And the fools rush in

Robert Merry describes The cheap currency of judging historical figures by today’s standards.

New York Times columnist Gail Collins is on a tear. Her sense of civic rectitude oozes from her prose. Her characteristic breezy haughtiness is on full display. The moral imperative that has caught her fancy and led to two columns in as many months: Getting that angular-faced Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill and replacing him with a woman, preferably an African-American or American Indian.

One might wonder why, in a world beset by ISIS, rampaging debt, growing inequality and venal soccer officials, anyone would even care whose faces grace the U.S. currency, whether it be Ms. Collins or myself.

But the currency of any nation reflects its heritage, and the heritage of any nation deserves respect. Indeed, a nation that attacks its own heritage with excessive abandon is likely heading for decline. And the American heritage is under assault these days from many quarters.

So, sure, Ms. Collins is free to malign Jackson in her simplistic way and bring forth any number of historical women, however obscure, whose money visage would tickle her feminist sensibilities and Gloria Steinem‘s. But she ought to step back sufficiently to give an honest portrayal of the man she wants off the twenty. Her country’s heritage is worthy of at least that.

A foolish idea backed by ignorance seems to be in vogue. Whether the face on a twenty dollar bill or the trashing of the police while watching the crime rates skyrocket, it does seem the fools rush in. The consequences are often tragic.

Leave a Comment

Your leaders sound like the opposition?

There are times when one should take a stand. These times seem to be fading in many circles. George Neumayr note the White Flags in the Culture War – “The Left’s unimpeded toppling of institutions.

The ease with which the Left is toppling institutions is explained by such figures as Bob Gates. They aren’t fighting the culture war themselves and don’t want anyone else to fight it either. It is clear that an institution’s demise is imminent when the statements of its enemies and its “leaders” become indistinguishable.

The Left is making progress in the culture war not in spite of “conservative” opposition but because of it. Before the battle even begins, leaders like Bob Gates and Diarmuid Martin are waving the white flag. To paraphrase Yeats, the conservatives lack all conviction while the liberals are full of passionate intensity.

Another report noted that many of the countries, such as Ireland and Spain, that have undertaken governmental approval of redefining marriage have a significant Catholic Church presence. That isn’t a minor legal thing, it is a biblical thing wherein the Church has abandoned its foundations. 

The question is: “who will stand?” Nobody wants war but look what you get when you don’t stand for basic principles. Nobody wants that either.

Leave a Comment

Manufacturing data: climate alarmists

Fist up is John Cook on Manufacturing doubt about climate consensus.

Scientists have observed distinctive greenhouse patterns such as winters warming faster than summers and a cooling upper
atmosphere. This consilience of evidence has resulted in overwhelming agreement among experts — 97 per cent of climate scientists
agree that humans are causing global warming. But where does the 97 per cent figure come from?

Then there’s Ross McKitrick answering the question that the Claim that 97% of scientists support climate alarm cannot be supported.

In my column I pointed out that people who invoke the 97 per cent consensus often leave vague what is actually being agreed upon.
John Cook does this too: Note that his wording is consistent with a range of interpretations, including that greenhouse gases
definitely cause only a tiny bit of global warming.

He cannot claim that 97 per cent of scientists believe greenhouse gases cause a lot of warming and that this is a big problem, since the surveys either didn’t ask this, or did but didn’t find 97 per cent support.

Who is it that is going psych by putting up the issue of denial as an item of interest? Who is carefully defining terms and issues? Who is alleging “cherry picking” without specification or rebuttal?

Yes behavior is an important factor to consider. But rather than label that behavior in derisive terms (e.g. “denier”), look for choices of words and manner of reasoning. There is a good comparison here.

Leave a Comment

More on the nature of man and the implications of different beliefs

Dennis Prager starts with underlying beliefs about the nature of man in looking at the Differences Between Left and Right: Part I.

Left-of-center doctrines hold that people are basically good. On the other side, conservative doctrines hold that man is born morally flawed — not necessarily born evil, but surely not born good. … To those who argue that we all have goodness within us, two responses: First, no religion or ideology denies that we have goodness within us; the problem is with denying that we have badness within us. Second, it is often very challenging to express that goodness. Human goodness is like gold. It needs to be mined — and like gold mining, mining for our goodness can be very difficult.

This so important to understanding the left-right divide because so many fundamental left-right differences emanate from this divide.

Material poverty doesn’t cause murder, rape or terror. Moral poverty does. That’s one of the great divides between left and right. And it largely emanates from their differing views about whether human nature is innately good.

