claim that using an unsecured phone for this task amounts to a major, or even a minor, national security concern is ridiculous.

Note too how Bruni characterizes what Hillary did as mere “sloppy email habits,” something he found inconsequential during the Obama administration. That is a remarkably anodyne way to describe a Secretary of State who set up an unsecured, private server to handle all job-related communications, including high level, completely confidential communications, both within the government and with friendly foreign leaders. To analogize a phone used to Tweet out messages to a hack-ridden service, on the one hand, to a Secretary of State who ran all of her business through an unsecured, illegal bathroom-based server, on the other hand, is a perfect example of the way in which a malignant narcissist views the world as revolving solely around his own views.

Bruni’s next complaint is that the media is not paying enough attention to Scott Pruitt:

Without Mueller and Russia, Scott Pruitt would be closer to center stage, with an even brighter, harsher spotlight on him. He’s not exactly evading scrutiny, but he’s being spared the relentless top-of-the-screen, start-of-the-newscast treatment that he would likely endure if lawmakers, journalists and other watchdogs weren’t so mesmerized by the convoluted twists of Mueller v. Trump.

This complaint goes to the fact that Pruitt rented a single room at market value without exchanging any other favors for the room, and that he has taken extra security precautions to deal with the fact that there have been extreme and specific threats on his life.

At this point, the sensible person stops to wonder why there are death threats being made to the head of the EPA? The answer to that has to do with Bruni’s real complaint with Pruitt, and this has nothing to do with $50 a night rooms or increased security. What Bruni can’t stand is that Pruitt is enacting an agenda at odds with the Obama agenda for the EPA. For the Left, policy differences are tantamount to violating the Constitution, only they’re actually worse, because Leftists don’t care about the Constitution; they just care about getting their agenda rammed through.

Bruni’s implied claim that Trump is behaving extra-legally or unconstitutionally regarding the judiciary is equally flawed:

Perhaps more Americans would notice what Trump is doing to the judiciary, by which I mean stacking it, and to important government agencies, by which I mean gutting them.

When Bruni writes that Trump is “stacking” the judiciary, he undoubtedly means to call to mind Franklin Roosevelt’s attempt to pack the judiciary by expanding the Supreme Court to include a practically unlimited number of justices perfectly aligned with Roosevelt’s own unconstitutional policies.

The truth is that Trump is doing nothing wrong. There are vacancies on the court that Trump is properly filling. Consistent with constitutional requirements, he is nominating candidates for the federal court system and submitting those nominations to Congress, which is approving them. This is all perfectly legitimate.

Bruni’s problem, again, is that he disagrees with the fact that the judges Trump is nominating are strict constructionists. Rather than making up the law as they go along and using the Constitution as an advisory document, which is what Progressive judges do, Trump’s judges apply the Constitution and the law as written. The horror!

The last thing I want to discuss is the way Bruni’s implies that Ryan Zinke is behaving wrongly (i.e., illegally or unconstitutionally) when it comes to the Department of the Interior:

In The New Yorker this month, Evan Osnos documented the politically motivated sidelining and purging of venerable public servants; the Interior Department under Ryan Zinke is operating with less maturity and mission than a kindergarten class on the cusp of recess. Sadly, I heard less chatter about Osnos’s story than it deserved.

Translated from Progressive-speak, Bruni contends that the Department of Interior functions validly only when it acts in accordance with the Democrat party platform. Those versed in the “winner takes all” system that America uses understand that Zinke’s changes are naturally going to be “political.” His is a political position and there’s a new sheriff in town – as it happens, a sheriff from a political party that Bruni opposes. I don’t recall Bruni expressing any horror at all when Obama announced “I won,” refused to cooperate with any Republicans, and turned his administrative agencies into legislative bodies implementing hard-Left policies throughout America without regards to legal or constitutional limitations.

This horse that I’m beating is not just dead, it’s ripe, so I’m going to stop now. My simple point is that, for all of Bruni’s huffing and puffing about the fact that the Mueller investigation is hiding the true horror of the Trump administration, the real horror for Bruni is that the Trump administration exists at all — and that Trump, having been declared the winner in our two-party system, is using constitutional and statutory means to implement his promises and generally apply conservative policies within the parameters of his role as America’s chief executive officer.

