Why has politics become a showcase of psychopathology?

Koenigsegg Jesko

What is politics? Merriam-Webster definition: 1a: the art or science of government; b: the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy; c: the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government. Then what is government? What is it’s purpose? What is the authority behind governing? By what standards are we to govern and be governed? What uncomfortable questions, what am I, a government nerd?

When a really, really fast car, like a Koenigsegg Jesko, is designed to run on a racetrack and capable of speeds over 200 mph, but is “street-legal”, and almost any yahoo (there’s quite a waiting list) with millions of $$ to spend can purchase one, an important consideration is “how do we keep our buyers from killing themselves and others by running too fast?” Such cars have governors, which are components LIMITING the power that can be delivered by the engine. Governors can be disabled if someone really wants to kill themselves. The point is, the purpose of governing is to limit. Limit what?What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” James Madison.

The founders of our nation understood that there are jurisdictions of government, and that each jurisdiction has it’s own responsibilities. The smallest and most important jurisdiction is self-government. Madison’s quote shows he understood that. Our Constitution was designed for, and by, those folks who can govern themselves. Madison, John Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and others all agreed, our government is “intended for a moral people, it will work for no other.” Oops, I slipped that dirty, judgmental word “moral” in. Moral can simply mean, “self governing according to a set of precepts or principles.” Moving on to larger jurisdictions, once a person is mature, capable of self-governing, and finds a spouse and gets married, they form a family, even more so once they have children, and the family is the next jurisdiction of government. Biblically, which is the basis of almost all my understandings, the father is the “head” of the family, the “chief executive officer”, and the wife is the “chief operating officer,” but they are collaborators. When I say the husband or father is the head, I mean that he is the protector who is ready and willing to sacrifice himself for his wife and children. I do not mean he’s the boss or tyrant, but he does need to be the visionary. A family in trouble often starts with a husband who has no vision, thus self-disqualifying himself for true leadership. Women can be visionary in a different way, but in terms of “natural inclination”, men in general are more “big picture” than women, or at least are more comfortable with ideas while women are more comfortable with relationships. Yes, I am generalizing, and it’s my blog, so go write your own if you don’t agree!

The next level jurisdiction is ecclesiastical government, meaning the governing structure of your worship, whether it’s church, or synagogue, or mosque, or whatever, if there’s more than one person involved, it has some kind of governing structure. Then there is civil government, what most people think of as Government. Even within civil government, there are jurisdictions—city, county, state and national. The best government in a republic is delivered at the smallest jurisdictional level. By definition, that’s closest to the voters, those who are actually affected by decisions of government. If voters actually understood our constitution, and the idea of jurisdictions, and the crucial importance of self governing, they would realize that civil government’s purpose is to protect the other jurisdictions—individuals, families, churches—from the encroachments of power hungry politicians and bureaucrats. Until the voters come to their senses, politics will remain the realm of psychopathology. Why do I say this?

If governing were limited to protecting the other jurisdictions, as our founders and our constitution intended, the civil government would attract true patriots, motivated by duty, love of freedom, and respect for the principles of limited government, like George Washington, the only U.S. President who didn’t want the job. He was almost forced into the job, while wanting nothing more than to retire to his farm and relax from the call of duty. The central government, what we misname the Federal government (federal is more accurately the name of our system of national government and state governments, and the fact that the powers of the national government are enumerated while all other powers fall to the states), was responsible for protection of our currency, international trade, and border security. There were three federal crimes: counterfeiting, piracy and treason, reflecting the responsibilities of the national government. In 2009, according to USAToday, there were over 300,000 federal crimes in the US Code. This is evidence of psychopathology. Those crimes are primarily regulatory, many of them propounded by unelected bureaucrats and passed into laws by politicians more concerned with “buying” votes and bribing various constituencies. Look at the result. Donald Trump is President, and I consider him the lesser evil of all Democrat candidates. Yes voters, we are getting what we deserve, we have only ourselves to blame. Our national Koenigsegg Jesko is hurtling at over 200 mph, governor disabled, to where?

“Born this way” has had it’s day.

“born this way” or no gene for gay?

