The Totalitarian Trajectory

What are we going to do now? Every post of any significance will now go back (how long?) into one's past...perhaps gradeschool? Perhaps grammar school report cards will be up for genuine evidence to delete one from the short list. Or even to prosecute. Perhaps Tom Sawyer dipping a pigtail in the inkwell will be an act of boyish aggression and considered the untolerated beginnings of chauvinistic tendencies. Fellow citizens: don't you see what is happening? Many I know do, but many do not. We are falling into becoming a Soviet style state. We will not be able to trust anyone or any situation. We will not trust even the passage of time to dull the memory of our youthful stupidities. We will not trust any relationship. We will not even trust our friends. We will not even trust our spouse. We will continually be looking over our shoulders. We will be continually revising our diaries and journals. We will be deleting any incriminating thoughts from our minds. We will be afraid to tell anyone our dreams. We will be afraid of having any unorthodox opinion. We will not reveal our beliefs. We will look around for the video camera when we enter a church (if there will be such things). We will be afraid to pray. We will become in the end bland flavorless souls, a withered people afraid to say anything worth saying. We will in the end be people who believe every lie because the truth will be too dangerous. That is the society the trajectory leads to. Unless we fight it while we can.

Thoughts on Miss Ford at the Kavanaugh Hearings

Did anyone else get the feeling that Miss Ford for someone who so expressed her fearfulness at coming forward seemed quite without that emotion? Of course we were assured by Miss Feinstein that the accuser was not coached; nevertheless I have to think that the Victim seemed a little too unrattled, even psychologically polished---although I suppose when one has all the democrat (and even some republican) senators praising her courage, her Joan of Arc heroism, her 35 year old truth telling (no longer alleged accusations), and a prosecutor asking questions like she was speaking so as to not stir the least anxiety of a frightened child---besides the fact any question as to possible motive, i.e. political activism in the past, anti-Trump views, pro-abortion stance, was not asked seems quite unusual. Isn't ulterior motive a possibility? Perhaps some motive lurking in the background that could get someone to overcome such a great phobia as she kept expressing? Of course a sympathetic prosecutor could alleviate any anxiety and cause all these great iconic fears to melt away.

Also I just wondered at her emphasis on the fear. It seemed she was quite adept at reminding those at the hearing how she had and continued to fear the public exposure and the hearing, and after the horrible event the great anxiety affected her grades---not so much as to gain multiple degrees and a doctorate in psychology---and the resultant anxiety also encouraged a fear of flying---which seemed to be adequately overcome to travel with her family to many parts of the world. All this and just a general impression made me believe the fear was somehow a staged persona. What might have encouraged this belief was what seemed to me to be another part of the persona: over-niceness. There didn't seem the rage and anger I would have expected of someone who had bottled up such a secret of 35 years of what was allegedly (a missing adverb, by the way, in the democrat vocabulary) done to her. And then there were the occasional tears which seemed to come right on cue, when it seemed to me such sadness was able to be turned off too easily. Also it struck me how her memory could recall certain things very well, but didn't seem to remember things like where and when and how she got home; remembering clearly going into the bathroom across the hall when you would think after such a nightmarish experience she would've escaped this house of horrors at a Wilma Rudolph sprint

These Are the Times

These are the times that try men's souls. ---Thomas Paine

I think Mr. Paine couldn't have written anything more applicable for today than that. May we have the Strength on High to hold steadfast against this onslaught both on the unblemished Bride, shamefully by those of her own; and on our country by those who masquerade as those who seek her good while they divide to conquer.

Chicago's Archbishop Cupich

Maybe it's time Chicago's Archbishop Cupich be removed and instead of "sensitivity training" maybe he should be exposed to something it appears he doesn't seem too familiar with: the Holy Bible.

The Fall-out From the Falsehoods

Part of the fallout of the shameful democrat and jelly-spined RINO put up job being made of these hearings will of course be that no decent man with a traditional family will ever seek any important post in government. This of course is what the community organizer-senators want...and I'm afraid because there is so much feminist induced gender guilt so few will have the manhood to appear un-chivalrous. I'm afraid they will cave to the unsubstantiated charges that have seemed to have become urgent after 35 years, and quite coincidentally at a most opportune time. And it does seem like I've seen such a scenario before. Yes, the sexual misconduct plot is becoming hackneyed. And isn't it funny that this all from the folks that continually push all manner of sexual misconduct. Shouldn't this in itself alert us that we are being played?