One of they key understandings in looking at this is that the belief starts at home. The belief that all people are basically good means a belief that the self is intrinsically good as well. That mean’s one motives must be good ones and the impulse to control the behaviors and thoughts of others must also have ‘good’ motivations. That also leads to the idea that ‘since I an basically good then those who don’t agree with me must be bad.’

The striving to overcome one’s own evil tendencies leads to introspection of one’s motivations and to skepticism about one’s conclusions. That is one reason why science and reason has flourished in a Christian environment as science requires taking a close look at reality and weighing one’s observations against a greater whole.

Leave a Comment

What you are up against: climate alarmists and sociology

Matt Manos gets into Why It’s So Hard to Convince Warmists from the perspective of a sociologist. Note that he doesn’t get into the bigotry of the warmists in derisive labels for all who disagree and that he sticks to specific ideas and hypotheses that can be discussed and evaluated.

Penetrating rational ignorance is tough because the position warmists have taken isn’t based on logic. Their position is actually based on an appeal to authority. To question the rationally ignorant warmist is to question the field of science as a whole (to be a science denier) or to question the leadership of their favorite bellwether personalities. This will cause the rationally ignorant warmist to become defensive and try to stand up for their favorite bellwether. The rationally ignorant will also point to their favorite bellwethers and say, “Who am I to doubt all these intelligent people?” It’s intellectually offshoring. It’s lazy. It’s human nature.

 … If you really want to win the debate on global warming, change the opinions of the bellwethers. Change the economic incentives for the global warming scientific paper mill. Otherwise you’re stuck debating only the people who are unable to change their minds because it would cost them personally to do so. Rare is the person intellectually honest enough to bite the hand that feeds or is willing to violate social norms to speak the truth.

Behind this is the basic dilemma: how do people whose interest is in talking about measure and logic get a debate where feeling, emotion, and ideology are the primary factors defining conclusions? Many suggest that the Bellwethers undertake their position for reasons of influence and control. Climate change is a tool for them. The only way to change their views is to remove the potential for warmist alarmism as a path towards control and power. That would require removing the underlying governmental regulatory mechanisms that use weather and climate to rationalize new regulation. 

What that comes down to is the argument for a limited government as a government that does not have the power to tack on a little here and there is not so susceptible to those seeking power and control via corruption and regulatory misuse. 

Leave a Comment

The nature of man

Mike Konrad provides his take on Why Official Christianity Is Dying. The basis of this is in the story of Adam and Eve. It is the difference between the belief that Grace can be earned compared to the idea that Grace is given. It is about the fundamental nature and redemption of man, of ourselves.

In this both the liberal Marxist, and the overly strict cleric, make the very same error. They deny that man is evil, and somehow insist that man must improve himself, rather than trust what the Bible says, and realize that man is not improvable. He might be educated, better fed, better cared for — and these are all laudatory, and to be sought; but human nature remains pretty rotten.

It is this depravity — a concept well known to 18th century Americans — which informed their revolt against Britain so they could set up a limited constitutional republic. If men were evil, why on earth would you give power to the government beyond what is minimally necessary?

This view did not inhibit charity, but rather informed how charity was applied. Charity was a response to an already achieved salvation through faith, rather than a means of acquiring salvation. God was gracious to us; let us be gracious to others. Improvement was a result of meeting God, not a way of getting godly. If the concept of a free salvation sounds airy, and nebulous, the observed consequence of the principle has practical applications: Namely, man is totally rotten; don’t trust men.

When this gets to the real world, e.g. economic systems, many get thoroughly confused. Capitalism is not seen as a mechanism to control to basic “rotten” nature of man but rather as the evil thing itself. Or look at the conundrum seen currently in mob rule and the diminishment of the police. That is a Democracy versus Republic debate with minority protections surfacing raw.

Accept one’s sins. Repent. That is Christianity. It is dying because many cannot see what they have to repent.They are too busy trying to hoard moral merits to establish self esteem and social position.

UPDATE: A good backgrounder on this is from Jazz and Ed at Hot Air. “To argue that we are inherently evil is to deny the goodness of creation, and to provide yet another excuse for our choosing sin over God.” – There are subtle concepts here and it is easy to get confused. Care is needed.

Leave a Comment

Observing tactics: free speech tropes

Ken White has this one: How To Spot And Critique Censorship Tropes In The Media’s Coverage Of Free Speech Controversies.

