The London Bridge attacks: The response says more than the acts themselves.

I have excerpted the following paragraphs from a blog by Douglas Wilson entitled “As Hollow As A Jug”. The bold print and colorization are mine. His entire post can be found here.dougwils

“A Culture with AIDS
The recent attacks in London were breathlessly reported on one news channel as a monumental problem. ‘Saturday attack in London a tipping point in a campaign to destroy the West.’ To this one commenter said, in effect, really? The West has gone through a couple world wars, worse terrorism than this in the 70’s, not to mention the Cold War, and now we have reached the tipping point? After all that, we somehow cannot handle ‘a van and two guys with machetes’?

“And of course the commenter has a point if he is comparing threat to threat, attacker to attacker, and danger to danger. But if he has missed the point entirely—as he has—he fails to compare the cultures under attack. He is not comparing the culture that fought the Second World War to the culture that is responding to these current threats. The residents of London withstood a withering bombing campaign by the Nazis with courage and aplomb; we answer the terrorists with teary candlelight vigils, mounds of Teddy Bears propped up against gates, and blathering PC nonsense from our elected officials.

“A man whose immune system has collapsed can’t laugh off what years before—back in his robust days—would have been just a minor infection. The fact that he blew through a bout of pneumonia thirty years ago is irrelevant. What his immune system was like thirty years ago is not to the purpose. We need to know what his immune system is like now. This is because the threat is not the threat. The state of the immune system is the threat.

“So the issue is not whether the West has ever faced greater threats. Of course we have—much greater threats. But that is a different question from whether we have ever been in as great a danger. We are in great peril, not because the threat is so much greater, but rather because we are so much weaker.

“So a culture that does not stand for something will fall to anything. And this is because somebody else with a different brand of “shared values” will come along and say that they like blowing up little girls at concerts. They like driving vans into pedestrians. They like watching the candlelight vigils afterward. They like measuring how bloodless and desiccated and lame our responses are. They like watching us not having a clue. Why wouldn’t they?

“Collectively, we have no God. The ramifications of this are simple. We have absolutely no way to answer the most basic questions. Why are their ‘shared values’ inferior to ours? They prize suicide bombings. We prize sex change operations. They prize one kind of genital mutilation and we prize another another. Tomato, tomahto. So we need to answer the questions.

“And this brings us back to the threats of radical Islam. The issue is not whether a van and two guys with machetes are stronger than all of our assembled might. Of course they are not. But the point is that our society does not have a unified direction or point, and on top of that, we have all of us pretty much noticed this fact. And what that means is that our enervated society has no real reason to rise to its own defense. We cannot articulate to ourselves what we do not possess. And if we do rise to our own defense, we manage to make our displays of strength just as pointless as everything else is. If we send our ships far enough east in the Mediterranean, we could fire our Tomahawks in pretty much any direction. Whatever else it is, that should count as a show of strength. Flexing on the lip of the Void is no more impressive than wailing on the lip of the Void.

“We have no direction, no eschatology. Our politicians do promise to build bridges to “the future” (as though there were anywhere else to go), but the nature of that promised future is shapeless and ill-defined. This is all done under the banner of progress (with that word undefined as well), but maybe it means that we will build machines with sharper blades that can chop babies up into smaller pieces faster. Maybe we can continue to develop this promising new religion that worships the weather gods of the next century.”

Can I ever relate to the immune system analogy! I am 70 years old. Until 2006, I was hardly ever sick, and never hospitalized (except to remove a benign tumor in 2001). Since 2006: well, the list of problems is too long to go into, and who cares. I’m not sure I even do anymore–I am much closer to the end of my life than the beginning. But my children are, God willing, much closer to the beginning of theirs. THAT IS WHY I CARE SO MUCH ABOUT THE FUTURE! Your children should be reading this as well. If not….well, maybe their future looks like the Terminator movies.

FORGIVENESS! This song says it all.

These are the lyrics from a song called “It’s Time”, by Wayne Watson.

It happened many years ago
The memories still haunt you though
And who’s to blame, you really don’t know
You’re just locked all alone in these chains

Some times it’s hard to live at all
The pictures of your history call
Your mind’s a decorated wall
But the Lord has the cure for your pain

It’s time, come back to the land of the living
Come home to the land of the forgiving
Jesus will be faithful to the end

It’s time, break the tangled webs that bind you
Let the grace of God unwind you
Give the Lord your broken heart to mend
It’s time, it’s time

You’ve had your little victories
But perfection’s pretty hard to please
And guilt is an annoying breeze
That blows all that’s peaceful away

And life is too short to go on living like this
Or to brood over who’s done you wrong
If the years pass you by, look at all that you’ll miss
You’ve been walking in shadows too long

It’s time, come back to the land of the living
Come home to the land of the forgiving
Jesus will be faithful to the end

It’s time, break the tangled webs that bind you
Let the grace of God unwind you
Give the Lord your broken heart to mend
It’s time, it’s time.

