A jolly holiday

We're back.  We had our own little patchwork vacation this past weekend.  Nothing big this year.  Our dream - our hope, maybe even prayer - is that before the boys all move on and get going with their own families, we can all take a trip together out West.  That and/or Washington D.C.  To that end, we're hoarding our acorns and not going hog-wild in the meantime.

So this year, with school schedules, job schedules, accounting for my Mom's care, and basically dodging the various slings and arrows of life, it was a miracle that everything converged this weekend for us to have a couple days with the boys.

My sister was able to watch my Mom (who wouldn't be able to keep up), we found a reasonable care location for our pooch, everyone was able to get the same days off, leaving us a week or so to plan.  We knew it wouldn't be a long, four day away trip.  For six people, too expensive.   Plus, we weren't ready to put our dog in care for more than a night or two.  Having just got her, we didn't want the routine we've worked hard to establish to fade away.

We decided on a nice trip by train for a day, followed by going to the Pro Football Hall of Fame the following day.  Never been there.  That was for our oldest, who's had a tough year this year.  Starting with an auto accident in March, he was still working toward his career as a gourmet chef.  That is, until he was diagnosed with a near fatal food allergy to fish.  Since fish and gourmet cooking are rather close at hand, and since the allergist said it's about the worst he's ever seen, it's forced him to stop mid-way and consider a different vocational path.  Since he's our resident sports guru, we thought he would appreciate the visit - and he did.

The rest of the long weekend was a kit-bash of low key hanging about the house and games, going to a get together with families from our church, and just basically driving about and enjoying our company.  Maybe we're a freakish family, but we actually get along on our family trips.  With the exception of one iPod they shared, they left their phones and iPads home so we could just spend the time visiting.  As the boys said, they'll be moving on once school is done, if not before, and they want to spend what time is left visiting with the family.

On the whole, a great time.  As patchwork vacations go, nothing really out of the ordinary, just a fun time with the family.  And that's enough.

Our first day off.  We considered the Ohio State Fair, or the Zoo, but the boys brought this game out of mothball
 and we spent the entire day playing.  My oldest boy won. I lost. Still, a relaxing day.

Next day was a belated July 4th party with families from church.  Not a great pic, but caught my second oldest taking it upon himself to hoist the daughter of one of the families and carry her to the wagon ride.  She, being unable to walk, was more than appreciative.  Moments that make a Dad proud. 

My third oldest looking uncharacteristically pensive the following day waiting for the train

It's been a long time, but I believe that's an older General Motors engine.  My Dad would approve. 
He loved the GMs, but couldn't abide the GE engines. 

The boys took one of the booths to hang out together, leaving my wife and I
to sit by ourselves, stretch out and enjoy the scenery.

Speaking of which, the scenery was beautiful.  Much better than a plane.  If it was more convenient,
this is how I'd travel. We must come back someday during the Fall. 

Our oldest outside the Hall of Fame on the final day.  He thoroughly enjoyed it. 
Surprisingly, so did the rest of us. It was impressive. 

Our youngest suited up, just like his older brother.  Don't know if he'll play or not.  Homeschoolers can play,
but it's not something the schools go out of their way to accommodate. 

A quick shot of the great one.  A reminder to the press as it pushes the likes of Tom Brady, LeBron James and even J.T. Barrett: Legendary greatness in athletics is more than just stats, which can be fickle and not show the whole picture.

The boys outside the construction for enshrinement week.  All is right with the world.

Back in enough time so that, once our youngest retired, the three older boys and I repaired to the fun room
and went another round of Flames of War. A splendid vacation overall. 

Food for thought

Courtesy of my second oldest: In Australia, do they sing "I bless the rains up in Africa"?


Ciao.  We'll be back in a few days.  Blessings and thanks for visiting.

Vatican II killed the Catholic Church

Here.  Rod Dreher walks us through his departure from Catholicism and into the Orthodox Church.  Since Rod's life echoes mine - former Protestant, to Catholic, thence to Orthodoxy - it's always an melancholy read.  I should say that, unlike Rod, the abuse scandal did  not bother me.  That is, it wasn't something that kept me from coming to the Church.  It was in full swing when I began the baby steps that led to the Catholic doorstep.  I had been pastor long enough to know that similar things happened in Protestant churches, too.  Perhaps without the systemic cover ups, but it happened.

That's obviously not why we left Catholicism.  Why we left has more to do with the other part that Rod mentions, that is expounded on by the French writer Jean-Claude Larchet.  According to him, twas Vatican II that killed the beast.  Of course we all know that it wasn't really Vatican II.  Just like the Sexual Revolution didn't begin in the 1960s, the 'Spirit' of Vatican II was already alive and well within the Church well before Howdy Doody was prime time.  The Council merely put the attitude down on paper.

Perhaps the worst part of the council was the attitude that Vatican II means never having to say you're Catholic.  That was certainly what we experienced going through RCIA.  At times the teachers - but for one notable exception - seemed almost apologetic.  'We're sorry, but the Church teaches this.' If they got around to what the Church taught at all.  Possibly with the exception of abortion, almost every issue was either openly in line with a more liberal posturing, or they kept it quiet.  Marriage was spoken of as being between a man and woman, but to this day, I have yet to hear homosexuality spoken of at all.

What's more than merely the social issues was the idea that Christ was, well, optional.  I mean, you needed to confess Him and all.  But there wasn't really much there.  There certainly wasn't an attitude that this was something we needed or else.  It was nice to have Him.  It was our thing; our meat.  Jesus rocked it and all.  But it was our opinion.  Far be it from them to suggest that Catholicism had something that the rest of the world would be at pains for lacking.  It was as if they simply didn't want to act like Catholicism was anything that might offend someone.

I spoke to our Orthodox priest about that some time back.  Orthodoxy, as we know, has often been associated with the 20th Century Ecumenical Movement.  We chatted about that, and I mentioned to him that I think that emphasis on ecumenicism has hurt the Faith overall.  The idea is that we meet to reach across tables and find common ground.  The problem is, on almost every topic imaginable, there will be people who disagree.  Therefore, on almost every topic imaginable, if our focus is on getting along, we'll be inclined to downplay the importance, or even emphasize some escape clause so as to say not everyone has to agree with me.

As a result, you get a lot of what I hear in churches in general nowadays, and certainly heard in RCIA.  You get the constant drumbeat that one need not believe n Jesus to be saved.  Oh sure, it's advised.  But fact is, you can love Jesus, hate Jesus, piss on Jesus, it matters not.  As long as you're a swell person, God can save anyone.  Some even act as if God will save everyone.  No matter what.

I explained to our own Orthodox priest that, if you think on it, we usually don't approach most important topics like that, other than perhaps AIDS.  Take cancer and smoking.  We know for a fact that people can be exposed to smoke, second hand smoke, and fifth hand smoke, and lead long and healthy lives. You're playing a big gamble of course, but we know that smoking doesn't kill everyone. Nonetheless, we don't run around emphasizing the fact.   We don't say 'Hi kids!  We're here today to remind you not to smoke, because smoking can kill you.  But if you do smoke, don't worry!  A lot of people can smoke and never have a bad health day from it.'