American journalists and pundits rely upon vigorous free speech, but are not reliable supporters of it. They both instruct and reflect their fickle audience.

it’s harder to detect the subtle pro-censorship assumptions and rhetorical devices that permeate media coverage of free speech controversies. In discussing our First Amendment rights, the media routinely begs the question — it adopts stock phrases and concepts that presume that censorship is desirable or constitutional, and then tries to pass the result off as neutral analysis. This promotes civic ignorance and empowers deliberate censors.

Fortunately, this ain’t rocket science. Americans can train themselves to detect and question the media’s pro-censorship tropes. I’ve collected some of the most pervasive and familiar ones. This post is designed as a resource, and I’ll add to it as people point out more examples and more tropes.

When you see the media using these tropes, ask yourself: what normative message is the author advancing, and does it have any basis in law?

Nine “tropes” are listed and described. The key lesson is to not swallow what you are given without some thought as to its presentation, its support, and a proper amount of skepticism.

Leave a Comment

Hold your punches and let the other guy have a chance!

It’s the topic of the latest Propaganda Machine’s ‘gotcha’ issue and Professor Hanson brings in a bit of real history in addressing Were We Right to Take Out Saddam? – “Public opinion veers with every change in current conditions in Iraq.”

Iraq was by turns a brilliant victory, a debacle, a solvable problem, a great achievement, and an ISIS-infested mess — again depending on the extent of American losses, the trajectory of the Iraqi government, and the particular election cycle in the United States.

Had the U.S. Congress not cut off all aid to South Vietnam in 1974–75, and had the Saigon government survived and followed the evolutionary path of South Korea, with a Saigon now much like Seoul, our assessments of the Vietnam War might be closer to those of the Korean War, for better or worse. The Allied decision in April 1945 not to go into eastern Germany and take Berlin was seen by 1946 as a foolish missed opportunity that had ceded much of Eastern Europe to the Soviet gulag state: A war to liberate Europe that we had entered in 1941 had by 1945 ensured the subjugation of Eastern Europe. Yet in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, Ike’s decision to keep to the Allied plan and stay out of Berlin seemed less controversial, as the Soviet monstrosity fell by its own weight.

We should expect lots of false information and political reinvention about Iraq during the campaigns this year and next — as candidates readjust their positions to fit public opinion, itself predicated on impressions of present-day Iraq and revisionist analyses of the invasion, surge, and occupation.

There are deep roots to the U.S. reluctance to commit effectively in completing the task bought and paid for in lives and treasure. Is this effort to give the other guy a chance really the wise one?

Leave a Comment

The war within and a legacy fifty years on

The Ferguson protesters are getting a bit upset because they have not received promised payments. The history of such a paid army working in such a manner is not new. Scott Johnson introduces Bryan Burrough’s Days of Rage: America’s Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence.

The book covers the period 1969-1985 in telling the story of six homegrown radical groups that conducted terrorist campaigns against the United States. Their operations in total included thousands of bombings of skyscrapers, federal buildings and businesses from coast to coast. … The operations of the radical groups also included scores of bank robberies and assassinations of police officers. … Did I say mention that the book is exciting? It is of the can’t-put-it-down variety. It features daring jailbreaks and more close escapes than The Fugitive as well as more thrilling car chases than Popeye Doyle’s in The French Connection.

If you’re a boomer, you might remember some of this. Eastwood’s San Francisco cops movies are floating in it. The movies of the seventies take up the themes as a background reality. As is usual with the Left, persistence is a primary tactic and this is seen again in trying to foment race violence and diminution of the police. The hope seems to be that history will be cleansed and not provide any lesson for this generation’s efforts to stem the warfare inside.

Leave a Comment

Let the free market work

Terry Anderson and Donald Leal take onClimate Policy: Adaptation, Not Mitigation (Part I, Theory). They take a look at the tragedy of the commons and how many complex problems can find practical solutions in a dynamic environment driven by free market principles.

Rather than simply throwing up our hands in despair with respect to what appear to be intractable problems of establishing property rights and encouraging markets in regard to global climate, we turn to a major theme of free-market environmentalism—dynamic markets provide the best hope for human interaction with dynamic environments.

The key here is that of using a dynamic system to respond to a dynamic problem. This is not about using static (i.e. governmental regulation and mandate) to fix a ‘real soon now’ problem that may never occur. 

Leave a Comment

Gotcha! – but really bad as a source of information

Austin Bay on how Media Gotcha Distorts National Security Challenges:

The worst gotchas are framed to elicit a simplistic answer that reinforces or advances a political narrative. To do this, the talking head must either drastically simplify the past (a relatively benign act) or erase the inconvenient past (a deceitful act).

