Tuesday, September 12, 2017

The amazing media memory pit

A few weeks ago the media loudly and repeatedly condemned Trump for saying that all violence is bad.

Now Democrats and "moderate" republican's like Ryan are agreeing with Trump.

But you'll never hear about it.

Just like you won't hear that a Democrat congressman is being tried for taking bribes.

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Understanding DACA

The "kids"--most are in their 20s-- who are protected by Obama's illegal DACA rule are like the children of bank robbers who are complaining that they can't keep the loot their parents stole because they, the children, didn't actually rob the bank.

If someone's parents lose everything that they owned due to drugs and thereby put their children in a tough spot whose fault is it?  Not America's.  If the parents of the "dreamers" had been honest they'd have gotten in line and waited their turn. But they didn't. Those parents didn't care about our laws; they decided that whatever was best for them was ok.

Note we're not talking about refugees fleeing execution or starvation; we have special rules for people in those situations.  Rather we're talking about people who just wanted a better lifestyle. Nothing wrong with that unless you break the law to get it.

Even worse every illegal not only cheats America but they cheat honest foreigners.

There are 4.4 million honest people waiting in line to be allowed to legally enter the US.  Every "Dreamer" is taking away a slot that those people could have.

So how about this; we deport all the law breaking "Dreamers" and allow an extra 800,000 people from the waiting list in?

Another option would be for all the bleeding hearts out there to guarantee that the "Dreamers" won't use any taxpayer dollars; no welfare, no subsidized education, no free care at the ER.

But of course the folks who cry for the dreamers are the type who usually won't give their own money or time to help. They virtue signal their own wonderfulness by making all Americans pay for the cost of the "dreamers".

Aside from the fact that DACA was rejected by Congress and hence Obama's order was unconstitutional, the reality is that America can't take in everyone who wants to come here.  Just because Mexico is a hell hole due to corrupt government doesn't mean that they get priority on getting into the US.

The reason wages are low in America is because a huge influx of illegals make labor a cheap commodity.  So Blacks and other legal Americans suffer in order to make the "Dreamer's" dream come true.  And purely accidentally I'm sure big business can increase profits by paying "Dreamers" less.

Even the name dreamers is a fraud. Everyone dreams. Blacks in the inner city dream that their kids can get a decent education but the people supporting DACA don't care about those dreams.  I dream of a country where the law is followed but DACA supporters don't care about my dream.

One final note. You won't find many "Dreamer" advocates whose own jobs, or those of their children, are threatened by "Dreamers". In fact the big "Dreamer" supporters are those who will benefit from them; either because they lower wages, will vote Democrat, will drive up welfare spending so that government has more power, or because they will hasten the time when radical minorities will rule the country like the corrupt countries they come from.

Saturday, September 2, 2017

How to tell Democrat politicians are racist #5: Immigration

For a long time Black unemployment has been much higher than white unemployment especially for teens and young adults.

While this is in part due to the poor education that Democrats ensure Blacks get it's hard to believe that it isn't also due in part to the massive influx of low skilled illegal immigrants who compete with Blacks for jobs.

Because illegals are paid under the table they're a lot cheaper than Black Americans.

Yet Democrats keep supporting massive illegal immigration.

Then they try and fix the problem by driving up minimum wages even though that puts more young low skill Blacks out of work since if a person doesn't generate what they're paid every hour no company can afford to keep them.

Thursday, August 31, 2017

How to tell Democrats are racists #4 School choice is racist

Democrats are saying that letting Black parents choose which school their children go to is racist.

That's because the teachers unions pump millions into the Democrat coffers each year.

If Democrats weren't racist they would support school choice because wherever it's tried Black kids do better and learn more.

But giving Black parents a choice threatens the union teachers in public schools whose pay is not impacted by their inability to actually teach Black children.

Perhaps, and this is just speculation, the Democrats of today believe what the Democrats of yesterday believed; namely that Blacks are inferior and can't be educated.

Or perhaps Democrats realize that if Blacks could get a decent education they'd realize how the Democrats are using them.

In any case only someone who really hates Blacks or who is totally uninformed--the case for most Democrat voters because they trust the media which never reports the truth about the issue-- could object to letting Black parents pick a school where their child would actually get an education.

Saturday, August 26, 2017

How to tell Democrats are racists #3: Black women abort at 3 times the rate of white women.

One could be for the right of a woman to kill her daughter but also say that the fact that Black women abort at 3 times the rate of white women is a problem that should be addressed.

But we don't hear that from liberals. Rather we hear liberals praising Planned Parenthood and PPs founder Margret Sanger.

Liberals don't mind that Sanger was a big fan of Hitlers eugenics beliers; the only good people have blue eyes and blond hair.

Liberals aren't concerned that around 80% of PP clinics are in minority neighborhoods.

Liberals have often said that the government should pay for abortion since it's cheaper than welfare.  Of course the reality is that when rich white folk talk about people on welfare they're not thinking about white folk.

Liberals don't mind that abortion is the leading cause of death among Blacks in America.

Neither do liberals care that Jesse Jackson said that abortion was genocide against Black people.

While liberals say that Black lives matter it's clear that they really are not bothered by the mass murder of unborn Blacks.

