IT IS ALL TRUE, BUT IT IS STILL A LIE?

newsThe Washington Post is not my favorite paper. I don’t buy it any more.  However, when a commenter (here) left a link to this article, Trump supporters’ false claim that Trump U judge is a member of a pro-immigrant group, I had to chuckle. In spite of title of the article, the content of the article proves that Trump supporters claim that the Trump U judge is a member of a pro-immigrant group is altogether true.

The standard politician avoids tagging anyone except white guys as racists. Supposedly, only white guys can be racists. That proposition is, of course, racist, but the almighty news media enforces it ruthlessly. Why? The Democratic Party wants to use the government to reward its supporters based upon race. In fact, the Democratic Party wants to use the government to reward its supporters based upon race (non-white), sex (female), gender preference (anything except straight), religion (secular or non-Christian),  disability (disabled), age (old and greedy or young and gullible), wealth (poor or filthy rich), and so forth. Therefore, the Democrats seem bent upon transforming America into a third world country. The world has an abundance of poor non-white people, and their votes are cheaply bought.

You think that is absurd claim? Then consider that Washington Post article carefully. That article affirms that the Trump U judge is a member of a race conscious organization that awarded a scholarship to an illegal alien. Yet it accuses the people who say that of being liars. The Washington Post reports the facts and then seeks to explain them all away. Here are a couple of examples.

  • “La Raza” which means “The Race” is supposedly an innocuous expression Latinos use to describe themselves. Really? Try googling the term before the controversy over the Trump U judge. Here is a handy link, “la raza”.  And don’t forget the obvious. When whites start organizing based upon racial identity, everyone calls it evil. Other than skin color, what is the difference?
  • When the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association Scholarship Fund gave a scholarship to an illegal immigrant applicant they did not know the student was here illegally. Their excuse? They did not ask. Since California is a sanctuary state, we really have no idea how many illegal immigrants the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association Scholarship Fund provided scholarships. One could be a low estimate.

Do Liberal Democrat news media outfits care about the truth, or do they care about  winning on their issues?  Consider again the fact California is a sanctuary state and why.  It is about power. Think about the fact that judge is an Obama appointee. Does anybody seriously believe Obama is going to let the Constitution get between him and what he wants. The Constitution has not stopped Obama with respect to illegal immigration. Would it stop his appointees?

The Constitution has not stopped the Democrats in California with respect to illegal immigration. California is a sanctuary state. Yet Obama and those Democrat politicians in California swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Does The Washington Post have any interest in holding them accountable? No.

So what should we make of The Washington Post award of Four Pinocchios? Hypocrites!

RERUN: WHAT DO THE WORD “GAY” AND THE REBEL FLAG HAVE IN COMMON WITH HERESY?

Lee with stars and bars

Note:  I originally published this post on

A Book Review

I just finished reading A World on Fire: Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War by Amanda Foreman. The book ended up being far more fascinating than I anticipated. I read it, and then I immediately read it again.

Why was Foreman’s book so interesting?

  • I saw that the problems that Britain encountered during the American Civil War remain relevant to America today. As a great power, Britain confronted and stumbled over the same problems this country now faces. Whenever people start fighting thousands of miles away, both the combatants and many Americans often insist that America must take sides. Yet, like us, when they tried to figure out what the fight was about, the Brits encountered real difficulties. And, just like ours, their news media was too biased to be of much help.
  • I learned, perhaps even things she had not intended, more about the history of the war. Conventional wisdom says the South had the better generals. Yet I saw that when the South chose to attack the North, the South lost. Generally, Southern generals had the advantage of fighting a defensive war. In addition to the ability to being able to fight from prepared positions, the defense has more subtle advantages. Because defenders are on their home turf, they know the territory, they can gain better intelligence from the locals, and they can rouse the ferocity that comes from defending ones homeland.
  • What made General Ulysses S. Grant successful? He did not attack tentatively. His predecessors had seen the huge causalities and grown fearful. Is that not what any ordinary man would do? Yet the sooner a war ends the sooner people stop dying. Therefore, even though he grew somber and sad because so many died, Abraham Lincoln had to find generals who could withstand watching thousands die frightful deaths and still order their armies to attack without relenting.
  • After so many years we forget the implications of Americans fighting Americans, but Abraham Lincoln understood. His wife, Mary, had a several half-brothers who served in the Confederate Army, and these were killed in action.  Another brother served the Confederacy as a surgeon, and that must have been nightmarish.
  • I swiftly grew interested in the characters Foreman describes in her book. Through the lives of many people, Foreman describes the diplomacy, the South’s struggles for supplies, and the battle scenes in sufficient detail that we can begin to appreciate how even those on the other side of an ocean could be so affected by that great war.
  • With an extraordinarily long (and interesting) epilogue, Foreman continues the story, describing how America and Britain finally resolved the conflicts between them stirred up by the war. In addition, she describes what each of the characters she mentions in her book did after the war.