Modus Operandi

Modus operandi. Might it possibly be applied to the Left which includes those ideological cousins, the feminists and Marxists, in their method of finding guilty until proven innocent any man that might disturb their right of choice on whether a fetus-child live or die? No one must come into the place where they might tip the scales in favor of the protection of the form that grows in a woman's womb. Anyone that appears on the political scene that actually will read the constitution as to its original intent must be silenced and barred from any position that might turn the country to what so many today see as outdated biblical principles. Encouraged is the right amount of emotional angst and solidarity with one's particular victim-group (aka identity politics---another Marxist ingredient). Then it is an easy road to such division (not diversity) that comes to the present day anarchy running and ruining America. Of course there must be a victim who seems to remember a day in her distant past when a deviant devil committed a sexual indiscretion against her. Another part of the modus operandi: condition men to be cowards in cowering to the politically correct paradigm set in place by the me-too movement. Not hard to do since most attend colleges that educate (or engineer?) the mind that generic man is a sexual predator---isn't this the definition of Patriarchy? And of course the media is in on it: you just present a blitzkrieg of National-Enquirer-like accuser details that make a wasteland of man/woman. The perception gets built where men are all Heffnarian playboys and women all virgin victims. This act of division is one of the main parts of the Marxian modus operandi. But the principle and sacred thing: Keep abortion a constitutional right that the Founders surely had in the forefronts of their minds. Keep out of the mass of men any little inconsistency. Make them not wonder at the fact that abortion is a form of birth control and birth assumes an intimacy between men and women---what they seem so puritan about when it comes to a distant unsubstantiated episode in the distant past. These the same social engineers that actually encourage and educate every manner of sexuality to their captive audience of once innocent children in the grade schools. Yes, a litlte modus operandi that never allows into the mind any undesirable effect such as children. No, they only hinder hedonism in her happy realization after all.

Augustine's Sainthood on the Line

I'm waiting for St Augustine's canonization to be recalled. There is someone who has just become known that recalls a time when Mr. Augustine (not a saint at that youthful age) committed a moral indiscretion. Because of course women always tell the truth in such matters and never mind it was back in his youth the Church will be convening to remove the unfortunate and rash decision they made concerning sainthood. So tomorrow we may see a different church calendar, hopefully cleaned up of any one who ever committed a youthful sin. Wait a minute. Can I be mistaken or might this include us all?

The Me Too Movement For Such a Time as This

One wonders if the me-too movement was arranged for just such a time as this. No one hears anything anymore about all the celebrities, all the Harvey Weinsteins out there. There is only one real important Harvey Weinstein the Left has in their sights now. This is a Harvey Weinstein that might change the course of the Judicial tyranny we've been under since 1973. This is the Harvey Weinstein that people have been conditioned to see. All the way back to high school they had to go to get 'something' on this Harvey Weinstein. And it is hear-say at that. One victim---yes, victim is a label so many take upon themselves these days. Well... if this doesn't pan out the Arrangers will find something on this Harvey Weinstein if they have to go all the way back to his conception. They will accuse him of not having an immaculate one. And that will be enough for some for a guilty verdict.

Breaking News: Fifth Grade Accusation by Annonymous Source

Breaking news. Once I heard this I have to confess that I now must rethink my support for Judge Kavanaugh. It has sadly come to my attention that Judge Kavanaugh when he was a boy in fifth grade was reported to have chewed gum. And you rigid conservatives will no doubt object that this was reported by an anonymous source. Certainly the shame of such a thing will keep the virgin voice silent. It will only come out for such a time as this---when such a revelation is truly needed for the sake of our country. This is why Congress, in their great magisterial zeal, has decided this taint of character must demand a hearing. Certainly all the unprejudiced will applaud and hail all the senators who called for this. To get at such a damning accusation, it goes without saying, is of the most urgent necessity. This revelation has, of course, altered my own loyalties to this man---never mind the powers that be had to go back in this man's personal history to his fifth grade crimes, never mind the reporting of this breech of character took so many decades and was politically opportunistic in its airing, never mind we live now in a cultural context where mutilating one's own body incurs with it less rebuke---even encouragement---than the misdemeanor of chewing gum. Never mind we expose innocence by drag queens for the sake of our diversity mantra. Never mind we seek as our litmus test the possibility of overturning our precious choice of deleting the inconvenience from the woman's womb. Of course this last is the essential thing and comes with it the infallible Court's opinion. Nothing should seek to so uncompassionately even possess the possibility of removing this convenience. After all such a constitutional right should not even be challenged. That is the sure sign of fascism, and yes, racism, and sexism, and misogyny, and most anything else. In summation, this accusation dating back to fifth grade has gotten me to think again. We must have a truly good justice, one whose uprightness must go all the way back to his first days of day care. This is essential for the moral uprightness that we as the modern Pharisees do wish for our licentious land.