False premises shape the gotchas I’m deploring. Decision-makers in the past cannot know what we know now. These gotchas usually imply that an alternative decision would have produced a more benign alternative history. They may also presume a shared “enlightened crowd” viewpoint of current knowledge — which may indicate political or social bias.

That’s only about the latest attempt to reinforce the Bush hate syndrome and bring new candidates around to the Leftist view via intimidation

Leave a Comment

Always wanting more: education edition

John Hinderaker thinks the President is clueless when it comes to some of his recent remarks on education. It’s not only the President but also those seeking more money for education in Baltimore as a cure for race riots and in Nevada where they think business needs to cough up more, too. The problem is that the numbers indicate that more money isn’t an effective solution. Hinderaker also addresses the continuing complaint that this or that government program is “cut” and therefore suffering intolerably.

Government cuts? What government cuts? Let’s take education, the most important item on Obama’s list. I think pretty much everyone knows that there has been no decline in spending on education; on the contrary. Spending on education has constantly climbed, without any corresponding improvement in quality.

The United States spends considerably more per pupil than the average OECD country, more in fact than any country except Switzerland and Norway

So where is the “disinvestment?” Where is the “anti-government ideology?” Obama’s comments represent rank ignorance; either that or cynical demagoguery. In truth, the cure for poverty is well known: graduate from high school, get a job–any job–and get married. But the real solution doesn’t fit the left’s agenda.

Pouring more money on a fire is an easy thing to do. It burns nicely, too. The question that has to be faced later is where that money comes from and what happens when the fire goes out. In government, the fire often leaves a smoldering heap of sludge that needs constant attention to keep from igniting other fires – as it has in Baltimore. 

Leave a Comment

Minimum wage and all the usual ‘arguments’ behavior

Mark Perry brings in his comments about Don Boudreaux on the ‘manifest idiocy’ of Robert Reich’s minimum wage video. It is a case study on the nature of debate on many of today’s hot button issues.

In a series of posts, George Mason economist Don Boudreaux has done a great public service by conducting a systematic, step-by-step takedown of Reich’s economic asininity, because in Don’s words, “Nearly every sentence out of Reich’s mouth in the video is flawed.” Demonstrating his total “economic bad-assery” in regard to regularly dismantling every aspect of economic nitwitery about the minimum wage, here’s a summary of Don’s takedowns of Reich’s “manifestly idiotic” video:

First to note. Of course, you might think that with the focus on Robert Reich that it was an ad hominem rant. The thing to note, though, is that the commentary is not about the person but rather his behavior, what Reich actually said. It is the assertions and debate points that are ridiculed and not the person.

Add the minimum wage fantasies to a long list supported by a lack of touch with reality and reason.

Leave a Comment

Betrayal 40 years on and again

The path leads from Scott Johnson’s note about a PBS American Experience series broadcast and then to Seth Lipskey: 40 years after Saigon’s fall, US still hasn’t learned lessons of Vietnam.

there are those of us who were invested in Vietnam and who hunger for a new telling of the history of how we betrayed an ally in pursuit of a peace pact with a determined foe.

Particularly now, when we are once again in negotiations with, in Iran, a hostile regime that is maneuvering against, in Israel, a beleaguered American ally.

No one belittles America’s sacrifice in Vietnam. It was enormous.

We gave 58,000 lives and billions in treasure. And we won the war militarily.

Then we gave it up and let it all go — 40 years ago this week.

The truth surfaces but the muck on the surface is so deep that it is yet difficult for it to see the sunshine. History is repeating and the suffering and destruction seem to make no difference to many who carry forward on what they wish and imagine rather than on what is.

Leave a Comment

More on that ‘aggressor’ idea: re Vietnam

Sol Sanders is Remembering the fall of Vietnam from the perspective of one who was witness from the end of WWII. He says “Hopes for freedom died 40 years ago.”

These two currents — dedicated, efficient, merciless Stalinists with their calls on the Soviet Union and its propaganda and infiltration in the West — and the incompetent, feuding and often far too fallible non-Communists continued the Vietnamese struggle. That contest seemed to have been finally decided once and for all with the fall of the Saigon regime, the 40th anniversary of which we marked on April 30.