Nope. We don't talk like that at all.  We emphasize the fact that you can die. Same with drunk driving.  Same with overeating.  Same with offending people.  I doesn't matter if what you say might not offend everyone.  It's enough that it might offend someone!  Our priest, FWIW, agreed, and said this very thing is why there are many in the Orthodox Church beginning to rethink the wisdom of such a high ecumenical emphasis.

And yet, in the 20th century, the Catholic Church concluded the best approach getting along was getting along.  It decided it would meet the challenges of the Western Atheist revolution by - modifying and even changing its own teachings to keep up with the secular Joneses.  Even as secularism has become more militant and less tolerant about a wide range of issues, the Church has rushed forward each time and thrown down its arms in a display of acquiescence.  And after generations of this approach, I have yet to see the world inch closer to the Gospel, even as the Faith leaps farther and farther away from its own teachings.

With each passing generation, people seem to lose more and more of the Faith that the Church is supposed to guard.  Right now the fastest growing denomination in America appears to be Former Catholic.  I don't think it's just the abuse scandals that have exploded on the Church's scene once again.  I don't think it's because of those evil conservative converts blemishing the purity of the True Faith, as not a few NPL Catholics seem to suggest.

I think it's because of what my family came to believe.  What was that?  Easy.  We lost everything we had to become Catholic - and that was a damn fool thing to do.  That was often the attitude we encountered.  Maybe not that bluntly.   But it was there.  Except for some older Catholics,  well past retirement age and reminiscing about the Great World War Two, most Catholics just sort of gazed at us with a puzzled look.  Sometimes appreciated our story.  But they just couldn't see the whole 'give it all up for the Church'.  After all, that's like saying their non-Catholic friends might be wrong!

So my boys, exposed to this attitude from the top (Francis assuring Protestants to get to God where they are), down to our priests and laity, began to question the whole Jesus thing.  Or at least Jesus and the importance of any one approach.  Sure, Jesus.  Maybe.  But really?   Couldn't it just as well be the Budha?  The Prophet?  Quakers?  Or just some Oprahianity version of feel-goodism were everyone goes to the happy place where nothing is real, and nothing to get hung about?

We couldn't point them anywhere to curb their developing lack of faith.  We couldn't say 'there are Catholics out there who hold the True Faith!'.  After all, many other Catholics point to them as the problem with the Faith.  Rigid I've heard them called.  We couldn't send them to the Church itself, since its leader and laity were why they were questioning their faith in the first place.  Increasingly, we were keeping our kids in line with the Faith despite, not because of, the Catholic Church.

And that is why we went Orthodox.  I like Rod's description BTW.  Like the animal chewing its leg off to survive.  When we became Catholic, we were wild eyed with wonder and expectations, and we watched each one dashed on the rock, not of Peter, but of Vatican II.  When you add the fact that we lost almost everything we had to experience this post-Faith reality, we had to bolt.  Even if it cost us a leg to do it.

I still pray mightily for the Church.  One of my sons remained.  He's our little pathfinder, keeping the signal clear for us, holding out that things will blow over soon and the barque will right itself.  For the rest, the Orthodox church we attend - for all the myriad problems Orthodoxy has - nonetheless has helped rebuild what was a floundering faith.  For all their issues, they still believe that the Orthodox Faith has something unique to offer; even something necessary.  Hell is spoken of, and the urgency of repentance and staying along the path of righteousness is emphasized.  For no other reason, our move has been worth it.

I can't say I don't - deep down - still hope and pray that the Church will right itself.  I would love to return with my family or (pipe dream here) see the Orthodox and Catholic traditions reconciled where we can each learn from the other.  But as of now, the piece by Dreher, linking to the sad state of the Church in France (which also applies here), is the main reason we left.

NOTE:  I wanted to get this out here because Rod's piece struck a nerve.  I don't usually spend much time editing my posts, except spell check.  Nonetheless, I'll at least do a once over to make sure it makes some semblance of sense. Today begins a four day vacation - woohoo!  I wasn't planning on anything other than an adios, but felt this needed mentioned.  I have said the Christian Faith is facing the greatest crisis and heresy since Arianism.  And nothing suggests it's even aware of this fact.  It's not just the Catholic Church.  All monotheistic faiths are struggling with the secular onslaught.  But perhaps none are succumbing more quickly than the Catholic Church.  If there are any passages that don't make sense or seem to fade into the ether, just let me know.  I'll correct them when I can.  Blessings!

Was she out of her cotton picking mind!

So I was watching CBS this morning while getting ready for the day.  It has a segment dedicated to 'what unites is more important than what divides us.'  So it picked this story.  Fair enough.  I'll just cut to the chase.  During the interview, one of the twins (sorry, couldn't keep track of which) said that when she told her Dad she would run - presumably as a Republican, though I missed that detail - he said "Are you out of your cotton picking mind?!"  That was according to her.  Her words.  An African American.  I assume her father is as well.

Why do I waste time on such a trivial thing?  Because of this.  Oddly enough, I saw this story in the second link on CBS, in which the hosts lamented the clear insensitivity of the individual in question.  CBS wasn't alone.  It's enough that it made the rounds, screams of outrage, charges of racism, and the requisite groveling in the dirt and begging for forgiveness.  And what is the difference?  The young women in the first link are not white, the fellow in the story of outrage was white.  I could be wrong.  Perhaps there will be some outcry against her use of such a racist and thoughtless phrase.  But I'm not holding my breath.  I'll leave you to figure out why.

Am I the only one who is sick of hearing about the musical Hamilton?

I know.  It's today.  The age of hyped up hyper hype.  It's the internet age.  It's the age of Social Media.  It's the era that made that elongated CGI cartoon Avatar into the biggest money maker of all time. 

Nonetheless, I can tell purposeful hype when I see it.  I can tell that desire to make something a 'moment in time' phenomenon.  I'm not saying it isn't good or entertaining.  But I'm just tired of turning around every other day and hearing 'all the rules have been broken for Hamilton', as if it's the musical God couldn't equal.

End of rant.

Why we must homeschool

Two examples.  First, in Philadelphia, principles and administrators are taught that parents are the enemy where a child's gender identity is concerned.  If a student follows the current "Science" and decides gender is a state of mind, then its incumbent upon the staff to shield them from any threats to their reality, including their parents.

The other example comes from sunny California.  In San Diego, public schools are launching a special anti-Islamic bullying initiative.  I'm sure kids are bullied for being Muslim, just as they are for any one of a thousand reasons, but that was enough for CAIR to jump in and work with the schools to ensure followers of the Prophet and Allah are rightfully treated.   Of course CAIR, as we remember, has made it clear that its America is one where believers in salvation through Christ will not have access to high office.  And it's worth noting that in our neck of the woods, where there has been no more anti-Muslim crimes than anti-anyone else crimes, Muslims still insist they live in a world two steps away from the Holocaust, even when the most violent hate crimes involve Muslims attacking others.  So there you go.

Modern schools, as we know, are the main platform for indoctrinating our children into the ways of the Left.  While that's not why we initially homeschooled, I can't help but be glad we homeschool now.  It isn't easy.  We were already floundering financially due to becoming Catholic on the eve of the economic collapse of '08.  It would be easier to put our boy in school, though now my Mom also needs looking after, so that would still be an issue.