The post Frank Bruni’s anti-Mueller opinion piece is an insight into the Leftist mind appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>
0
JoshuaPundit http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/ <![CDATA[Forum: Does Faith In G-d Bring Common Sense?]]> http://www.watcherofweasels.org/?p=17391 2018-05-22T16:48:19Z 2018-05-22T06:56:23Z Every Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question: Does Faith In G-d Bring Common Sense? Doug Hagin:Maybe it takes a healthy amount of common sense to [Read More]

The post Forum: Does Faith In G-d Bring Common Sense? appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>

Every Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question: Does Faith In G-d Bring Common Sense?

Doug Hagin:Maybe it takes a healthy amount of common sense to have faith in God? Common sense often requires not over-thinking things, and accepting simple truths. many Atheists have that problem it seems. So, does faith bring common sense? Or is it required before faith? Hmmmmm

Patrick O’Hannigan:I do think that faith in G-d brings common sense, and although I haven’t heard Dennis Prager’s argument for that, he’s a man who does his homework. The question reminded me of an old book by Catholic apologist Frank Sheed. After 50 years of streetcorner preaching (among other endeavors), he wrote “Theology and Sanity,” which was first published in 1946, and is luckily still in print. If I remember his thesis correctly, Sheed said that it took sanity (for our purposes here, common sense) to recognize a higher power.

Mainline Christian theology teaches that the Holy Spirit is one of three divine persons in the trinity that is G-d, and ascribes to that generous personage (often described as “the love between the Father and the Son”) seven gifts. Those gifts (wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord) read like common sense writ large.

Rob Miller: I have to say, I like Laura’s approach a great deal as always. Before you can say whether faith in G-d brings common sense, you need to define what common sense is, n’est pah? Her definition of it as rational thought or right reason is excellent but it seems it works only so far. After all, look at what passed for common sense even a short time ago and how that has changed 180 degrees now to the point that many of us might find it ludicrous. How many times have you heard people of a certain political persuasion use the words ‘everybody knows’ as a serious argument or a means of ridiculing or demeaning others they disagree with? As someone whose name I can’t recall once said(Cal Coolidge? Will Rogers?) the thing about common sense is that’s it’s very uncommon. My point is that common sense is a loaded term that means different things to different people. Just as everybody imagines they have a sense of humor, they also imagine they have common sense, no matter how inane their opinions and actions are. Bookworm’s erudite example of ‘Gaia Worship’ in our universities is a fine example of how ‘common sense’ ain’t what it’s cracked up to be.

So in trying to peel this particular orange, my first thought is that belief in G-d can give you a kind of common sense, but that depends on how you approach it. Some hideous things have been done and continue to be done in the name of faith. The adherents of belief systems that that tolerate and even promote such behavior as showing ‘faith’ certainly consider what they’re doing to be common sense. The proof that it isn’t common sense can be seen in the retribution and end results of such behavior. There are numerous examples.

On the other hand, if you have faith in G-d and it means that you adopt a moral code that  demands you respect and attempt to act with decency towards all people and even the animals G-d created, not just the members of your particular denomination, that is very different. If you also acquire a desire to live in accordance with His Divine Plan and do so to the best of your ability out of respect and gratitude for His blessings, then I’d say you’re truly on the way to…yes,right reason and common sense! But the moral code I spoke of is imperative. It gives us a roadmap towards successful and happy living, which of course, is the ultimate in common sense, yeah?

Bookworm Room:What an interesting question. I’ll try to avoid simply repeating Dennis Prager, whose marvelous exegesis of Exodus I just read.

The Bible spells out an ordered world, with a single ordered intelligence behind it. This differs radically from all other faiths (at least the ones of which I’m aware), which are predicated on chaos. Think of the Greek, Roman, Druid, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian pantheons, all of which have irascible, child-like, selfish, divine beings randomly creating and destroying their way across the universe. Likewise, all animist faiths are predicated upon assigning little chunks of meaning to everything and, again, endowing their many divinities with some of humanity’s worst traits, including a striking lack of logic.