However painful the specter of Americans being hauled off the roof of the Saigon embassy as North Vietnamese tanks crashed through the Presidential Palace gates, the United States was ready to shrug and turn to other issues. Nor were officials in Washington ready to admit the cutoff in American military aid had produced the catastrophe. But alas, for the Vietnamese, it marked yet another milestone in that continuing struggle between an alien totalitarianism — morphing as Lenin had prophesied in his more pessimistic moments into traditional Asian despotism — and the universal search for freedom.

As with more than 1.5 million other Vietnamese refugees, “Tony” and his family made it to America. But he did not live to see the democratic Vietnam to which he had devoted his life. The continuing travesty in Vietnam today mocks those hopes. Nor do the new self-serving American rationalizations — in which some of our most aspiring politicians indulge — mask that the old fight still goes on if under different auspices.

The rationalizations continue. The same aggression is on display in the Crimea and the Ukraine. The same response wherein the U.S. gets ‘tired’ of standing up to such aggression is playing out in Iraq and Afghanistan and the mid-east. The academics have coined the term micro-aggression. That might be the right term for the “dedicated, efficient, merciless” efforts that include re-defining terms such as torture and promulgating deceit and dishonesty about goals and ambitions. The sad part is that so many succumb to this micro-aggression despite the lessons of history that show its end as a significant magnitude of human suffering.

Leave a Comment

Rationalizing fear driven politics

Sheldon Richman describes how the draft set the environment for many age eligible boys in I Avoided Fighting in Vietnam and Have No Regrets. He thinks “If anything, avoiding that war was a moral duty” but bases that particular conclusion on a lie.

I don’t understand that view at all. Vietnam doesn’t deserve to be called a generation’s great challenge. It was a criminal war of aggression waged against innocent people by American politicians and bureaucrats without an trace of honor or decency. Millions of Indochinese people were murdered. Nearly 60,000 Americans died. The blood stains on America will never be washed off.

The U.S. was there because of a treaty obligation. The aggressor was the entity trying to invade South Vietnam and fomenting insurgency by infiltration and propaganda. This entity used very cruel and harsh methods on its opposition and it wasn’t the U.S. The lie was carefully built and pummeled into the minds of the gullible trying to rationalize their fears. The success of those efforts lead to the abandonment of South Vietnam after military victory and to the suffering of very many as the aggressors showed their true colors in victory.

The very sad part of this is that the lie is still held high and is leading to a repeat of the abandonment of promises and paid for gains for civilization and peace resulting in the suffering of populations. 

No regrets? Only in ignorance and denial or something even worse.

Leave a Comment

Standards. morality,and ‘poor pitiful me’ attitudes

Derryck Green thinks that What’s Been Allowed to Happen in Baltimore is a Moral and Cultural Abomination and explains why.

where does this kind of damaging mindset of victimization and perpetual grievance come from? Leftism. Leftism in all its forms has done a tremendous disservice to blacks, having poisoned their minds and hearts, leaving them perpetually angry and racially paranoid. Though I still lay the blame on Obama, Holder and company- all Leftists, by the way- all of this anti-social behavior is the culmination of what the Left has done to blacks since the 1960’s. White progressives have made perpetual children of blacks, whose temper tantrums- which continues to be the only way blacks are able to articulate their frustrations- must be endured as proof of a still racist county absolving itself of its past racial sins and other injustices.

And the resentment this creates and nourishes among mainstream America might be too large to overcome.

That black people continue to humiliate themselves like this is disgusting and I’m sick of it. White people are too frightened to tell the truth about bad black behavior for fear of verbal and physical reprisals. Blacks are too afraid to speak out against criminal behavior that lends itself to black stereotypes because of racial empathy and racial solidarity.

But, those blacks that choose not to condemn these lawless actions- largely a product of the black underclass, but increasingly adopted and justified by blacks in the middle class- that sit silently on the sidelines out of fear and/or racial solidarity and empathy are, in my opinion, traitors to their race and their country. Their silence condones this behavior. Their lack of justifiable outrage for unjustifiable black lawlessness in cities across America sends a clear message that the jungle behavior that destroys our nation’s cities is an appropriate way to air one’s grievances, real or imagined. Black silence in the face of vandalism and continuing anarchic riots betrays everything their cultural ancestors achieved. Silent blacks are guilty of undermining the achievements of abolitionists and freed slaves, of undermining blacks who fought against insurmountable odds to prove to former slave owners and other whites who were suspect of black humanity that blacks were every bit as dignified as they were; of damaging the legacy of blacks who successfully fought their way into the American mainstream though legalized discrimination fought back. America isn’t perfect, but black silence is complicit in unnecessarily betraying a country that has given blacks every material benefit and social opportunity their forebears could only dream of.