Either way, it's a day to day for us.  Just recently we finally got some new furniture in our living room after being almost a year without. Well, not new.  It was used.  The fellow who sold it is a franchise owner for Chick fil A.  Obviously franchise owners for Chick fil A do well.  He was moving to another state, and explained that his new house only had room for three living rooms, not four.  I told him to be brave.

But he was a good guy, we chatted and he asked if we needed any bedroom suites or such.  I laughed and told him when he saw our house, he'd get the joke.  His garages (he had two) were literally larger than our home.  But no hard feelings.   This is the life we've chosen.  It's what it is, and it isn't the responsibility of others to hand us things on a silver platter.

After all, charity exists when things beyond our control hit us.  That's when various outlets, including the government, can be a safety net to help us through the hard times.  But we are where we are because we choose to be.  If it means my boys never get to Disneyland, or we seldom have steak and caviar, so be it.  It's not everyone else's job to give us the results of a life we've not chosen to earn.  It's only incumbent upon them, and our government, to do the best they can to provide us for our basic needs if forces beyond our control have put us there.

Anyhoo, these stories are why we endure it all.  We know that the kids will be out in the world some day.  Our oldest boys went through public school for many years, and saw first hand what is there.  We've wondered about our youngest, and about putting him in public school just to expose him to what is out there.  But this is also 2018.  Without trying, he is exposed to things that our oldest would never have known without being thrown into the mix.  So rather than have schools shield him from us while explaining the beauty of Islam and gender preferences, we'll buck up, pull the belts tight, and do what we can to keep our youngest from becoming another lemming in the herd of Leftist indoctrination camp attendees.

Support for Roe v Wade is at a new high

According an NBC/WSJ poll.  Which isn't surprising.  After all, a favorite tactic of the press is to hand over the megaphone to one side and allow that side to spout with impunity.  So when President Trump had the opportunity to move the Supreme Court to the right, the press kicked into action.  Handing that golden megaphone over to pro-abortion rights advocates, we were given a constant 24/7 deluge of warnings about the inevitable death and suffering of billions of women; the world would be destroyed; billions would die; the universe would explode; God would be killed!  And it would all happen if Roe v Wade was repealed.

Guess what?  In light of this, more people favor keeping Roe v Wade in the law books.  That's one way the press does it.  St. Goebbels, the patron saint of mass media, knew full well the power of mass propaganda.  He knew that if you held every outlet of information, you could convince 66% of any society that squares are, and always have been, round.   That's just what happened here.

Of course in 2018, every day is a new day that SatanHitlerTrump will plunge us into NuclearHolocaustGate and destroy the planet and kill humanity.   Trump is guilty of every sin ever committed, and  the inevitable suffering and death of hundreds of billions on a daily basis will always be the result of his waking up in the morning.

I know.  It's stupid.  It's like Goebbels but without the whimsy.  Nonetheless, despite the fact that we are the most educated generation in history, with more access to more information than any other historical period, people still fall for it. We call it sin in the Christian community.  Or you could just call it a sad but simple little truth we learn from our pre-multicultural history classes:

He who lives by the Social Justice Warrior witch hunt

Shall die by the Social Justice Warrior witch hunt.   As we enter into the next phase of puritanical gulags of the Facebook generation, we see people scouring through endless documents, going back years and years, to find something you might have said that is hateful or wrong or stupid or simply offensive to the people who matter.  Character assassination, personal attacks and even job termination are often to follow.

The irony?  Many who are now falling to the latest witch hunt level are themselves progressives who have relished in the modern 'if it ain't liberal enough, it's Hitler' mentality.  Case in point: Trevor Noah. Never one to hide his contempt and loathing for those to the right of the political center, he has been no stranger to offensive comments - as long as they offended the right people. Which is fine.

The problem?  With liberalism's 'here today, gone later today' approach to ethics, you just never know if what you're being told is awesome today will become the unforgivable sin tomorrow.  And given that we are entering that phase where it's not just you sinning now, but you sinning ever, you might want to reconsider jumping on the latest 'cool ethic to be hip by'.  Especially since, as we know, concepts like forgiveness, mercy, reconciliation, humility and unity are anathema to the same movement now looking at your entire life's history for a single infraction over which to destroy you.

Bakery fires two women for being white

Yep.  There's just no other reason.  They had the temerity to be white.  The offended woman in question was black, and a known activist.  So the black woman walks in after closing time and places an order.  The two white women followed company policy and said it was past time to order.  The two white women had already turned away other late comers, some of whom were white.  The activists, however, suspected she was denied service because she was black.  This is because we know that you can always tell a racist by the color of her skin. 

The activist turned to America's Cybergulag, and the lynch mob was formed.  Almost immediately, the company admitted that there wasn't a reason to suggest the employees were racist or anything. In the end, however, they said impact outweighs intent.  The employees did the right thing, but the wrong type of skin color was offended.

This is no different than Jim Crow era America, just turned on its head.  No, scratch that.  When Tom Robinson was sent up the river, at least he was accused of wrong doing.  When people wanted Blacks to be punished or lynched, they accused them of trumped up charges.  They at least knew that to cover their racism against blacks, they had to validate it by coming up with some false accusation of wrongdoing.

But not so in our post-Christian society, where forgiveness, mercy, and reconciliation are tossed on the trash heap along with concepts of justice, law, presumption of innocence and the need for evidence.  In a post-truth era, who cares?  We accuse because.  And sentencing is expected.  And the bakery in question complied.  We have no concern about coming up with a charge of wrongdoing.  It's enough that we accuse.  No wrongdoing is needed.  Guilt is based upon who says guilt.

These girls, likely just trying to make money to get by, were fired because of the color of their skin.  The woman who accused them was heard because of the color of her skin.  The bakery went along and the proper skin color was catered to, since that's what our society demands.  Racism 101, 2018 style.

If you argue that the white women are just whiny white butt-hurt, or that it can't be wrong since all the beautiful people in our society wouldn't care (has the MSM run with this?), then just remember something important.  The same would have been said by the same people a hundred years ago, it's just that the skin colors would have been switched.

We're simply replacing evil with evil, doing away with wrongdoing by replacing it with wrongdoing.  If you've ever wondered how people throughout history could have been party to the evils and terrors and idiocy of the past, you need only turn on the television, read a newspaper, or look out the window in America 2018.  You'll have all the case studies you'll ever need.

Running tackle for the sake of decency and common sense

One reason I end up posting on Mark Shea so often is that several readers are among that growing demographic known as 'Banned by Mark Shea.'  Mark will allow any instinct evil or mortal sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance to be advocated on his blog, as long as you join in his attacks against Christian conservatives and the GOP.

It's true.  I've seen late term abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, state mandated termination of children, gay sex, gender fluidity, radical feminism, anti-Catholic bigotry, hatred of Jesus, Hitler's Pope, and just about everything that a sane Christian - including Mark c.2005 - would consider grave evil and a threat to all that is good and sacred in the world.  These are sometimes debated by Mark but, as often as not, are allowed to be posted with impunity.  The only cost is that the individual come to trash Christian conservatives, Christian non-liberals, the GOP, Trump or anyone who dares challenge the dogmas of the political Left.