Another reason to believe that Democrat politicians are racists.

Thursday, August 24, 2017

How to tell that Democrats are racists #2. Chiraq.

4000 mostly Black people were shot in Chicago last year; that's why Blacks call it Chiraq.

Yet Democrats said nothing.

But let one violent criminal Black attack a police officer and Democrats can't stop talking about it.

If Democrats really cared about Black lives they'd be trying to fix the problem in Chicago.

Instead they seem perfectly comfortable with Blacks being slaughtered.

We all know that if 4000 white people were shot in Chicago the situation would be very different.

So after running Chicago for generations Democrats have only managed to make Chicago less safe for Blacks. That's pretty clear evidence of racism.

How to tell Democrats are Racist #1 The History.

The founder of the Democrat party owned slaves.

The Democrats fought to maintain slavery in the Civil War.

The Democrats founded the KKK.

The Democrats passed the Jim Crow laws; you know making Blacks drink from different water fountains.

Democrats fought against integrating Southern schools.

Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Democrats instituted a welfare system that destroyed the Black family.

According to Democrats however they suddenly, and quite magically, changed in the 1980's even though the people in the party didn't change.

Sunday, August 20, 2017

How to tell Liberals are fascists #2

Liberals reject Democracy by supporting the "right" of judges to make up laws.

The Constitution no where talks about marriage. But it does say that powers not granted to the Federal government belong to the states.

That means that while states could redefine marriage the Federal government can't.

Yet the Supreme Court overruled 55,000,000 Americans who voted against redefining marriage to suit the 2% of Americans who are gay.  Remember that Hillary Clinton only got 65M votes and that most states didn't vote on gay marriage.

We've seen this before on abortion. The Supreme Court overthrew the laws of all 50 states based on a "right to privacy" which is no where in the Constitution.

We also saw it when liberal FDR threw more than 100,000 Japanese Americans into prison camps during WWII and the courts allowed it.

The reality is that liberals reject the ballot box when the people don't support them.  That makes them fascists.

Saturday, August 19, 2017

How to tell that liberals are fascists #1

Liberals are comparing the antifa thugs who have been shutting down free speech with the heroes who fought the Nazis in WWII.

The obvious problem is that those heroes fought Nazi's who were mass murdering Jews and who had conquered most of Europe. The Nazi's that the antifa folks fought with in Charlottesville had not done anything wrong--like physically attack Jews--; their crime was to think in a way that the antifa, and the rest of us, don't like.

Hence the difference is that American soldiers risked their lives to free Europe and end the Holocaust while the antifa attacked people who had bad thoughts.

We know that liberals don't actually believe that it's ok to attack people based on what they think since if a bunch of alt-right thugs attacked a communist rally because of all the atrocities committed by communists the left would scream bloody murder.

Therefore the only conclusion is that the left supports the use of violence to shut down any thoughts that the left doesn't agree with; which means the left is fascist in nature.

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Bill Nye the Anti-Science Guy and the March for Anti-Science

While liberals try and wrap themselves in science to make their beliefs appear something other than madness the reality is that they reject real science whenever it disagrees with their politics.

It's an incontrovertible scientific fact that at the moment of conception a new human being is formed. That's based on decades of scientific research.

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic

"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." The "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris

"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Mller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29.

Yet the people in the March for Anti-Science contend that abortion doesn't kill a human being.  Apparently science that doesn’t support liberal ideology is “fake science” in the minds of the marchers.

Science also incontrovertibly teaches that a person’s DNA determines a person’s sex. Yet the people in the March for Anti-Science contend that a man can become a woman simply by clicking their heels and wishing—well they usually leave out the part about clicking their heels.

Yet the marchers ignore science and simply declare that people can change their biological identity without changing their DNA.

Science has shown that one’s race is determined by one’s DNA.  Yet many of the marchers in the March for Anti-Science probably believe that Rachel Dolezal can redefine her race simply by wishing.

Of course the biggest “science” issue that enrages the March for Anti-Science participants is global warming…err climate change.  They believe that mankind is contributing to the destruction of the planet by emitting too much CO2.

The reality is that these people generally have no idea of the actual scientific arguments or the data.  They support the idea because it makes them feel good and it justifies massive increases in government control of people’s lives.

Sadly the entire global warming issue is filled with fraud.  The single image that launched a thousand liberal laments was the famous “Hockey Stick” diagram that seemed to show that the world’s temperatures were shooting up since the 1960s.  But that figure has been thoroughly discredited and is rejected even by those who currently believe that people are the cause of global warming.  Further the technique used to generate the flat part of the figure showed that the earth continued to cool in the 1960s and instead of keeping that data in the authors simply didn’t show it which is a big no no in science.

Over the last 19 years or so global temperatures haven’t been rising even though CO2 levels have continued to increase—though CO2 levels are much lower than they have been in the past before mankind even existed.  NASA released a paper claimed that temperatures were going up but we now know that that paper used dubious methodology and was released, right before the Paris climate meeting, in order to impact politics.  Further the paper wasn’t based on any new data but on “corrections” applied to existing data; corrections that just happened to lower most temperatures prior to 19 years ago and raise most temperatures after that date.