This link will take you to the song. It’s beautiful!  ITS TIME

The sickest principle: There are no innocents.

ISIS attacks in London: followers exhorted by ISIS leaders to kill more “crusader civilians” during Ramadan.  From The Mirror (London) “The video urged them to target ‘infidels’ in Europe during the 30-day fasting period, which is observed by Muslims to celebrate Muhammad receiving the Qu’ran. Addressed to militants and ‘believers’ who are unable to reach the caliphate, it read in English: ‘Muslim brothers in Europe who can’t reach the Islamic State lands, attack them in their homes, their markets, their roads and their forums’.” I am well aware that this call for annihilation of their “enemies” results in more “moderate” Muslim deaths than deaths of followers of other religions.


ISIS and similar militants justify their acts with the excuse that they are striking back at infidels who kill Muslims in their lands. So, if they stand by their principles “KILL THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE KILLING US” and “THERE ARE NO INNOCENTS IN TOTAL WAR”, what should be the outcome for them of their targeting and killing Jews and Christians EVERYWHERE, right now, not just hundreds of years ago? Applying their principles, shouldn’t Jews and Christians proactively target and kill Muslims, especially because far more innocent Jews and Christians have been killed by Muslims than the other way around? NO, THAT IS NOT OUR PRINCIPLE. JESUS LAID IT DOWN AT HIS OWN DEATH, “FATHER FORGIVE THEM FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO.”

I must admit that I struggle mightily to apply Jesus Christ’s true principles in both my thought life and my daily existence. The human or “flesh” portion wants to strike back. If there are 3 categories of human beings–the sheep (the majority, who go about their lives in unspectacular fashion), the wolves (who prey upon the sheep) and the sheepdogs (who have the same kind of teeth as the wolves, but are born to protect the sheep), I am most certainly among the sheepdogs, and it is in this capacity that I thirst to defend and avenge my Christian and Jewish brothers and sisters.

But ultimately I answer to a higher power and a more powerful principle, that power being Jesus Christ and the principle being forgive others because I have been forgiven. However, I still admire and am thankful for the sheepdogs to whom God has given the duty, privilege and ability to protect the flock: the U.S. military, especially special operations for physical protection, and godly pastors and teachers for spiritual protection. 

Of principals and principles, a primer.

I really don’t know to what extent principals are responsible for the deplorable state of education and basic understanding in our country, but I wanted a catchy title so I threw that word in, though the real issue is principles. My previous post was about the Salon magazine red herring argument that lifting a mandate that birth control be covered (by all employer-paid group insurance)  was going to allow “employers to dictate women’s sexual behavior.” I should have emphasized the bigger issue, which is the appalling lack of understanding (or even caring about) the principles that govern policies or decisions.

What I mean is this example: Mandating that private insurance cover something is not a legitimate function of any government level in this country. It is the exact definition of Fascism. In a Republic (not a democracy folks) like ours, government policies are supposed to be enacted by elected representatives and based on the principles enumerated in state and Federal Constitutions, not made by unelected bureaucrats based on currying favor with whomever they want to appeal to. In classic Fascism, government tells private enterprise what to do. That’s what a “mandate” is. The principle is separation between public government and private enterprise in a Republic or Democracy (I’m not sure there are any pure democracies left in 2017, where the people vote on laws and policies directly rather than via elected representatives).

Few Americans even understand these differences and fewer still understand or care about the principles on which laws and policies are based. This is especially true of leftist liberals (L.L.). In just a couple of days since my previous post, editorials and headlines are popping up everywhere about the “ban” on contraception” or about “Trump wanting to control women’s healthcare decisions”, when in fact none of that was even happening. Rather, proposing to lift the birth control mandate (whether or not it happens) would be an example of getting rid of illegitimate government interference. But that’s a principle that the L.L.’s don’t want to understand, since emotions are substituted for thinking in their world.

I remember a radio broadcast in 1991 that helped turn me from a L.L. to a principled conservative (P.C.). It was about how the US Code has expanded in the years since the Constitution was ratified from 3 Federal crimes–treason, piracy and counterfeiting–to over 18,000 federal crimes, virtually all regulatory. How many federal crimes are there in 2017? No one knows, but in Congressional testimony in 2015, estimates ran at about 300,000!you lawbreaker

My point is this: Because Americans, including apparently most lawmakers and bureaucrats, have lost the ability to think in terms of principles and instead make decisions (and laws) based on feelings and self or narrow interests, most normal and innocuous human behaviors have become criminalized.

New attack on birth control: Leaked Trump proposal would give employers unprecedented power over women’s lives…..Bullshit!!