Mark's sites are also a repository for the last few decades' worth of Leftist propaganda and talking points.  This includes the idea that pro-life Christians are hypocrites who hate children and poor people and only use the unborn as, in Mark's words, 'human shields.'  That last part about human shields is actually a Mark distinctive.  To be honest, I don't remember most pro-abortion activists suggesting pro-lifers don't care about the unborn.  They might say it's about controlling women or such (ignoring women pro-lifers in the process), but they usually at least concede care for the unborn on the part of pro-lifer.  But not Mark.  To Mark, to the right of center is all wickedness and void of goodness.

If their actions suggest otherwise, it's no problem for Mark.  They may say they love Jesus, attend church and Mass, give to the poor, feed the hungry, donate to charity, and generally insist they care about all people.  But Mark knows their wicked hearts and souls for what they are, based on the fact that they dare challenge the gospel of liberalism.  That's a benefit of liberalism today:  The John Lennon principle.  It's not what you do in your life or how you act, it's that you speak the words of the Left.  That's how he knows that, whatever they do, they are truly evil at heart.  And he does this much to the glee of so many of his regular progressive followers.  Especially the non-Christian ones.  After all, it isn't every day that, as a non-believer, you can get Christians to admit that [those] Christians are a wretched and evil lot.

But those who dare challenge the dogmas of the political Left?  Those who still defend conservative views, or dare suggest that there could be problems among some to the left of center?  Such will get you banned by Mark faster than you can say Bob's your self-identifying aunt.  As a result, there are folks here on the blog and over at Facebook that will feed me the rage, the dumb, the calumny, the Leftist propaganda and talking points that make up the bulk of Mark's literary output today.  After all, they can't challenge Mark since he has banned them.  And they are often desperate to get the word out that this source of toxicity and leftist partisanship should be warned against, however meager my little contribution might be.  Especially since Mark continues to get accolades and high-fives from so many prominent Catholics, Catholic ministries and Catholic religious leaders.

So this one came across my table.  It's basic Mark 101, c 2018.  He vomits all the rhetoric and stereotypes about those who don't conform to liberalism.  There's nothing anyone who has read Mark would be surprised by.  It's just worth an explanation why, even though I avoid his blog like the plague, he is so often referenced.  My blog is merely one outlet for those who have been banned by Mark since Mark has little stomach left for debating those who challenge his devotion to the Democratic party and the talking points of the Political Left.  So there you go.

Fun note: It's already been brought up that a commentator on the post compares the tactics of the right, including Evangelicals, to the Communists of Lenin and Stalin era.  They've also been compared to fascists and Nazis on his blog.  In all cases those making the claims are, at best, not called out.  At worst, Mark condones the comments.  Anyone remember when Mark spent months mocking Glenn Beck for his famous Communist/Nazi dig?  Yep.  Mark in a nutshell.

Mark Shea is wrong about Dan Rather

OK, as I've said, I wasn't a big fan of Trump's meeting with Putin.  His strange walk-back hasn't changed much of my assessment.  My big problem with it is that I don't think it helped when our situation in the face of Russia needs serious help.  But nothing happened.  Trump could have been meeting someone for dinner and a movie.  Sure, I hope relations between our countries could improve, but it will take more than this.   In the end, I can't help but think Trump was hoping for a Reagan/Gorbachev Geneva moment.  Just have a meeting, and it will all work from there.

Ah, that was a magical moment, I'll admit.  It was fall quarter of my freshman year of college.  Naturally the media spent days leading up to the meeting lamenting how Reagan would screw up glasnost and embarrass us and all that jazz.  Likewise, I remember well the hysterics when Reagan grabbed Gorbachev and "condescendingly" walked him to the stairs.  Boy the outcry, the hysterics.  Sometimes the current coverage of Trump brings back old memories.

Still, once the meeting was over, the fish was replaced, and Reagan came home to address the nation, all the partisan bickering and sniping stopped and the world heaved a massive sigh of relief.  For even the briefest of moments, critics gave Reagan a thumbs up, and we all believed we might make it through the Cold War without the catastrophic annihilation of humanity.

I can't help but think that's what Trump was hoping for.  Well, sorry to say, he failed.  At best it wasn't a disaster.  But at best it was a big nothing burger.  It was a photo op, a private meeting, and a press conference where Putin's blah demeanor was only surpassed by the loony questions coming from the American press.

But back to Mark's little Trump attack.  Personally, I don't give a damn about Rather's feelings, snowflake or otherwise.  I reject Rather's assessment because he is one of the most glaring examples of just why Trump is in the White House in the first place.  Do I worry about Russia?  Sure.  I haven't stopped since the end of the Cold War.  I've studied too much history to think all that animosity was a thing of the past.  I also worried about it in 2012, when Romney pointed out the obvious and was mocked by Obama for his troubles.  This is because Russia is a complex place, with a complex history, and should never be underestimated, even by the foreign policy guru Obama.

But I'm more worried about the internal threats to our democracy, liberty, freedom and civil rights.  I'm worried about the obvious collusion between various power-brokers and public and government institutions for the purpose of aiding one particular political philosophy and party even against the voters' wishes.  I worry about the institutional corruption, the lies, the deception, the systemic falsehoods, and a contempt and loathing for a growing portion of Americans that is being promoted by the very agencies that should be protecting us.  I'm worried that all of these things are joining together to stack the deck and even take away the desires of the average voter for the sake of the powers that be. And I'm worried that they are teaching more and more Americans to jettison the very ideals we are supposed to embrace, all for the sake of eliminating everything it meant to be American.

I worry more about this because, ideally at least, we can always come together against an external threat to our nation.  Despite the lessons we've learned since 9/11, we might still be able to unify and seek common cause against a hostile foreign power.  But when that enemy is within, I fear we are too divided to care. Just the circus and freak show that has been the DOJ and FBI kerfuffles over the last two years, beginning with a secret, private meeting between Bill Clinton and the woman in charge of investigating his wife, is enough to send chills down a normal spine.  That so many defended it, dismissed it, and attacked those who were bothered by the event, showed that it was clear we no longer cared about law, justice, truth or our nation.  We cared about winning for one side only.  Even if the win is at the expense of America itself.

Of course that was only a small part of the last decades of growing collusion between an expanding number of powerful individuals and institutions. And it's in these decades of development that Mr. Rather became one of the faces of the new alliance between the industry once known as the news media and the Democratic National Committee.  An alliance that continues to this day, often to the detriment of the will of the people.

When I look at Russia, I see an old adversary that could become a threat if we continue on as we have for the last couple decades.  I see it has already tried to compromise our democracy.  But I see the clear and obvious attempt to throw away all values, morals, ethics, principles, truth, consistency and common sense, while demanding we ignore the obvious about the collusion and corruption in our own power centers, as the greater threat. Especially since one of the byproducts of this internal movement has been to convince a growing number of people that the world would be better without America in it.  At least Russia merely wants to get the upper hand on America, and not see it eliminated from the global stage.

That is why I don't care about Rather's opinion Mark.  Not because Rather is a snowflake, or because I'm beholden to Trump.   It's because I have a brain, eyes, ears, and the ability to see the way the wind is blowing, and just who's blowing it.