Changing the data to fit your theory is a cardinal sin in real science by the way.

The confusion about global warming is nurtured by the fact that liberals have no idea what science is.  Liberals don’t understand that reproducible experiments distinguish science from people thinking.

When Einstein proposed that time runs slower for objects moving near to the speed of light no one believed him just because he was a smart guy.  It wasn’t until repeatable experiments confirmed his theory that the scientific community got on the special relativity bandwagon.

But we can’t experiment on the climate so all we have is people thinking. That doesn’t mean that we can’t develop an understanding of the climate and what drives it but it does mean that the science associated with global warming is far more slippery than what most people think of as science; for example antibiotics can be tested to verify that they work but climate models can only be compared to measured data after the fact.

The claims of the alarmists are based on computer models that predict significant, but still small, temperature increases in the next 50 years.  The problem is that when we compare the temperatures predicted by the models over the last 19 years with the measured data we see disagreement. The models show an accelerating temperature profile where as the data—when not artificially modified by alarmists—shows a roughly constant global temperature.

The Anti-Science marchers also ignore the fact that poor people pay a higher percentage of their income for energy. That means when we dramatically increase the cost of energy by using “clean” sources we’re imposing a highly regressive tax on the poor.  Essentially climate alarmists want to steal money from poor minorities to fund eradicating liberal’s science free fears.

By ignoring the real data and listening to those who pervert science to support their ideological agenda—and to get more funding for their research—the Anti-Science marchers are working hard to hurt the most vulnerable in America.

Aside from the specific issues where the Anti-Science marchers are rejecting science there are global problems with the marchers understanding of science.

For one thing a guy with a BS in engineering is not a scientist; a fact that apparently escapes most Anti-Science marchers.

More importantly many Anti-Science marchers don’t understand that science is not a democracy; it doesn’t matter how many scientists support a theory.  Science compares predictions of theories to measured data; if the data conform to the theory’s predictions we tend to say the theory is correct.  But real scientists never simply say that because we have a consensus we must be right.

Historically in the early part of the 20th century only one person said that the Earth’s continents move around.  Yet by the 1960’s the entire geological community agreed.  It didn’t matter than 99.99% of geologists said that the continents didn’t move; all that mattered was the data that showed that the continents did move.

It’s important to realize, and tell your friends, that the folks in the March for Anti-Science not only don’t generally know anything about science they also reject any well established science that is inconvenient for the policies they like; such as abortion on demand.


Tom has a Ph.D. in Physics and spent his career doing basic research, elementary particle physics, or as a rocket scientist.

Feel free to follow Tom on Twitter

Thursday, March 30, 2017

The New Civil War

Liberals are in open revolt and are not following the law.  They're using judges to subvert the rule of law and democracy.

They are just like their ancestors who tried to tear the country apart to keep slavery legal but they lack their ancestors courage and so fight with lawyers and lies rather than courage.

Their modus operandi for stoping Trump from doing what he was elected to do is clear; find an Obama judge who has no problem acting as a dictator and have the 9th circuit court back him up.  Even if they lose in the Supreme Court they'll have blocked legal action by Trump for at least a year.

It's time to start impeaching judges and acknowledging that every random federal judge doesn't have the right to tell Congress and the President that their actions are unconstitutional.

The Constitution has no real remedy for judges who are unethical since impeachment is hard.  But then that's not surprising in that the Constitution does not say that the Supreme Court, much less any random federal judge, can overrule the other two branches.

Perhaps lower court rulings claiming that the actions of the executive branch and Congress are unconstitutional should not be enforceable until the Supreme Court rules.

It's time to reign in the judiciary given their fascist tendencies.

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Five reasons modern liberals are fascists

1) They don't believe in the rule of law. Rather they believe that people can decide which laws to enforce and that powerful liberals, like Hillary and Bill Clinton, are not subject to the law.

2) They believe that unelected bureaucrats have the authority to demand citizens follow arcane regulations that haven't been approved by Congress.

3) They believe that many human beings have no rights.  In the 1860s Democrats believed that Blacks didn't have rights now they believe that the unborn don't have rights.

4) They attack religion because religion stands between them and total power.

5) They believe that breaking the law and lying are fully acceptable so long as they further the liberal cause.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

The face of evil

For the first time in America I saw the face of evil.  It wasn’t some neo-Nazi or even a communist.  It was a tiny middle school teacher who looked into the eyes of America and said she had the right to assault anyone she disagrees with and who believed that only speech she likes should be allowed.

Given that the vast majority of Americans probably disagree with Ms. Felarca on a wide spectrum of things, not the least of which is the suitability of using violence to shut down speech one doesn’t like, she was effectively threatening nearly everyone with violence if they dare speak thoughts she personally doesn’t approve of.

Generally when the new fascists, formally know as liberals, speak they cloak their tyrannical desires in a pastiche of liberal phraseology.  Democrat Congressman Swallwel when pressed kept saying that abortion was legal but wouldn’t say that science is right when it declares the unborn to be human beings. That is he wouldn’t admit that he does in fact support the killing of innocent human beings.  He desperately tried to avoid announcing that he truly supports mass murder.