The same lack of logic applies to the Gaia worship that now controls so much of the Left. At its worst, it’s simply animism and paganism all over again, with an angry Mother Nature continuously punishing humans. In that vein, while I though Disney’s Moana was a visually gorgeous movie and Lin-Manuel Miranda’s music lovely, it too preached the most primitive, unscientific Gaiaism to children.

Even when Gaia worship purports to be scientifically based, it lacks any common sense or logic. The fact that the whole climate change theory functions only by falsifying data bothers no one, because the data is merely a prop for the faith, in much the same way chicken or goat entrails would be for the pagan seer. Understanding that also explains why, no matter how often the data is proven false, the faithful are undeterred. “Global warming” doesn’t work? Then “climate change” will? With that kind of divinity in charge, every thing — heat, cold, wet, dry, etc. — proves that the climate change divinity is firmly in control. That kind of thinking is downright hostile to common sense.

Today’s hard science also defies logic, at least when it comes to our universe. I believe in evolution and the Big Bang to the extent that hard facts, and intelligent inferences, indicate that they are reasonable theories. I don’t believe in them as matters of faith. And most importantly, I don’t believe that the Big Bang is truly the beginning, because common sense says that something had to precede the Big Bang. For a long time, though, science insisted, against all common sense, that nothing preceded the Big Bang.

That lack of common sense has become too painful, however, so scientists are now positing all sorts of things such as endlessly repeating universes, black holes reborn, etc. Occam’s Razor says that the simplest answer is the best and, ironically enough, common sense seems to say that, given the vastness and complexity of the universe, and given that humans are hardwired for God, may God is the answer.

I’ve sort of wandered around here, but I do believe that a book (that is, the Bible) with a completely coherent vision about the universe, about man’s place in the universe, and about man’s relationship to God and to other men, is a necessary foundation for logical thinking — and common sense, after all, is nothing more than baseline logic. All other theories of the world are predicated upon the random and the magical, both of which are the antithesis of common sense.

David Schuler: G. K. Chesterton said that the first effect of not believing in God is to lose your common sense but I’m not sure that’s quite right. He also called tradition “the democracy of the dead”. We are not the only people to have lived, indeed, our little lifespans are only a tiny slice of the entirety of human experience. When you don’t believe in God you cut yourself off from the vast trove of traditional wisdom, the distillation of that experience.

Laura Rambeau Lee:Let’s define common sense as rational thought; or right reason. Humankind existed thousands of years before the written word allowed us to communicate with one another beyond our families or tribes. If one believes in the Biblical tale of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, they lived in a paradise where everything was provided for them. They wanted for nothing. But they did the one thing G-d told them not to do. Eve was tempted by the serpent (Satan) and she ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Becoming fully aware and conscious she convinced Adam to partake of the fruit so he too would become aware. This consciousness is the spark of divinity we have all been endowed with by our Creator. This was the true beginning of mankind’s relationship with G-d. Whether one believes in the story or not, at some point we became sentient beings. And so in our conscious state we innately understand right from wrong and good from evil. Over time and out of trial and error and experience arose common sense. By the time G-d gave his commandments to Moses and his people they were already understood even if they were not commonly practiced. Common sense is right reason and is how we bring order out of chaos. It is how we structure our lives and our societies. But taking the next step, if we know right from wrong and good from evil, we have to question what makes us choose to be a moral and honest person and live our lives seeking a path of virtue, honesty, and goodness. Of what benefit is it to us? The answer is G-d. Our better selves strive to please our Creator. Perhaps the question should be does common sense bring faith in G-d? I believe it does.

Well, there it is!

Make sure to drop by every Monday for the WoW! Magazine Forum. And enjoy WoW! Magazine 24-7 with some of the best stuff written in the ‘net. Take from me, you won’t want to miss it

The post Forum: Does Faith In G-d Bring Common Sense? appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>
0
Bookworm http://www.bookwormroom.com/ <![CDATA[“What did the president know and when did he know it?”]]> http://www.watcherofweasels.org/?p=17387 2018-05-22T01:58:40Z 2018-05-22T01:58:40Z Will a famous quotation from the Watergate hearings about presidential involvement in a scandal come back to haunt former President Barack “Nixon” Obama? If you were around during the Watergate hearings, even if you were a disinterested child, as I was, there was one question you simply could not avoid. [Read More]

The post “What did the president know and when did he know it?” appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>

Will a famous quotation from the Watergate hearings about presidential involvement in a scandal come back to haunt former President Barack “Nixon” Obama?