NOTE: As I prepare to hit 'Publish', I am made aware of yet another Shea-Gem.  Here.  Seizing upon the stat that 16% of Republicans have a favorable view of Putin, he embellishes, including jumping on the story of the young Russian woman accused of being an agent for Russia.  He calls it collusion, despite the assertion that she was a spy - that is, those working with her wouldn't know she was an agent.  And of course we still don't know.  She's only been accused.  But that doesn't matter. 

Few people demonstrate more clearly than Mark's zealous embrace of the RME's* 'why wait for evidence when we can hie to the noose!' mentality as to why the real threat to our democracy and our future of liberty and freedom isn't necessarily on the other side of the ocean.

*Roy Moore Era

If a Republican called for a military coup

All hell would be breaking lose.  And yet I've not heard the press mention it. Yet again, the barking mad crazy of the anti-Trump lemming brigade shows an inexplicable capacity for making the worst of Trump's blunders look brilliant and sane by comparison.

As I'm sure we can all see by now, the Left all but seems to be calling for war with Russia.  At best they are screaming that we've been in a Cold War with Russia all along.  Except for October 22, 2012, when Russia was no big deal.  A year ago, they were screaming nuclear war with North Korea.  And now you have a Democratic congressman calling for a military coup against the president:

When I was young, I always chuckled about the GOP's Hollywood reputation of being the warmongers.  In my college days, that was the pop culture narrative.  It was always the Republicans itching for war; gunning to invade the nations of the world for the American Way.  The Democrats only and always wanted peace, love and John Lennon songs.

And yet, almost every major war and conflict of the 20th century happened - drum roll please - during a Democratic administration.  WWI: Wilson (D).  WWII: Roosevelt (D).  Korea:  Truman (D).  Vietnam: Kennedy/Johnson (D/D).  Our attack on Serbia: Clinton (D).

Only the first Gulf War (and, if you insist, our invasion of Grenada) occurred during a GOP administration.  Otherwise, the wars of the last century hang on the Democratic name tag.  Just thought I'd throw that out there since much of the progressive movement benefits by insisting it's not what we do, it's what we say that matters.  They say they want peace and Republicans want war, so it's true.  Please ignore reality since that doesn't count.

Therefore when you have them come out an actually say 'I want the military to step in and do something about this president', you had best sit up and pay attention.  For the Left, it's all about the words.

HT: The American Catholic.

Obama's disastrous Russian policy unpacked

By Politico.  No, that's not the point of the article.  The point is to whip us into a frenzy of panic so as to think Russia has attacked America every bit as much as Imperial Japan at Pearl Harbor, or terrorists who were coincidentally Muslim on 9/11.  Nonetheless, you can't help but read it and shake your head.   You can't help but think if Obama had of taken Russia seriously in 2012, perhaps Russia wouldn't have declared war on us in 2016 by destroying our elections.  Of course that won't be the angle Political, much less any Leftist pundit, takes.  It's enough to say Russia has been a threat for years, except for October 22, 2012.   The difference is that now it's politically expedient to say so.

America and Russia under the Obama years

Trump critics heart war with Russia

Yep.  There is almost a desire for it.  We have everyone running around insisting that Romney was right* and we're in the Next Cold War with Germany Israel Britain Russia over ads targeting our elections.  So barking mad insane is the anti-Trump movement that when it comes to war with Russia, to paraphrase the great Sally Field: They want it!  They really, really want it!

Best response to the sheer brain-melt psychotic nuttery that has erupted over the last day, from Washington to the National Press to the Internet and Social Media, has to be this:

Yep.  Burying legitimate criticisms of Trump in a heaping, helping mound of crazy.  That's today's Worst Generation.

For some sane observations regarding the collective meltdown and end to sanity that we're witnessing, read here, Rand Paul, of all people, brings calm analysis of the big picture to those who care nothing about any picture, but only care about defeating the enemies of the Left at all costs.

*In an almost unbelievable level of skull-void, some are actually insisting we're at Cold War with Russia and that Russia has been this evil empire for years, and yet amazingly Romney was still wrong and Obama was awesome when Romney said Russia was a threat and Obama mocked him for it.  And these are the people pushing us to at least Cold War, if not outright war, with Russia.

The murder of Tsar Nicholas II and his family

Is remembered by Donald McClarey.  Americans are blessed, and spoiled, and forgetful.  Because our revolution ended with our Founding Fathers working to keep their promise, we assume all revolutions are like that.  In fact, in a strange twist of dumb, ours is the one revolution that progressives will likely trash above all others.  And yet even a one minute glance at the historical record will show that ours was a fluke, while the bloodshed and barbarism resulting from the Communists, Nazis and other political upheaval over the last couple centuries is more often the norm.

The almost automated devotion to State above all things that could lead to an entire family lined up and sadistically gunned down was a portent of things to come.  It would define the Communist way, and the way in which so many Socialist experiments would end up, for many generations.  That so many today are mindlessly enthralled of Socialism and all it brings just shows how such blank devotion to a cause can infect even the most educated among us.

UPDATE: Rod Dreher has some info as well, including grizzly details about the murders themselves.  Truly a horrible crime, but all too common in what Rod calls the 'hellish 20th century', or the century that more than prove the existence of Satan and the demonic.

When I hear the growing drumbeat for war with Russia

All in the name of defeating Trump at all costs (even the odd mushroom cloud here or there), I think of nothing so much as this:

I mean it.  Given our weekly dose of ginned up mob hysterics, culminating in the last 24 hours' worth of proclamations of our war with Russia (missed that one in the news), all while ignoring other countries that have done the same thing but with whom we are not at war, I can't help but think we've somehow reached terminal velocity whereby whipped up lynch mobs are concerned.

This yearning for a new Cold War is beyond the most ridiculous caricatures of old warmongering conservative patriots from back in the day.  And what's worse, it's happening from the press all the way to Washington.  If you want war, then say so.  Because clearly what is happening has nothing to do with the big picture, the whole truth, or the slightest iota of consistency.

UPDATE: I should add that I think there is serious criticism due for how Trump handled himself, how he opted to throw his own country under the bus, and how he insisted that Russia never heard of such as thing as coming after our elections.  I know, the Left adored Gorbachev in the day, blamed the US over the USSR, and insisted Russia was no big deal as recently as 2012.  Nonetheless, criticisms of Trump are at least justified IMHO.  That doesn't mean, however, that this mad dash for war with Russia just to get Trump is anything less than both stupid and evil, if not downright treasonous in its own way.

Heh

A little dose of reality in the wake of the latest hysterics.

A story worthy of international attention

The BBC, Britain's own beloved news agency, has brought to the attention of its global audience this important story.  A state lawmaker in Arizona was caught speeding.  He even admitted he often speeds while driving.  The Fraternal Order of Police has, as a result, revoked its endorsement of him.

I know.  How does a state lawmaker in Arizona getting pulled over by police for speeding warrant a story in Britain's primary news outlet?  Why would people in England, or anywhere else in the world with access to the BBC, care that a state lawmaker in Arizona got a speeding ticket?  Why out of all of the stories coming out of the US and Canada did it see fit to mention this one?