So why did the Brits choose to stay out of the American Civil War. The British decision to stay out of the war hinged on the moral issue of slavery. Even though they desperately wanted the South’s cotton for their textile mills, the Brits condemned slavery. Therefore, because the Brits could easily have broken the North’s embargo of the South, it may not be an overstatement to say that the United States owes it present unity to William Wilberforce, the man who led the battle to end the slave trade.

So what do the word “gay” and the Rebel Flag have in common with heresy?  Let’s consider one thing at a time.

That New Meaning For The Word “gay”

For the sake of propaganda, homosexual “rights” activists have succeeded in replacing the word “homosexual” with the term “gay” (See the etymology here.). Yet few seem to appreciate just how inappropriate this word swap has been. I suspect those most aware this problem have the word “Gay” as their surname (see here and here).

Think about that. How would you like to be called Gay?

The Distorted Meaning Of The Rebel Flag

When I reblogged Southern History Month 2014, I did not anticipate a positive response. In their unending effort to peddle political correctness, race baiters have transformed the once proud Confederate battle flag into a symbol of racism.

Was the Civil War ultimately about slavery? Yes. Without the issue of slavery, the United States may still have had a Civil War, but then the country would have divided along entirely different lines and for entirely different reasons.

Look at the picture above, at the beginning of this post. In the version of PowerPoint I use, Microsoft did not provide a picture of the “Rebel Flag.”  However, they did provide a picture of the Stars and Bars. Look it up if you must (here), but that is a picture of what actually was the Confederate Flag. What we call the Rebel Flag is shown in the picture below.

THE LAST SALUTE. (PAINTING BY DON TROIANI. PHOTO COURTESY OF HISTORICAL ART PRINTS, SOUTHBURY, CT.)

The painting above depicts the remains of Army of Northern Virginia as it surrendered at Appomattox Court House. And yes, that picture shows what we now call the Rebel Flag. That flag was actually Army of Northern Virginia battle flag.

What the picture shows is the Union troops honoring the Confederate troops as they surrendered their arms and their battle flags. Whatever we may think of that flag now, the men who fought the Confederate soldiers respected them and their flag as one soldier honors another.

The South paid a frightful price for the Civil War. The Union troops at Appomattox Court House saw that price. They saw the thousands of hatless, shoeless, famishing Confederate soldiers before them, and they knew those Confederate soldiers had surrendered only because they had no other choice. Under the flag they carried, those Union soldiers had killed a quarter of Southern manhood, burned and pillaged the South, and left those who survived half starved. Such is war.

Because the Confederate Army had fought bravely and honorably, the Union troops answered honor with honor.   That’s what that picture shows.

Heresy

Just as we have twisted the meaning of the word “gay” and rendered a once proud battleflag into a symbol of racism, we have turned heresy into something almost opposite, something to be proud of.

Consider how G. K. Chesterton began his book, Heretics.

Nothing more strangely indicates an enormous and silent evil of modern society than the extraordinary use which is made nowadays of the word “orthodox.” In former days the heretic was proud of not being a heretic. It was the kingdoms of the world and the police and the judges who were heretics. He was orthodox. He had no pride in having rebelled against them; they had rebelled against him. The armies with their cruel security, the kings with their cold faces, the decorous processes of State, the reasonable processes of law—all these like sheep had gone astray. The man was proud of being orthodox, was proud of being right. If he stood alone in a howling wilderness he was more than a man; he was a church. He was the centre of the universe; it was round him that the stars swung. All the tortures torn out of forgotten hells could not make him admit that he was heretical. But a few modern phrases have made him boast of it. He says, with a conscious laugh, “I suppose I am very heretical,” and looks round for applause. The word “heresy” not only means no longer being wrong; it practically means being clear-headed and courageous. The word “orthodoxy” not only no longer means being right; it practically means being wrong. All this can mean one thing, and one thing only. It means that people care less for whether they are philosophically right. For obviously a man ought to confess himself crazy before he confesses himself heretical. The Bohemian, with a red tie, ought to pique himself on his orthodoxy. The dynamiter, laying a bomb, ought to feel that, whatever else he is, at least he is orthodox. (from here)

Civil War References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Appomattox_Court_House

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_Confederate_States

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/the-last-salute-of-the-army.html

http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Surrender_at_Appomattox

http://www.historynet.com/appomattox-court-house-battle

IF WE KNEW THEN WHAT WE KNOW NOW: A POST FOR MEMORIAL DAY

While the fortune teller entertains him, he is robbed from behind.
While the fortune teller entertains him, he is robbed from behind. “The Fortune Teller” by Simon Vouet (1590-1649).