If you were around during the Watergate hearings, even if you were a disinterested child, as I was, there was one question you simply could not avoid. Sen. Howard Baker’s simply phrased focus on Richard Nixon’s role in Watergate resonated loud and strong throughout America: “What did the president know and when did he know it?”

The question today is “What did President Obama know and when did he know it?”

This morning, Former Press Secretary Ari Fleischer sent out a tweet reminding Americans that, when the press was still denying spying (rather than admitting to it but arguing that it was for Trump’s own good), they didn’t yet see any reason to hide Peter Strzok’s admission about Obama’s involvement:

To clarify what he meant in the above tweet, Fleischer referenced one of his tweets from yesterday:

It’s difficult to imagine that “the White House [was] running” the trumped-up Trump counter-intelligence investigation without Obama’s knowledge. It’s possible the investigation was a rogue activity (or a Ben Rhodes activity), but I’d say that possible is not the same as probable.

The post “What did the president know and when did he know it?” appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>
0
Puma ByDesign https://pumabydesign001.com/ <![CDATA[NO GREATER LOVE; DENYING THE DEVIL HIS DUE]]> http://www.watcherofweasels.org/?p=17378 2018-05-21T14:25:21Z 2018-05-22T01:12:50Z Vassar Bushmills (A Memorial Day theme, cross-posted at VeteransTales.org, this is also one of the major themes of that entire site. Come show us some love.) In the mid 90s, before I began traveling to the Soviet Bloc regularly, and finding out what their outhouses looked like, I taught a [Read More]

The post NO GREATER LOVE; DENYING THE DEVIL HIS DUE appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>

Vassar Bushmills

(A Memorial Day theme, cross-posted at VeteransTales.org, this is also one of the major themes of that entire site. Come show us some love.)

In the mid 90s, before I began traveling to the Soviet Bloc regularly, and finding out what their outhouses looked like, I taught a few semesters at a small business college in Cincinnati.

They students were all black, mostly young women, and from the looks of the nursery across the hall, mostly all young mothers.

This was during the period when Newt Gingrich took over the House, and among other things, forced Bill Clinton to sign into law the ending of AFDC (Aid to Families With Dependent Children) after previously vetoing it, then, proved successful he claimed as his own signature achievement.

These girls were there to get Associate Degrees (A.D.) in various business courses, so they could then get jobs and get off welfare. (I ended up writing letters for several.) My job was to teach them subjects that were required to graduate but which were absolutely meaningless to them in the new marketplace they were about to enter, courses like American Government, which most had taken only a few years earlier in high school and probably slept through then, too.

The course was presented in 3-hour increments, so I knew I was going to get a lot of attitude from some of those girls, while others would snooze on the back row. I needed grab them quickly by making the course relevant to their lives.

So, instead of teaching the textbook version of American Government, “read Chapters 3-4 and 5” etc., I decided to teach the course entirely in terms of how American Government was relevant to them…and those little kids over in the nursery across the hall. I had to deliver three hours of sermons every day, but luckily on subjects I was very good at discussing.

The Hook:

My first lecture always began something like this:

I would go to the chalkboard as the students were settling in, and begin drawing a picture of an Egyptian pyramid on the far left hand side, tagging that at 3000 BC, then draw out a long timeline to the right, ending with the date of the Constitution, but leaving several inches from the edge of the board for a few more notes.

I stroked little hash marks along the line signifying various key periods of history, detailing some of the great things those civilizations had done. About the Egyptians I noted they had pharaohs, a very intricate religious system with high priests, great armies, and since everyone had to be fed, a lot of farmers. I then spotted, from the same 300o DC period other great civilizations that had sprung up; Mesopotamia, India and Greece, and that they were set up the same way…with great architectural and engineering marvels,

Then I mentioned that at least 80% of the Egyptians were totally subject to the king, and may even have been slaves, since only slaves could have been forced to built those pyramids in a time when there were no paychecks or private property.