But Ms Felarca had no difficulty gleefully proclaiming how wonderful it was that violence and the destruction of innocent people’s property had stopped a voice she didn’t like from being heard.

She also had no problem proclaiming that Milo was advocating genocide. Oddly such slanders, Milo may be wrong on many things but he’s never ever called for genocide, against an openly gay man are apparently acceptable to liberals so long as the gay man has wandered off the gay plantation where all right thinking gays must live lest they risk the ire of the liberal herd.

The new Brown Shirts, of which Ms Felarca is a shining example, believe that when they can’t win elections or find judges to make up laws they have every right to brutally attack people who don’t share their beliefs.  Even people who belong to the very groups Ms. Felarca says she wishes to protect.

Ms Felarca assaulted a neo-Nazi in a protest in June 2016 yet was allowed to return to teaching middle school children.  Could you imagine if some Trump supporting teacher had assaulted a Black Lives Matter activist that he’d be allowed to return to teaching young children?

Now I find Nazi’s of any stripe to be repugnant, though no more so than the equally tyrannical and mass murdering communists, but I don’t believe I have the right to assault them.  In that I agree with the ACLU that believes Nazi’s have 1st Amendment rights as attested to by the ACLU’s history of helping Nazi’s march in Jewish neighborhoods—something I don’t agree with; let them march elsewhere in public.

But Ms Felarca makes it clear that she has been anointed by someone, probably not God, as having the authority to decide what speech is acceptable and what isn’t.  I don’t know her but I’d be surprised if she would have any sympathy for an “alt right” person who attacked porn stars because he thought their speech was offensive.

Not all liberals are fascists and some have even condemned Ms. Felarca in the past. She is a key member of By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) a group that appears to be modeled, knowingly or not, on Hitler’s Brown shirts.  Back in December 2014 Ms. Felarca was inciting violence and being condemned for it by at least one liberal Berkley resident who wrote:

Remember that BAMN does not believe in free speech or in open public discussion of the issues. They have a history of shouting down anyone who disagrees with them and of shutting down discussion by chanting slogans.

Remember that BAMN is willing to lie to manipulate people into potentially violent situations, as they lied about Mayor Bates being responsible for police behavior to try to disrupt the council meeting.

Remember that BAMN can attract something like 1,000 people to meetings or demonstrations through its Facebook page, many of them naive, idealistic students who know so little about city government that they believed that Mayor Bates should resign because he caused the “police riot.”

Remember that BAMN believes in violence. Martin Luther King said “Riots are the voice of the unheard” at a time when riots were happening spontaneously across the country, and he was trying to explain those riots while he himself was promoting non-violence. BAMN quotes “Riots are the voice of the unheard” to justify the promotion of violence.

Remember that BAMN does not care if innocent people are hurt because of its tactics. It pursues its goals by any means necessary.

I’m glad the author had the courage to write this back in 2014. Sadly the media today in it’s rush to defeat democracy in America and prevent President Trump from doing what the people elected him to do seems to be taking a much more benign view of Ms. Felarca’s fascists.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s liberals actually supported mostly good things. The errors in their policies were based more on poor reasoning than fascist totalitarianism; perhaps because back then most major Democrat political figures had actually fought fascism in WWII.  Sadly the Democrats, like modern liberal’s role model Stalin, purged all the voices of reason and actual morality from the party.  People who advocated a welfare system but a strong foreign policy or who actually were bothered that welfare was hurting Blacks more than it helped them were systematically denounced.

Today’s liberals are far more fascist than liberal in the classical sense.  Could anyone imagine Democrats in 1980 calling for a military coup against Ronald Reagan?  Yet today it’s not uncommon for the same liberals who told us that President Clinton lying under oath to avoid being sued for sexual harassment was no grounds for impeachment to talk of impeaching a man who has not yet done anything; much less anything impeachable.

The fascism at the core of the modern Democrat party and the people still called liberal is clear when one realizes that they are trying to overthrow the results of an election they lost.

Like Stalin they believe that what is theirs is theirs and what is yours is open to negotiation.

We need to lay the groundwork for the next election and to counter act the all out media attack on Trump. We can do so by making sure that the low information voters, which constitute the majority of those who voted for Hillary, realize that the Democrats are nothing like they portray themselves to be.  As one Trump voter said “If I’d have believed what the media said about Hillary I’d have voted for her”.

By pointing out that Ms. Felarca is representative of much of the modern Democrat party’s policies, but not of the Democrats propaganda, we’ll get more people to vote for sane candidates and further enable President Trump to restore America.

feel free to follow tom on Twitter

Saturday, February 11, 2017

The First American Coup

I never imagined that America would be the victim of a coup by a small group of powerful people but today just such a coup has taken a major step forward.

Unlike most of the world the coup is not being executed by the military because the American military is populated with people who are both honorable and fans of democracy.

This first ever American coup is being orchestrated by rich white lawyers who believe they have the right to dictate every aspect of American life.

While it’s true that the judiciary has a long history of tyrannically imposing edicts on the people, ranging from the coddling of criminals and the legalization of pornography to abortion and gay marriage, they have not previously taken control of American foreign policy.