Did I mention the lawmaker is a Republican?  Nuff said.  Next silly question.

Catholic feminism in all its glory

Is here. I won't really comment on the article.  It's typical progressive 'after 2000 years our generation will get it right', with a feminist spin.   But read the comments.  From 'give us your sperm then shut the hell up until we say so' to the groveling man singing of the superiority of the feminine, to the clear and obvious fact that even Salafi Muslims are more enlightened about gender equality than those wretched Catholic misogynists, it's all there for your reading pleasure. 

A movement based on 'however many demographics hate each other is irrelevant, as long as the last vestiges of the Christian West are swept away' won't last long.   My boys were debating Trump and his SCOTUS picks and what it might mean for the long term.  Their primary hope?  The Supreme Court can't change everything, but maybe having the right judges on the court will keep things in order until a generation arises that realizes we can't keep on like this.

If the comments in that comments section are any indicator, that's a long shot hope. But hope is always a precious commodity, so let's not minimize it.

When guns prevent crime

I know from experience that when you  bring up the idea that a gun can be used to prevent crime, you'll be laughed out of the discussion.  Gun Control Advocates will smack down the idea that gun owners use guns to stop crime as if it's believing in Big Foot, Unicorns or Eskimos.  

Yet, like so many things that seem associated with progressive agendas, there is a Himalayan sized pile of evidence that the Gun Control Advocates seem to ignore.  There's been a bit of a buzz over the last few months regarding a study that suggested a whopping 2.5 million cases (that's million, with six zeroes, or .00001 of Bill Gate's net worth in dollars) in which American gun owners used their firearms to defend themselves.  

I must admit that I don't do stats because I know stats can be easily manipulated to say whatever.  The push-back by Gun Control Advocates seems to be that such a figure is grossly inflated.  The problem is, in all the criticisms I've read, nobody suggests what they think it should be.  They just say it's an exaggeration, it's impossible, it's too high, it's overblown, but they never say what they feel it probably is.  And that got me to thinking, as I am wont to do.

Let's assume it is exaggerated.  Let's assume guns weren't used to defend against a crime 2.5 million times in a year in America.  How many times do we imagine they were used to defend against a crime?  2 million times?  1 million times?  Half a million times?  Let's just say a quarter of a million times.  250,000 times guns were used in self defense in a year.  That's a far cry from 2.5 million.  That is crazy off the study.  That number is nowhere near the claim made by Gun Rights Advocates.  

And yet, it's 250,000 times guns were used for self-defense.  Even if we drop it down to a paltry 25,000 times that guns were used for defense, that's still 25,000 Americans who are alive and happy and not victims of a crime, perhaps a violent one, all due to a gun.  I mean, that's a lot of people.  25,000 people not victims of crimes, be they violent or not, isn't bad.  

Think on that.  Even if the study is a whopping .01% of the truth, that's still tens of thousands who are not victims of a crime.  Given that around twice as many Americans are murdered by guns a year as die of HIV/AIDS (that would make it around 12,000/year give or take), that's still half as many killed by guns as crimes prevented.  That's assuming an epic fail on the study's part of missing the reality by 99%.  Sure, many of those would not be violent crimes.  But even so, what in the world are Gun Control Advocates doing acting like you just declared faith in a flat earth when you bring up guns being used for self-defense?  

What is one reason why am I more skittish about the Left than the Right, about progressives more than conservatives?  Because this line of argument seems to be common from top down and side to side when it comes to various progressive causes.  What would be laughed off the map if done by some wacky right winger in the back hills of Montana in his parents' basement, is often the line of arguing you here from mainline progressive pundits and leadership.  Whether #MeToo or abortion or transgender or gay marriage or open border immigration or tearing down Confederate memorials or gun control or whatever, there always seem to be this giant pile of facts and data that are not only ignored, but any who appeal to those are mocked at best, attacked a worst.

Forgive me, but if your entire argument is best summed up with 'please focus on the molehill and ignore the mountain range behind it', there's a good chance you'll lose me every time. 

How the news media does it

So CBS This Morning had a segment about a young African American teenager being attacked by a white woman.  From there it unpacked the greater story, linking it to other cases of Americans attacking each other.  Well, Americans attacking ethnic minorities.  Well, not really.  Americans who are white attacking non-White Americans.  Or at least non-White non-non-Hispanic, which in this case is suddenly not white, as opposed to George Zimmerman, who of course was not Hispanic at all, but only white.  I hope you're keeping track.

What was missing in the report was this story. It initially broke, and as the link shows, some jumped on it immediately as proof of America's inherent racism and the genetic racism that is revealed by white skin.   The problem is, it was a woman (who are supposed to always be victims), and an African American.  And unlike the others, most of whom were merely engaging in some form of verbal aggression, she got medieval on the immigrant and sent him to the hospital while telling him to go back to where he came from.

That was not mentioned at all in the CBS report.  I'm sure you know why. The purpose of the press is to establish truth, not report it.  It benefits the Left to make America into some Aryan Nazi Nation filled with white skinned Nazis just itching to kill them some dark skinned and swarthy types.  As a result, the minute they discover something horrible done by a person without white skin, it will be mentioned, reported once or twice, and then banished to the outer void of 'that which the propaganda ministry cannot report.'

The Stalinizing of Papa John's continues

So it's official.  Papa John's will erase the image of Founder John Schatter from all logos.  This from the outcry that came about due to his criticism of NFL players who protest the National Anthem his use of the Word Beloved of Rap Stars Everywhere.  He, having white skin, cannot use the Word Beloved of Rap Stars Everywhere, even if to illustrate a point.  Those who have dark skin may do so with impunity.  It's all about the race, as MLK used to say.

This is the world we live in.  With no real power, the Left is making it clear what kind of country it will be when they have power.  Of course this was mostly about Schatter's criticism of the NFL's anti-anthem protests.  Since he was a visible and well known corporate leader (think Dave Thomas or Harland Sanders), we couldn't have him speaking against the Leftist agenda.  It was only a matter of time before he made a mistake.  Or spoke in a way that could be spun as a mistake.  Or simply existed while not conforming to the Left.

Since Marx had little use for things like mercy or forgiveness, and much of the modern Left echoes, if somewhat wearily, the ideals of Marx, we shouldn't be surprised that we've reverted to the very kind of witch hunt mentality that liberals of old once decried as emblematic of the tyrannies Marx helped build.

FWIW, I will never eat at Papa John's again.  I was never a fan.  Nonetheless every now and then its pizzas scratched a certain itch.  But no more.  Whether because of cowardice, or simply the growing sense that Madison Avenue would gladly go Communist and bury the Church and America if that's where the money is, I don't know.  But either way, when I think of Papa John's now, I'll think of nothing so much as this:

The reason we have Fox News

I'm sorry NPR, but Boo Hoo.  So I've seen a string of stories bemoaning the fact that Donald Trump and Fox News have become one flesh.  Sure.  Fox was no fan of Trump during the 2016 campaign, but once he got the nomination, the network swung to Trump.  Mostly.