Working about halfway down that long line I stroked another hash mark, and simply marked it “A.D.”. Everyone seemed to know what I was talking about. Underneath I wrote “Greek and Roman Empires”, saying that the world was still set up pretty much the same as it had been in the time of the pharaohs.

Moving on down, I drew two more marks, 800 AD and 1400 AD, marking the beginning and end of the Feudal System, explaining this was how Europe was set up for 700 years. Instead of empires like Rome, although a few tried it for a few years, the Feudal System was under the power of an awful lot of kings, each with their own armies, and in constant warfare with one another, conquering back and forth…the only constant being that same 80% as we talked about in Egypt, who were also slaves (called serfs) to the land. All that changed in their lives was who the new owner of their lands was to be. In all those years of wars, not a one of them was ever freed from their bondage to the land. The Feudal System slowly died out, but the “king-system” remained, and in one form or another remains today all over the world.

It was at this point, less than an hour into my story I asked them THE QUESTION:

“Looking over the entire board, for over 5000 years of great civilizations, and nations, can you tell me how many of those great civilizations sent their own armies to liberate other peoples or to resist the tyranny of conquerors?”

Hands?

I’ve asked that same question with groups, it’s a great conversation starter…or ender…elsewhere, but in my Cincinnati classrooms the students only looked at one another.

So I went back to the chalkboard and extended the line from the Constitution and drew hash marks, marking the Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam. (9/11 hadn’t happened yet.)

Then I turned, raised my hand and put up one finger. “One”, I said, “Just one”, then I walked over to the far right of the board and put an asterisk (a star) over 1787, and then marching back two thousand years, another star over the birth of Christ at A.D.

Then I wrote: “John 15:13- Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends”.

Then I placed another star over the Civil War; I said, “And it all began here…”

“…when millions of farm boys voluntarily left home in Indiana, New York, Maine, Michigan, Illinois, to free a people none of them had ever seen, much less knew. Almost half a million of them died, many of them still buried in “foreign fields” like Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, even Kentucky.”

Then I began ticking off World War I, World War II, where thousands of white crosses of Americans who are buried in other foreign fields, saving English, French, Dutch, Belgians, Italians, Filipinos, then Koreans, and Vietnamese.

Interestingly, I didn’t get any backsass from any of those students. I would today, I suppose. But it is the kind of opener I like to use when teaching a potentially hostile crowd.

Veterans reading at VeteransTales are not the same as those students looking for a way out of welfare. Veterands would all have a different takeaway.

Still, there’s a lesson.

France will continue to fight their enemies to the last drop of English, American or anyone else’s blood they can find to defend them, and the rest of the world will revert to whatever kinds of people they once were. We’re seeing that happen now.

In the meantime, American are still risking their lives for Afghan villagers or Iraqis seeking to take a little control of their lives.

True, some of our politicians have sent our sons on foolhardy missions. But they come and go.

What has been constant since 1787, and those words from John 15, is that this society of Americans still produces men and women who will lay down their for their “neighbors” if the cause is just.

No one else will.

The greater warrior still resides in us, the veterans, not our politicians. For we reflect what the American people always were, from the beginning. Politicians can be replaced. What we cannot allow is that Americans should no longer be willing to go to the aid of their neighbors.

 

Mark Twain once said that “Satan is the spiritual head of half the world and the political head of the whole of it.” and while France proves the validity of the second half of that equation, our American political class racing to catch up, the all-volunteer American veterans, all volunteers, are single-handedly keeping Satan from securing our spiritual half.

Veterans should lead, not follow.

The post NO GREATER LOVE; DENYING THE DEVIL HIS DUE appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>
0
Bookworm http://www.bookwormroom.com/ <![CDATA[[VIDEO] There’s a reason that the Left hates Candace Owens]]> http://www.watcherofweasels.org/?p=17384 2018-05-21T17:51:17Z 2018-05-21T17:51:17Z Candace Owens has a nasty habit of telling blacks that they’re good enough and smart enough not to define themselves as victims dependent on government.

The post [VIDEO] There’s a reason that the Left hates Candace Owens appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>

Candace Owens has a nasty habit of telling blacks that they’re good enough and smart enough not to define themselves as victims dependent on government.

The post [VIDEO] There’s a reason that the Left hates Candace Owens appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>
0