This item appeared in Salon, one of the most dishonest online publications. It went on to say: “This proposal attacks an existing rule known as the “contraception mandate,” which requires federal agencies to include birth control in the list of preventive health care services that the Affordable Care Act requires insurance plans to cover without a copay. This rule, written by Health and Human Services under President Barack Obama’s administration, has long riled religious conservatives, who launched a series of legal challenges to the mandate, on the basis that forcing religious business owners or nonprofits to offer health care plans that cover contraception violates their religious freedom. 

What the Trump administration has now proposed is letting employers block their employees from getting contraception coverage at all. If an employer thinks only sluts use birth control, he can simply refuse to let a woman’s insurance plan cover it — without alerting the government so it can replace the coverage that the boss is blocking. It’s a crafty maneuver: Without repealing the contraception mandate outright, Trump would let employers drop coverage with no government replacement. ‘It’s kind of unprecedented that employers can reach into your health insurance this way,’ said Kelly Blanchard, president of Ibis Reproductive Health, in a phone interview. ‘This is singling out a certain kind of health care for special attention,’ Blanchard continued, adding that it’s both intrusive and a violation of the employee’s ‘rights to their faith and their beliefs about sexuality.”

This is the classic “red herring” argument, diverting attention from the real issue with a false argument. Let’s dissect this particular fish, whose bones appear in red.

  1. They are NOT letting employers block contraceptive coverage, they are proposing removing a mandate on it. The mandate was the REAL overreach, not removing it!
  2. Where in the US or any State Constitution does it empower government to provide contraception?
  3. Removing a gov’t mandate violates employee rights to their faith…?? Come on, the last thing Salon or it’s writers or the government officials they support care about is religious liberty. They only drag it out to support a completely spurious argument.
  4. The article goes on and on in that absurd vein, actually saying that without the federal gov’t mandating that employers’ health insurance cover contraception, women won’t be able to get it. See the next paragraph for the truth.

For those whose employer health plan decided not to cover oral contraceptives, on the website lowestmed.com, a month supply of a common generic oral contraceptive (Tri-Sprintec) was $13.91 at Safeway with a printable coupon. For women who are not employed and who meet the income guidelines, Medicaid covers prescriptions for free. But the truth never counts for Salon and this type of red journalism. Many employers, especially the largest, would want contraception covered regardless of mandate. Even for those who would not cover it, the issue would virtually never be “only sluts use  it.” It would be economics. A woman could purchase generic contraceptives for as low as $14/month, while if she got them for nothing out of pocket via employee health insurance, the pharmacy could charge the insurance way more, possibly over $100. A mandate on covering any condition means every employer (and employees who pay a premium) must pay more for insurance. So who is really trampling on rights?

That being said, I WOULD OBJECT TO REMOVING THE CONTRACEPTIVE MANDATE ON THIS BASIS: IF IT WAS GUARANTEED THAT FEWER LIBERALS WOULD REPRODUCE! THIS WOULD DO MORE TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING VIA HOT AIR THAN ANY ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION.

Perpilocutionist, noun: One who expounds on a subject of which s/he has little knowledge.

Hillary (you know the one) gave a commencement speech at Wellesley recently, in which she was introduced as Hillary D. Rodham (HDR). The theme, in so far as I could decipher one, seemed to be about 3 words: integrity, trust and respect.  Except, her definitions weren’t quite what you would find in a dictionary, or more to the point, she didn’t really define them at all, because “Those three words mean different things to all of us.”

THAT’S THE PROBLEM HILLARY! SUBSTITUTING THIS TYPE OF MUSHY SUBJECTIVITY FOR PLAIN LANGUAGE AND SHARED UNDERSTANDINGS.

Here’s her excuse: “Many of the issues that I’ve mentioned—those of sharing power and responsibility, those of assuming power and responsibility—have been general concerns on campuses throughout the world. But underlying those concerns there is a theme, a theme which is so trite and so old because the words are so familiar. It talks about integrity and trust and respect. Words have a funny way of trapping our minds on the way to our tongues but there are necessary means even in this multimedia age for attempting to come to grasps with some of the inarticulate maybe even inarticulable things that we’re feeling.”

Let’s compare some historical definitions of these three words to her musings.

Integrity: According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values: incorruptibility.

HDR definition: “Integrity, the courage to be whole, to try to mold an entire person in this particular context, living in relation to one another in the full poetry of existence.”

Merriam-Webster. Trust: assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something.

HDR: What can you say about it? What can you say about a feeling that permeates a generation and that perhaps is not even understood by those who are distrusted?

Merriam-Webster. Respect: A high or special regard: esteem.

HDR: And then respect. There’s that mutuality of respect between people where you don’t see people as percentage points. Where you don’t manipulate people. Where you’re not interested in social engineering for people. The struggle for an integrated life existing in an atmosphere of communal trust and respect is one with desperately important political and social consequences.

It seems to me that the real national divide is between plain speaking and mushy meanderings.