But you know what?  The reason Fox exists is because there became a market for an alternate media outlet in the mid-90s.  And why, NPR, did this market arise?  Because it was the mid 90s, and to use your terminology, there was increasingly almost no daylight between the National Press and the Clinton White House.

The most flagrant example came from the stalemate that led to the government shutdowns in 1995 and 1996.  Of course during the Obama years, we heard journalists point out that, unlike Bill Clinton in the 90s, Obama was not to blame for any shutdown that occurred.  Clearly Clinton was being as belligerent as the Republicans and Newt Gingrich!  But not Obama.  He was pure and innocent and righteous and holy - as always, per the National Press.

That was not the story in the mid-90s, however.  Back then it was Ebeneezer Newt.  It was How the Gingrich Stole Christmas.  It was 110% the fault of the GOP, who gleefully shut down the government just so they could rejoice over all those poor kids not having any presents under the Holiday Tree.  And that wasn't the White House press releases. That was the National Press.

Hence Fox.  Back then I was in seminary, many of my friends were of the more moderate branch; the ones that were being pushed out by Dr. Mohler, Russ Moore, Greg Thornbury and the gang.  We often hung about together, even if I tended to be a bit more traditional and conservative.  One time I remember being at a KFC (that's Kentucky Fried Chicken to you), and talking about this strange development where it was becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference between the White House press conferences and the nighttime news broadcasts.

Several of my friends were proud Democrats, but I remember them sitting there, with spork in hand, saying this was no good.  They weren't fans of Clinton in the first place, fearing what long term ramifications that the obvious moral compromises he demanded might bring to our nation.  As a result, they were far from happy to see the press and the administration walking down long beaches together, basking in the glow of each others' radiance.

None of this includes the media's wagon circling during the Lewinksy trial, the press's parroting of the liberal narrative regarding the 2000 election, the MSM's collusion with the Democrats for the 2004 October Surprise, the 2008 praise and worship service that was the coverage of Obama's campaign, and of course the eight year long love affair between the news media and the Obama White House.  And it certainly doesn't include the multiple examples of erroneous reporting during the Trump administration*, every example of which painted Trump in a negative light, at least until being debunked.

The worst anyone can say is that Fox is as bad as the other outlets.  Not as bad really, since FOX has commentators who admit to being biased, while the rest of the news media is ostensibly unbiased or, dare I say, 'fair and balanced.'  Anyone who believes that is either a fool, a liar, or both.

*Last Sunday, 07/08/2018, CBS This Morning ran a segment on this, and admitted to the multiple errors during the Trump administration.  It even admitted they all seemed to err on the side of negativity toward Trump.  Of course the gist of it was less 'this is horrible' as much as 'this is helping Trump'.  And no, CBS did not include itself in any of the multiple examples it mentioned.  Nonetheless, at least it was something, and those who would deny this or the obvious bias behind it are, again, at best useful idiots.

Papa John and life in the American Soviet

So you won't see Papa John peddling his pizza pies anymore.  He's out. Why is he out?  Per the news reports, because he used the "N-Word" in a conference call.  You know the word I mean.  That word that is used by rappers and Black entertainers as a matter of course.  But then, they're Black, he's White, and in the 21st century age of Identity Politics, it's all about the race.

That is the headline.  What happened is that he was on a conference call.  It was in light of the kerfuffle that arose from him blaming slumping sales on his ties with the NFL.  Last year, if you remember, he raised the ire of tolerance by coming out and criticizing the NFL protests against the National Anthem.  And as the CEO of Chik-fil-A will tell you, we can't have CEOs bucking the Leftist doctrine.

A marketing firm was brought in to minimize the damage and try to rebuild the reputation.  In May, however, he was on the conference call expressing his exasperation about the whole issue.  During the call, he pointed out that Harland Sanders (that's Colonel Sanders to you), used to say 'N-----'.  He pointed out the levels of racism and racist hostility in the olden days.  And that was it.

No, he didn't call anyone the N-Word.  He didn't use it as a slur.  He said that there was a time when someone like him - head of a major food chain - would actually do something like say The Word, as oppose to merely criticize the actions of NFL players.  Of course we all know that it was his calling out the protests that did it.  Using the Favored Word Among Rappers was merely the excuse.  That was the moment his political foes were waiting for to eliminate a prominent non-conformer.

And that's that.  He's gone.  Career over.  Legacy tarnished.  This is what happens when you live in a post-Christian society.  For most idiots, post-Christian means unlimited sex, drugs, abortion as birth control, greed and a life of hedonism, narcissism and debauchery free of charge.  It means a world focused on the holy trinity of me, myself and I. 

What idiots today don't realize is that it is also the end of a culture that mandated, however imperfectly, a world of forgiveness, mercy, reconciliation, redemption and second chances.  I know, people will point out that Christians never live up to such a perfect standard of total forgiveness, loving enemies, praying for persecutors and all that jazz.  And yet, I fear we're about to learn an ugly lesson.  We're about to learn that you're better being in a society that fails to live up to a high standard than one that lives up to no standard. 

We were told growing up that hypocrisy is having a high standard and failing to live up to it.  No.  Hypocrisy is willfully ignoring a high standard you apply to others.  If you're having a four year long affair while pounding the pulpit about the evils of adultery, that's hypocrisy.  If you believe in the sanctity of marriage and oppose adultery, but slip one night of your life when you're working late with a coworker, that's sin, but not hypocrisy.   Yet we were told otherwise, and a generation concluded it's better to have no standards at all than try and fail, since that would be hypocrisy.  Apparently this includes such high standards as forgiveness, redemption and reconciliation. 

I hope we're OK with this.  A nation where there is no forgiveness; where a single breach of a thousand standards can be cause to ruin a life; where the slightest deviation from political doctrine will result in punishment and retribution.  Because whether we like it or not, I fear it's what we're going to get.

The allies of the New Prolife Christians

Here:

The more that New Prolife Christians attempt to lay the blame for all sins at the feet of Capitalists, conservatives, men and whites, the more the emergent Left smacks them down.  They make it clear that it is not because of some financial burden or sexist man that a poor woman has no choice but to abort her baby.  They make it's clear they love abortion, they want abortions, it's power, it's control over life, it's free debauchery, and it's all done increasingly with the tacit approval or apathy of their allies in the Christian Left.   Allies who ironically call themselves New Prolife.

Truly this is a sing that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

"Abortion I salute you!
Women, if you need an abortion, get one!
If you want an abortion, get one! (emphasis mine)
If you're not pregnant and you think you might be and want to order a future abortion, get one!"
All to the cheers and adoration of the Leftist mob

This is the movement with which the post-Conservative and Leftist Christian movement has allied.

The Catholic Left is watching you

Nobody expects the Leftist Inquisition

In a way reminiscent of those old Hollywood stereotypes about the Catholic Church, it looks like a bunch of priests have been caught.  The reaction immediate.  The retaliation swift.  Caught doing what you may ask.  Molesting children?  Engaging in child porn?  Teaching false doctrine?

No!  They attended a Trump rally and responded positively, even when Trump said things that his critics were appalled by.  Alas, but the cameras caught them, and keen New Prolife Catholics were fast to jump on their error.  Calls to alert their bishop were made, and it looks like the Bishop himself got involved.