Liberals support this coup because they know that the liberal judges are their people; rich mostly white elitists who eschew donating their own money to charity or risking their own lives to protect freedom. 

Liberals know that what they can’t win at the ballot box they can win in the courtroom since judges have now abandoned even a semblance of honor.  The 9th Circuit has just declared that they have the right not to interpret the law but to decide if the law is good and if they find it wanting they have the right to declare it null and void.

The judges have decided that now is the time to declare that they control every aspect of American life no matter what the law or the Constitution says. In fact they’ve even redefined what it means to be an American.

The 9th Circuit Court has extended due process protection to every person on the planet. That means that every one in the world has the same legal protections as American citizens but none of the legal, ethical, or financial responsibilities of citizens.

Technically then before our forces kill any ISIS terrorist in a fire fight overseas they would have to ensure that he had a fair trial.  While the judges probably don’t support that that’s what their ruling says for due process rights are not something that are applied on a case by case basis.

If this latest attack by the traitorous left who refuse to accept the results of the democratic process succeeds the liberal’s coup will go into overdrive.

If it’s possible to stop the president from making national security decisions consistent with clear laws passed by Congress there will be little if anything that courts do not feel empowered to do.

Everything Trump was elected to do will be stopped by 9 judges. One local rube in a radical state, three justices on the 9th Circuit Court, and 4 liberals and the “centrist” on the Supreme Court only need to agree and the votes of the Americans who elected Trump and a Republican Congress will mean nothing.

Just as the votes of 55,000,000 Americans against redefining marriage were overturned by 5 rich white lawyers on the Supreme Court the Republican control of government will be negated by rich unelected mostly white liberal judges whose loyalty is to their tribe not to the Constitution.

Alan Dershowitz, a liberal icon, said that the original ruling against Trump’s EO was overbroad but he commended Trump for appealing rather than ignoring the ruling.

But the 9th Circuits ruling changed the stakes.  By continuing the rogue judges coup the 9th Circuit has declared that the three branches of government are not co-equal but that the President and Congress can only do what the judiciary feels is right.  This is identical to the government in Iran where the democratically elected officials are held on a tight leash by the mad mullahs who actually run the country. 

Liberals want America to be like Iran; a thin veneer of democracy to make things look legitimate covering a despotic tyranny where the elites ensure complete control over the people.

It’s time for Congress and the President to begin impeachment proceedings against the rogue judge and the 9th Circuit court judges. Either that or admit the coup has succeeded and allow every aspect of life in America to be decided by rich white lawyers.

The other option is for Congress and the Executive branch to exercise their co-equal rights and refuse to submit to judicial tyranny. That might upset people like Dershowitz who believe that many judges are not lawless traitors but that’s a small price to pay for our freedom.

An America where only a Democrat election win matters will not be the land of the free.

The Constitution assumed that judges would be somewhat honest and respect their oaths of office. Now that assumption is invalid it will be necessary for the two branches of government that actually represent the people and not the liberal elites to exercise their power.

Obama threatened the Supreme Court about the dire consequences of them not imperially decreeing that ObamaCare was legal and the Court responded to that pressure.  Now’s the time to make it clear that impeachment, or say defunding the judicial branch, is on the table.

Liberals condemn President Jackson’s refusal to bow to the Supreme Court but the reality is the Founders never intended the Supreme Court to be the ultimate ruler of this country.  That was something the judges declared and which is not in the Constitution. So long as judges strove to be impartial arbiters that self declared judicial authority was not a problem. Now that judges are openly declaring that they are not impartial judges claim to ultimate authority must be confronted and denied.

Our country is founded on the belief that power flows from the people not from being appointed to a judgeship.  But if judges don’t feel that their responsibility is to interpret the law but to compel America to do what the judges feel is right power will belong solely to the liberal elites and the American people will lose their freedom.

It’s time to confront the liberal coup, educate your friends about the judicial tyranny, and either take drastic steps to reign in judges or accept serfdom for ourselves and our children.
Feel free to follow tom on Twitter

Thursday, February 9, 2017

Democrats don't care about immigrants only about Democrat voters

Democrats only support immigrants, legal and illegal, who will vote for them.

That's why Democrats support importing low skill non-English speaking people who believe that the government should support them. Those folks will vote for the Democrats because the Democrats use taxpayer money to give goodies to Democrat voters.

On the other hand Democrats oppose refugees from Cuba and Vietnam since both groups tend to vote Republican.

It's not compassion that drives Democrat policies but a desire for more political power.

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Spicer didn't lie and no one lost their health insurance

When Obama blatantly lied about our being able to keep our health plans under Obamacare the same media types who are demanding Trump’s press secretary, Spicer, resign kept silent.

And then of course there’s Benghazi. The Obama’s administration repeatedly and deliberately lied about the nature of the attacks, blaming an innocent filmmaker, in order to help ensure that Obama would be reelected.  We know that the people in authority knew that there was no riot about the movie when they were telling the American people otherwise.  That’s a lie.

When liberals lie people do die yet the media apparently doesn’t care.  However if Spicer is factually incorrect on how many people attended/watched Trump’s Inauguration the media apparently believes that civilization is at risk.