Lie or Imprecision?

Interesting how people define 'lying' today. If someone says he made a speech and it enthused the crowds with patriotic pride they will say that it was a lie if they can find one person who wasn't enthused, or if one person didn't display the proper amount of patriotic pride. Or if he said he would do this or do that and various political forces prevented him from doing it this too would, in their eyes, come under the condemnation of a liar. Isn't this rather a case of imprecision of language? Hardly what could be called lying. Conversely these same moralists don't seem to have memory of a previous president who has and is even now making activist community organizing speeches greased with actual deceit, subtle double-speak, smooth-talking subterfuge, oily political pablum---this doesn't seemed to be recognized for what it is---the actual mark of the Luciferian lie.

Is it True?

Instead of asking, "Is it true?", we now are taught to ask: Is it racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, islamophobic, politically correct, offensive, up-to-date, in keeping with our times, in keeping with crowd-consciousness, popular. What would happen if we got back to asking, "Is it true?"

Anti-America Arsenic

Our constitutional republic is in danger. It is a danger wrought with anti-america arsenic. It is the spice sprinkled liberally in so many of our dishes today: academe, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC; revisionist histories, social studies for children, contemporary cartoons, drag storytime daycare. It poisons all of us. It is a palatable propaganda. One of the symptoms shows up in the hearings that the secular self righteous would seek to ruin an actual righteous who wishes to serve his country as a Justice. Slander and twisted tricks of rhetoric try and trip him up. And then the interruptions. Addicts I suppose get angry if there is any possibility their drug will be taken away. And when I hear that such a Judge will be dangerous to a woman's health I wonder how the lightning can be held back and not hurled from the heavens. I wonder at the irony. I wonder at the numberless children who cry out from the womb that shouldn't they be counted in health care considerations? After all these are the compassionate moralistic men and women who are so concerned about health. But what, I suppose, can we expect when we are on a strict diet of anti-america arsenic?

The Manufactured Monkey Offense

Seems to me that all the manufactured offense at the entire monkey thing is better directed at that 'scientist' who started the philosophical fad that man was descended from the ape. In other words how is it that we aren't angry with Darwin for establishing beyond (as so many believe) a shadow of a doubt that we are all descended from nothing so important as an amoeba? I would think we would be rather proud of being compared with our ancestors, whether they be apes or amoebae, rather than ashamed as we seem to be. Perhaps this reaction is a reflection on Darwin's major miscalculation how man actually came to be.

The Leftist Linguistic Overseers and the New Unabridged Dictionary

I think the Leftist Linguistic Overseers are doing quite a worthwhile thing in their limitations on the language. I wish they would continue on. Of course, 'monkey' is the present culprit. But I can see them getting even more ambitious in the censoring of other linguistic transgressions: the color 'black' is an obvious one; and while we're at it, I can hear them say, "'color', 'pigmentation', 'skin' are words that could cause harm especially among those of us who are of the enlightened intelligentsia." But they really shouldn't stop with those. Time itself transgresses! Such events as when twilight ends and becomes 'night'. Isn't that an awful term? Perhaps we can come up with another, less injurious expression. One must have a hardened heart to not surely see that 'night' carries with it unfortunate connotations such as the absence of light. And while we're at it what of 'dark' and 'darkness' as well? And heaven help us with such offending phrases in the Bible as: "Men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil." Of course I'm nearly positive that this particular gospel (John) is no doubt taught as a very theologically insensitive book and displays the primitive patriarchal racism of this beloved disciple in so many of the more enlightened places of higher learning today. I mean if the Leftist Linguistic Overseers kept at it without any let up we could really have a stream-lined new unabridged dictionary that would be quite a bit thinner than most abridged ones that aren't as palatable to our taste. In conclusion, verboten would be any description of how a person looks or acts. Yes, anything that could be construed as having a meaning that may offend twenty-first century sensibilities must be deleted from the present lexicon. Such offenders of course will be catalogued as requiring reeducation and diversity training. Books that have any physical, emotional, mental, spiritual description in them that could have a possible offensive connotation in the eyes of our intellectually elite would and should be banned. So get ready. Get ready for the books to be banned. Well, not only banned but let's simply toss them to the fire. Better they be burned. And afterwards when you are called upon to describe what the burned books looked like you better, you just better not say they are 'charred'. You just better say something a little less pigmentally provoking unless you wish a reprimand and more training at the new sensitivity center for correct speaking.