Ah, I can remember when Internet Catholics were disgusted by the idea that people would call someone's bishop over something like politics, when a priest would suggest an ardently pro-abortion politician might be publicly chastened, or that the Church should even have an opinion on the behavior of its flock. We're all sinners after all.

I remember Catholics laughing along with Obama, or Hillary, no matter what they advocated and it was all OK.  I remember them blowing beer out their noses over liberal late night comedians, even if they advocated intrinsic evil, mortal sin that cried out to heaven for vengeance, or even toyed with blasphemy. If you want to know what the modern Left values - and that includes the Catholic Left - you need only go back ten or twenty years and see what they condemned.  There is an ever increasing likelihood that the two are one and the same.

Not that this Catholic Left Inquisition is new.  I posted some time ago about a prominent Catholic blogger letting slip the dogs of war and calling on her readers to swoop in and derail the career of a judge who dared disagree with her.  The issue?  That would be the shooting of Harambe the gorilla at the Cincinnati Zoo.  So there is precedent.  It looks like calling down the wrath of Holy Mother Church on those who dare digress from the priorities and narratives of the Political Left is becoming quite the thing.  And it looks like ol'Holy Mother Church might be more willing to comply than it was back in the day; back when it did its best Rodney Dangerfield tug-at-the-collar impersonation when asked to punish people over advocating abortion or gay sex.

The Left is in full Inquisition mode, scouring the countryside every day, seeking out those who have fallen from the purer faith of the political Left and the superiority of the latest ethics.  You will be careful if you're Catholic.  If you are a priest.   You can never be good enough.  And all notions of tolerance and diversity and respect for other opinions are out the window.  You've been warned.

Vox reminds us that the Left hates America

Because parliaments work better than our government, thus says Vox

It's true.  If I told one of my sons I wish he never existed - or if I told anyone such a thing for that matter - it would not be seen as a token of love on my part.  Most would not say, "Gee Dave, you obviously love that person!"  Well, Dylan Matthews, at hard leftist rag Vox, lays out why July 4th should be a day or mourning.  Why?  Because the world would be a better place if America didn't exist.  At least if America hadn't split from England.

Now the reasons should be cliché by this point.  Slavery and treatment of American Indians are two of the reasons.  We'll get to that in a moment.  The third reason is the claim that a parliamentary form of government like England's is better than the one we have.  I'll go ahead and let those more versed in Constitutional law and history to debate that last one.  Given what I've seen in some countries that had similar forms of goverment to England (cough, Germany 1930s), I'd say that's a bit 'grass is greener' thinking.

But back to the slavery and American Indian issue.  This is not to say what America did was right.  This is to say what America did was common to human history.   It was common among American and Central American Indian culture, and it was common outside of America.  Slavery was universal.  England might have made actual slavery illegal before America did, and without a Civil War.  But it would spend the rest of the 19th century embarking on a massive acquisition of the world from its rightful owners, subjugating its colonial populations to second rate status, forcing them to work the empire,  and treating them about one step better than slaves.  All of which was based on a similarly racist notion of that famous White Man's burden.

And England wasn't the only country of course.  It was just the best at it. Other countries tried to catch up with England by grabbing their own part of the global pie. Sure, America tried, too.  It's noteworthy that America tired to get in on the Global Empire act just like Europe, once slavery was a thing of the past.  And that didn't just happen in Europe.

By the 19th century, Europe was on the assent.  But it had only been a century or two earlier that other cultures were happily trying to smash through European barriers and do the same thing.  When England was coming to our shores in the 17th century, the Ottoman Empire was knocking on Europe's door, hoping to to the same thing to Europe that happened in America.  Only because Europe was able to resist did the same thing not happen to them.  The same could be said for what went on among Native American populations long before Europeans came to these shores.  Taking what belongs to one's neighbor is as universal as slavery.  And as Russia recently demonstrated in the Ukraine, it's no more a done thing than slavery, which today is euphemistically called Human Trafficking.

So this notion that we would be better off if we didn't exist draws on this laughably idiotic lie about history that says America is the only country that ever conquered land or owned slaves.  Nobody else did it.  Or if they did it, it's OK, because conquest and slavery and imperialism are beautiful, as long as you're not America. 

This piece is not based on facts, history, common sense, truth, or any such thing.  The Left is a revolution, just like the revolutions of the last couple hundred years.  And since Marx and Communism play such a big part in the heart and mind of many on the Left, they intend the same thing that Communist revolutions achieved, and that's the eradication of the society they seize.  Unlike the Founding Fathers, who merely dealt with a couple issues and otherwise sought to keep the best of the culture in which they lived, the Leftist revolutions are like a plague of locusts.  They come in to destroy.

And that's the point.  The Left wants to overthrow America.  To that end, it must teach hatred of America.  America must be uniquely evil and 100% worthless.  So things like this, that are easily debunked, become the narrative of the day.  Despite the ease with which it is debunked, it is becoming the version of history more and more are taught.  Parliamentary systems always work better than our government?  Tell that to European Jews in the 30s.  Slavery was only in America?  Tell that to the countries that labored under British rule throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.  Tell that to a million Africans who were killed by Belgium in the 20th.  Tell that to Africans who continued to live under Islamic slavery until the 20th century.  Americans, unlike anyone else, conquered the Indians?  Tell that to Europeans who lived under Islamic rule for centuries.  Tell that to Ukrainians today.

Like most things on the Left, it's a bag of lies wrapped in dumb, hoping for ignorance, and based on denial.

Apparently science was wrong about everything

At least in terms of sex and sexuality.  That is if the modern Left has anything to say about the matter:

Because all of this rubbish about the male and female of the species, and sex and procreation, and how all of these things evolved, was apparently a giant fail for science.  All of those decades and generations of scientists saying that the sexes evolved differently, that sexual differences were real, that there was a male and female of the species down to the DNA, and that the interaction of them was procreative by design, turned out to be bunk.  

I ask you.  If science could be so catastrophically wrong as to miss something so near and dear and obvious, why believe anything they say now?  It seemed as if they had overwhelming evidence to support their case for the differences between sexes and the relationship to procreation.  Nobody ever seemed to challenge the notion that there were real and substantive differences between the sexes, or that sex actually existed beyond the mind.  Now they say none of it means anything.  There is no sex or gender.  There is only anatomy.  There is only what an individual wishes gender or sex to be.  Turns out they were wrong all along - all of them - and they're finally discovering what everyone wants to know. 

If, of course, the evidence was true, and the "scientists" today are merely buckling to overwhelming social pressure, just as scientists proved Blacks were inferior, Jews a threat to the Fatherland, homosexuality a mental disorder, and women at risk for achieving orgasms - all of which were supposedly the result of scientists buckling under the pressures of the day - is it safe to say science it not some magical fantasy-land where it's just all real objective truth as explained by real objective scientists who are always right?  Is it safe to say only a fool would turn to science to be the final arbiter of what is and isn't real, since clearly scientists can spin things as easily as a political pundit?  Fool me once after all.  

Either way, I feel a sudden drop in the reliability of science and the scientists who study it.  Perhaps a paraphrase of King Edward Longshanks from the movie Braveheart says it best: The problem with science is, it's full of scientists.