Spicers “lies” are most likely technical errors based on bad information.  For example a “lie” was that the white tarps weren’t used before when they were used in 2013.  That someone gave Spicer incorrect information about this or that Spicer worked from memory and was mistaken is far more likely than that he intentionally lied.

Yet the same media who ignored the lies coming from Obama, not his press secretary, immediately declares that Spicer was intentionally lying.

We know for a fact that Obama knew we wouldn’t be able to keep our health plan, unless of course he didn’t know what was in his own bill, but it’s unclear how the media knows that Spicer wasn’t simply repeating what he’d been told.

Note the difference on how the media is treating Spicer and how they treated Candy Crowley. Crowley incorrectly “corrected” Romney in the presidential debate by saying that Obama had declared the attack at Benghazi a terrorist attack shortly after it occurred.  She was factually incorrect in a major way as she later admitted yet no one in the media called her a liar.  Her “lie” helped Obama get reelected while Spicer’s “lies” will have no impact on anything. Yet the voices calling for Spicer’s scalp didn’t call for banning Crowley from the media.

Remember it is a fact that the media had used a photo taken significantly before the Inauguration to try and show that attendance at the Trump Inauguration was small.

Spicer was reacting to a fake news attack by the media on Trump and hence it’s not improbable that after more than a year of vicious fact free attacks on Trump and his team Spicer might have unintentionally believed things that weren’t true.

The human error explanation is made more likely by the story the media isn’t covering.  A reporter incorrectly claimed that Trump had removed the bust of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office.  Given that Spicer had a big example of the media “lying” about Trump it’s not surprising that he might have not done enough due diligence on fact checking some of the other information he presented that was not perfectly correct.

Also isn’t strange that the same media that is assuming Spicer lied is buying the reporters story that he didn’t see the bust of MLK because it was blocked from his view.  Note that the reporter didn’t try and fact check that the bust was removed he simply failed to see it and then notified the world. For what it’s worth I’m perfectly willing to believe that that reporter didn’t intentionally lie. But it’s obscene that the same media hacks who are attacking Spicer for what’s most likely a similar lack of fact checking aren’t demanding that the reporter who “lied” about the MLK bust be banned from media. 

While some conservatives are upset about Spicer’s actions I suspect that many are not.

First the blatant hypocrisy of a media that applauded the release of completely unverifiable documents about Trump just a few weeks ago getting worked up about whether Spicer was right about the global audience—which couldn’t be confirmed—is disgusting.

Second after decades of the media lying about conservatives and branding us racists, fascists, and loons it’s nice to see them called out for deliberately trying to distort the facts about how many people attended Trump’s Inauguration by using a photo taken before the crowd grew. Even if there were fewer people at Trump’s Inauguration than Obama’s it’s still fake news to try and make the numbers look smaller than they were.

Think about it.  A fair media would have emphasized why Trump’s crowd might have been smaller.

They would have mentioned that the widely publicized threats of riots would have kept a lot of Trump supporters, who tend to have children, away.  Because conservatives aren’t fascists like liberals there were no threats of rioting at Obama’s “coronations”.

We know that the rioters and protestors did impact attendance from anecdotal evidence. A person who attended the Inauguration said that his friend couldn’t get in because protestors had forced the gate that the first person used to get in to be closed. Yet the media is acting as though comparing attendance is an apples to apples comparison but due to the liberals being fascists it’s not.

Similarly the media would have made a big point about how DC and its environs is a huge liberal bubble populated by grossly overpaid government workers, lobbyists, and people on welfare—precisely the people that knew that Obama would enrich them at the expense of hard working Americas—so that while Trump supporters had to travel long distances from fly over country to be at the Inauguration—and miss work—Obama supporters could just stroll on over without having to lose a penny of their income. 

If Spicer deliberately and knowingly presented false information then he deserves to be castigated but the idea that the same media which lied about Obama saying that the attack in Benghazi wasn’t based on terrorism calling Spicer a liar, rather than saying he needs to improve his fact checking, and demanding that he resign is repugnant.

Before we put our people like Spicer under the microscope let’s demand that the media treat every comment by a liberal with the same hostility.

It’s time to make it clear that most of America views the major media as lying weasels and that we’re tired of their whining.  To condemn Spicer while applauding the folks who published the completely fake “Russian” dossier on Trump shows that any concern about Spicer “lying” is based solely on political partisanship not a dedication to truth.

Feel free to follow tom on Twitter

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

The movie Silence: An attack on God and man’s relationship with Him

Some people say you shouldn’t comment on a movie unless you’ve seen it.  Strangely those same people say that you should comment about other things you haven’t seen like the Holocaust.

The reality is that most of what we talk about is based on what we’ve read or heard.  And people often talk about movies they haven’t seen.

A movie has two main aspects; its message and its accidents.  The accidents are things like the quality of the acting, the music, the props, the CGI etc.

Not having seen the movie Silence I won’t speak about the accidents but having read the plot I feel moved to comment on the message the movie sends.

The Silence is a virulently anti-Catholic and anti-religious movie.

This commentary addresses why people of faith should not commend or support this movie.  I want to make very clear that none of the Catholic supporters of Silence endorse or agree with the offensive parts of the movie. They do however suggest that as a work of art—whatever that might be—it has merit.