Blacks will never- never– get ahead, or be taken seriously, as long as we endorse this kind of behavior- our silent complicity telling beleaguered onlookers that this kind of conduct is acceptable and must be endured.

More than $100 million has been put into Sandytown in Baltimore in recent years. It did not show much on terms of results before the current brouhaha and the mobs have proceeded to destroy what little they had. The path is, and has been for a long time, in the direction of destruction and anarchy rather than civil growth and order. As in the DIY homes refurbish and renew shows, the demolition part is easy and can be fun. It is the construction, the design, the repair of flaws, and the finish work that is tough and requires developed skills. It seems that too many cities are continually in the demolition phase and very seldom rise to repair and refurbish of the fundamental and foundational aspects of a functioning city.

Leave a Comment

What you want vs what really is: Vietnam Vets

Successful Dallas financial advisor B.G. Burkett remembers how flummoxed he was by the media’s frequent portrayals of Vietnam-era veterans as “losers, bums, drug addicts, drunks, derelicts—societal offal…with the potential to go berserk at any moment.” His large circle of veteran acquaintances looked and acted nothing like these descriptions, holding down long-term jobs, with houses and children and voting records.

Currently, there are around 21.3 million veterans in the United States, comprising 9% of the adult population. Every year, around 250,000 veterans return to communities across the country, willing and eager not just to reintegrate into civilian society, but, as the Veteran Civic Health Index shows, to strengthen it.

‘Broken’ no more: Military veterans are civic assets, data shows.

The image of Vietnam Veterans is in the same bed as the rest of the fantasies about that war held by the left to rationalize their uncivil behaviors in anti-draft riots. Hard data refutes this fantasy. Again.

Leave a Comment

Integrity loss

No, both sides aren’t the same.

The American left has come to condone and accept untruth as an appropriate way to conduct their affairs. They are abetted by a media that actively covers up their scandals, while exaggerating the faults of their opposition.

A preacher recently observed in a sermon about lying that “accepting the notion that the ends justify the means leads to a climate where lying becomes the norm.” According to sociologist Robert Nisbet, “What sociologists are prone to call social disintegration is really nothing more than the spectacle of a rising number of individuals playing fast and loose with other individuals in relationships of trust and responsibility.” Our culture’s embrace of lying indicates moral breakdown on a profound level, in which people have begun to satisfy their selfish impulses without regard for the consequences inflicted on others.

Kenneth Blackwell: The lying game — “Liberals operate on the notion that the ends justify the means.” We are finding meaning in the old saying “there will be hell to pay.”

Leave a Comment

Righteous Anger

Lloyd Marcus says it is Another Thrilling Episode of Blacks Behaving Badly and he isn’t happy.

How do you expect black youths to react to the Left’s orchestrated campaign to convince them that white Republicans and conservatives are racist and out to get them, that white cops murder them at will, that the rich got rich stealing from them, and that business owners are selfish and evil?

These lies have been sold to black youths by the highest black voices in the country — Obama, Oprah, Sharpton, Holder, Jackson, the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, and assorted other race exploiting scumbags. …if I sound angry, it is because I am.

What was that mantra George’s dad on “Seinfeld” used to keep calm? Oh yeah, he said, “Serenity now! Serenity now!”

Enough with this hogwash that Christians should not get angry. The bad behavior destroying peoples’ livelihood in Baltimore and the “nuanced” response to it should make decent honorable people angry.

The Baltimore riots and other incidents of black mob attacks and assaults on innocent whites across America are the result of the Left’s hoax that blacks are victimized in America; perpetrating hate for political gain. Such evil should make decent Americans angry.

When Jesus turned over the tables of the crooks in the temple, he was angry. Jesus even called evildoers names, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” Jesus pretty much expressed my thoughts regarding modern-day black so-called civil rights leaders.

I am sick of it, folks — liberal officials, liberal talking heads, and liberal media justifying, tolerating, and even celebrating bad behavior.

He isn’t the only one. There is that ‘Mom in the Yellow Shirt’ captured on video. She recognized her son, grabbed him, and gave him the ‘what for’ to prevent him from joining the willding on the streets. But then there’s the President blaming Republicans for not caving sufficiently to inner city money grabs. You’d think violent proof of failed policies over forty or fifty years would start to sink in. The righteous anger is for those who will not learn and support and condone behavior that destroys communities and lives en masse.

Leave a Comment