When someone claims the ability to predict the future, they claim the ability to do the impossible. Then we have no choice except to suspect their honesty. Therefore, when someone offers to “read” your palm, shuffles a deck of Tarot cards, or puts a crystal ball on the table, we should protect our wallet and back off. Yet fortune tellers always entice some people. Frightened by the unknowable, we all want to believe, and some do. These stay to listen, and the rest of us are apt to smugly call them gullible.

Yet there is a different type of fortune teller who has almost no trouble getting everyone to listen.  Instead of predicting the future, these fortune tellers grandly proclaim as peerless the intelligence of hindsight. These speak with the perfect knowledge of the critic.

Want an example?

In hindsight, was invading Iraq and toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein a mistake? Here is probably the most famous answer to such blabbering critics.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. — Theodore Roosevelt from THE MAN IN THE ARENA

When as a nation, we decided to invade Iraq and end an evil tyrant’s bloodthirsty rule, we did so for many reasons, but we could not do so with perfect knowledge. Until the future becomes the past, except for what our Lord has blessed us to know, we must pray, guess, and hope for the best.

Accurate or not, President George W. Bush correctly used the intelligence given him, and our military forces succeeded in pacifying Iraq. Then the critics took over, and with increasing rapidity the Middle East is descending into chaos. Yet instead of trying to correct President Barack H. Obama’s obvious foolishness, the corporate-owned news media wants to grill Republican presidential candidates as if it were possible to know in the past what we know now. When we know that such perfection is impossible, questions solely based upon knowledge gained in hindsight do nothing but stupidly insult people who have dedicated their lives to serving us.

If you are one who wants to properly contemplate what it means to be a doer of deeds, please consider reading A Memorial Day Devotion for Christians.

DON’T YOU THINK THEY KNEW THAT?

Last Crusader by  Karl Friedrich Lessing (1808–1880)
Last Crusader by
Karl Friedrich Lessing (1808–1880)

I honestly don’t much about Pamela Geller or her organization’s ‘Draw the Prophet’ Muhammad contest.  Since I have been busy I heard about this story, Texas officer saved lives in shooting outside Muhammad cartoon contest, police say, belatedly. So when I finally got around to reading this editorial, “Extremists collide in Texas: Our view (www.usatoday.com),”  I was just barely able to put the controversy in its proper context.

A terrorist slaughter was narrowly averted in Texas on Sunday by a combination of sound planning and blind luck. But the circumstances point to a deeper and sure-to-recur problem — a collision of extremes that can’t be completely controlled in a free society.

On one side in the harrowing incident was the American Freedom Defense Initiative, an anti-Muslim group based in New York with a history of provocation. It invited trouble in the most transparent way possible — by staging a high-profile event to draw cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. The group knew, of course, that such cartoons — gravely offensive to most Muslims — have repeatedly caused mayhem in Europe, most notably in the slaughter of 12 people, including cartoonists and journalists, at the Paris offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in January. But AFDI went ahead anyway. (continued here)

Perhaps I have not been paying enough attention, but the reaction of some folks puzzled me.

  • Why do journalists equate the “extremism” of drawing pictures of someone who started pushing daisies over a thousand years ago with machine gunning real, live, unarmed citizens?
  • When did the corporate news media start considering it extremist to draw pictures that might antagonize anyone?
  • The point of the contest was to demonstrate that Muslims have no right to suppress free speech. Nevertheless, two Muslims tried to suppress free speech. So why did so many editorials pretend that is not the core of the problem?
  • Instead of linking to American Freedom Defense Initiative‘s website, USA Today linked to the Southern Poverty Law Center‘s hate map. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls organizations who just dare disagree with its policies extremists and hate groups. Why is it okay for that organization to be so provocative?

It use to be that we often spoke of journalistic crusades, but that term, “crusade,” no longer gets much use in the news media. Ostensibly, they don’t want to be insensitive (except to polite folk, who don’t consider it proper to terrorize other people). Are the folks in the corporate news media actually that cowardly? Have we seen the last of the true crusades from the American news media?