Some also suggest that art should challenge people of faith.  I find the whole idea of art challenging what is good to be absurd.  But even if I'm wrong on that the reality is that we live in a world where people of faith are being constantly challenged; we don't need some random "artist"'s vision to be forced to confront our faith we can just read the newspaper or talk to relatives who have rejected God.

Spoilers to follow.

The basic plot is that two priests go to Japan and deny God[correction only one priest denies God the other dies].  The priest denies Christ in order to end the torture of some of his flock who had already denied Christ.

The priest’s denial is not some lip service thing, though that would be bad enough, but a true rejection of God. We know this because the priest marries and says that he can no longer forgive sins.

Any priest would know that the moral state of the priest does not impact his ability to forgive sins.  Hence saying that he can no longer forgive sins means that the priest no longer believes in God for even if the priest were unrepentant he could still forgive sins. That’s because it’s not the priest forgiving sins but Christ working through the priest who forgives sins.

Basically the plot seems to tell us that the priest rejects God not only to save his former parishioners from torture but also because the priest finds the “silence” of God an unacceptable condemnation of Him.  Why else would the priest continue to live as though he no longer believed even when it was no longer necessary to do so in order to avoid the torture of others?

The central story of Silence is a standard torture porn meme—think the Saw movies.

There is a villain, A, who threatens to do horrible things to victims, B, unless the “hero”, C, does some evil.

In the case of Silence the villain is a Japanese inquisitor, the victims are Japanese Christians who have denied God but who will still be tortured until the priest, C, denies God.

The premise, all too easily embraced by many, is that doing evil to avoid physical suffering for others is good.

The reality however is that C is guilty of nothing until he does the evil A asks him to do.  It is A who is responsible for the suffering of the victims not C.

Now if what A asked of C was minor and totally worldly perhaps it could be justified; if A said he’d stop torturing the victims if C had to admit his own failings for example.

But in the movie the evil act is to deny God.  Hence in Silence we’re told that the balance the priest faces is between worldly suffering and denying God.  Should we deny God in order to reduce worldly suffering is the question that must be answered.

Catholics, including the priest in question, know the answer to that question.  Jesus makes it very clear nothing in the world is worth trading one’s salvation for.  Absolutely nothing.

Even a lip service denial of faith by the priest would be horrible because it would likely lead to more Japanese Christians denying God and risking eternal damnation.

By denying Christ the priest increased the likelihood that Japanese Christians would go to Hell and the likelihood he would join them.  No reduction of worldly suffering can justify that.

If worldly suffering could justify denying Christ, and as a result having Christ deny you, all the martyrs were wrong to die. They were fools to die rather than simply deny Christ.  Yet no Catholic believes that.

But supporters of Silence say that because it was people other than the priest who were suffering it was not necessarily bad that the movie shows the priest denying Christ to help them even if the act itself was bad.  Yet if nothing else the Crucifixion of Christ tells us that all suffering has a purpose and that we should not embrace Satan, by denying God, in order to stop worldly torment.

Peter wanted to prevent Christ’s suffering and Christ chastised him for it.

The movies’ reasoning is at best saying that the ends justify the means.  At worst it’s a denial of the infinitely more important nature of faith over worldly concerns.

To someone who accepts Catholic doctrine the priest is not in fact facing a moral dilemma.  To see this let’s recast the situation just a bit.  Suppose instead of denying Christ the Japanese inquisitor had demanded the priest kill a new born baby. I suspect that many who are at least a bit sympathetic to the priest would suddenly balk.

The movie appears to advance evil by making the denial of a “silent” God appear to be not all that bad compared to say killing a baby yet denying God is every bit as bad, if not worse, than sins we commit against our fellow creatures.

A well formed movie would cast the priest as a villain but that does not appear to be the case. Instead he's portrayed as a tortured soul whose evil is like that of a soldier who breaks in combat.

At least one supporter has compared Saint Kolbe's situation to the apostate priest's; Kolbe gave up his life to save another’s and the priest denied Christ to keep others from being tortured.  While the critic acknowledges the differences he seems to ignore the fact that the comparison is without any logical support.  Kolbe gave up his worldly life—which he was going to lose eventually anyway-- to save the worldly life of another. The apostate priest gave up his eternal life, and possibly the eternal life of the victims he was supposedly trying to protect—in exchange for an end to the purely worldly suffering that the former members of his flock were enduring.

The first great crime of the movie Silence against truth then is to preach that loyalty to God is not more important than loyalty to men; that God Himself approves of denying Himself to reduce worldly suffering.

The second crime is to structure the movie so as to imply either that God approves of such an evil or that God is silent and absent from our lives.

The priest prays but God doesn’t appear in the sky to answer him.  Yet the reality is that God already answered the priest’s question.  A Jesuit would know of how the Church, and hence Christ, addressed the issue of apostasy during the Roman persecutions.

It was always a horrible sin to deny Christ for any reason; because Christ said so.  But because God is infinitely merciful those who denied Him but repented could be forgiven.

Hence the priest knew that denying Christ was wrong yet he did it.  Should we condemn him for it?  Of course not because we have no idea of what we would do in those circumstances. Only God can judge any of us. But we must condemn what he did.

The second great crime Silence commits against truth is to imply that the priest would have any doubt about what Christ asked of him.  That God does not equip us to deal with what the world throws at us.  We may reject His wisdom and Grace and go with the superficially compelling narrative that the world invokes but it’s not because God was silent.  The movie would appear to claim that God does not offer us the Grace we need to endure the trials He allows us to have.

I’m on less certain ground for the third great crime since I’m relying on a critic’s commentary for it.  The critic says the movie raises the question of whether Christ’s Truth is in fact universal.  The critic writes:

“Rodrigues contests this: Christianity in Japan flourished for generations, he says, before the soil was poisoned by persecution. But what does Rodrigues know about Japanese Christianity? Silence hangs us on the horns of an unsettling dilemma: On the one hand, can a Christianity that is culturally European have meaning in Japan? On the other, if Christianity has changed in Japan, is it still the same faith proclaimed by the missionaries?”


No Catholic who truly understands what the Church teaches can argue that Christ’s message is without meaning to any people in any culture.  All men are equal when it comes to God’s Truths.

While it’s true that the way to express those truths can vary in order to address different cultures in ways they can understand the meaning never changes.  Despite differences in the culture Catholicism is the same faith everywhere because Jesus is the one True God who is present everywhere. The Eucharist and the sacraments aren't culturally conditioned and neither is Christ's death on the Cross or His resurrection. That's why even "European" Catholicism has been accepted across a huge spectrum of cultures.

Perhaps the critic doesn’t mean what his words seem to say but the movie apparently does.

Hence if this critic is right the third great crime of the movie Silence against truth is questioning whether Christ’s message is in fact universal in nature.

Silence's fourth great crime against truth is that by not showing what the eternal consequences of apostasy are it leaves out the most important part of the drama it claims to portray.  As Jesus said what profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?

By being silent on man's spiritual dimension and addressing only his physical reality the movie essentially recasts a spiritual conflict into a purely worldly one.  As a result the viewer is effectively led away from truth just as a man who is shown a floor plan of a building with no idea of how many stories it has is led away from understanding what the building actually looks like.

By taking a problem that can only be viewed in light of man's physical and spiritual nature and recasting it as a purely worldly issue Silence leads the audience away from an honest appreciation of the issues.

Like the modern media which constantly talks of the reformed perpetrators but never of the now silent victims Silence effectively denies the reality of what the priest did.

Silence is also a movie that should not have been made because it portrays God as being silent.  I spend a reasonable amount of time trying to evangelize atheists. When I say that God loves them and that even atheists have a chance to be saved, as Pope Francis has pointed out, they respond by saying “If God loves me why doesn’t He appear to me? Why is He silent?”.

By portraying a God who didn’t in any way answer a priest’s cry for help Silence bolsters atheists disdain for God and for those who follow Him.  In reality however God answered the priests question before the priest ever left for Japan; He answered it when He spoke of those who would deny Him.

But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven. Matthew 10:33

Silence also effectively attacks the Catholic Church because it’s quite reasonable to assume that evangelicals who have little knowledge of Church history or teachings will walk away saying “See Catholicism is a cult; no Baptist would deny Christ like that”.

This is exacerbated by the fact that the priest’s apostasy was not mere lip service but a true denial of God.  He marries and declares that he is no longer a priest that can only mean he’s embraced the world and denied God.

Silence’s supporters argue that it was based on fact and hence the movies message is valid.

I see several major problems with that.  First history is written by the winners and we can’t know that the priests did in fact deny Christ the way the movie shows or that the priests were in fact as good as the movie shows them to be prior to their torture.

But even granting that the story is true why would anyone make a movie about failures?

We are in a war with the world, a war that has been waging for 2000 years. Why would we make a movie that highlights and tries to generate sympathy for those who reject the God who so loves them? Why support a movie that ignores the spiritual consequences of worldly actions?

 At least one supporter of the movie has written:

“It’s worth remembering that Silence has outraged many Japanese Catholics with its empathic portrayal of persecuted Christians who avoided martyrdom by trampling on fumie (literally “stepping-on picture”) — images of Christ or the Blessed Virgin that suspected Christians were required to step on to express apostasy or repudiation of Christ.”

In WWII no film tried to generate sympathy for soldiers who were cowards.  There were cowards in films but only if they redeemed themselves were they shown in a positive light.

In the 1960’s safely removed from the threat of Nazi domination “artists” started producing sympathetic portrayals of those who put themselves ahead of their obligations. It’s true that we now know that under the stress of war brave men can break and so we no longer execute them. That was known in WWII as well but common sense ensured that those who failed were not extolled or given an easy excuse precisely because doing so would increase the number of men who simply gave in to fear which in turn would lead to losing the war.

If we wish people to win the race and be saved producing movies that attack God, attack the Church, and try and justify those who put themselves, or others, ahead of God is not a good idea.

But of course we can’t stop others from making such movies. We can however reduce the likelihood of further films of this ilk by not patronizing this one.

So I suggest that the responsible approach to Silence is condemnation and avoiding providing any financial support to the movie by buying tickets or renting it online.