LONDON (Reuters) – A large scientific study into the biological basis of sexual behavior has confirmed there is no single “gay gene” but that a complex mix of genetics and environment affects whether a person has same-sex sexual partners. The research, which analyzed data on DNA and sexual experiences from almost half a million people, found there are thousands of genetic variants linked to same-sex sexual behavior, most with very small effects. Five of the genetic markers were “significantly” associated with same-sex behavior, the researchers said, but even these are far from being predictive of a person’s sexual preferences. “We scanned the entire human genome and found a handful – five to be precise – of locations that are clearly associated with whether a person reports in engaging in same-sex sexual behavior,” said Andrea Ganna, a biologist at the Institute of Molecular Medicine in Finland who co-led the research.

According to Ganna, these genetic variances have “a very small effect” on sexual behavior, and combined, only explain “considerably less than 1% of the variance in the self-reported same-sex sexual behavior.” This means that non-genetic factors, including environment, upbringing, personality, and nurture “are far more significant in influencing a person’s choice of sexual partner, just as with most other personality, behavioral and physical human traits,” according to the researchers.

Since the researchers are Finnish, at least the LGBTQ’ers can’t blame Trump for their opinions, based on a very large sample of over 470,000. Even if LGBTQ-land accepts the conclusions of the study, they will probably still say “less than 1% is still something”, but don’t expect them to go advertising this study, unless the conclusions went the other way.

I particularly wonder why the “born this way” mantra is supposed to be so compelling. Does it matter anyway, now that teachers, government workers and corporate employees are more likely to lose their jobs or be burned by a tweetstorm for denying that women can become men and vice versa, than by upholding “cisgender” heterosexuality. Culturally, it appears that the LGBTQ express is winning, so why do they still parade “born this way” signs in gay pride events? If you’re so proud of where you stick your gonads and your mouth, why are you trying to convince mainstream people that you can’t help yourself? You like what you do, don’t you? I’d better not say any more. No LGBTQ discussion is allowed to mention ACTUAL sexual practices.…not that there’s anything wrong with them……

“Climate change” regatta.

Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old climate activist, arrived in New York City on Wednesday after sailing across the Atlantic on a yacht with solar panels and wind turbines. Forget the fact that carbon is emitted during the construction of the yacht and solar panels. CBS News reported the yacht “had no kitchen, no heating, no fridge and no bathroom.” Thunberg took the yacht to raise awareness about the harmful emissions caused by taking commercial airlines. But even though Thunberg and her crew sailed across the Atlantic using the yacht, it still has to get back. For that, the sailing team for the yacht, known as the “Malizia II” will be flown across the Atlantic to retrieve the vessel.

The spokeswoman, Holly Cova, told the AP in an email that “we only have one boat, so they cannot easily sail over to meet them.” She said this was “an imperfect solution” but thought that offsetting the flights to retrieve the boat was “better than doing nothing.” German news outlet Der Spiegel reported that four flights are required to get team members to the U.S. to retrieve the boat and for other crew members to return. “A spokeswoman for Team Malizia said it’ll be necessary to fly the crew to the U.S. because the high-profile trip with the 16-year-old Swedish campaigner that left Plymouth on Wednesday was arranged at very short notice,” the AP reported.

To offset the carbon emissions created by the flights, the team is paying “organizations that use them to finance climate-friendly projects and thus save emissions elsewhere.” This underscores the fact that being climate-friendly is much easier for the wealthy, who can continue to live as they do now and pay other people to help the planet. For the rest of us, we have to uproot our lifestyles to comply with climate policies.

This same scenario plays out among celebrities and politicians who take private jets while claiming the world will end if we don’t reduce our climate footprint. In January, The Daily Wire’s Emily Zanotti reported that celebrities and activists took more than 1,500 private jets to attend a posh climate change event in Switzerland. Leonardo DiCaprio — one of Hollywood’s biggest proponents of climate change hysteria — continues to use yachts and private jets, as does former Vice President Al Gore. They also have multiple homes and fly far more regularly than the average person, yet they pay others to reduce their carbon emissions so they don’t have to.

All so admirable, except let’s take a peek at Greta’s Wikipedia page and decide what kind of picture it paints:
Greta Thunberg was born in 2003. Her grandfather, Olof Thunberg, says she first heard about climate change in 2011, when she was 8 years old, and could not understand why so little was being done about it. Three years later she became depressed and stopped talking, and was eventually diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), and selective mutism. Thunberg has described the selective mutism aspect of her condition as meaning she only speaks when necessary, and that “now is one of those moments”. Her father does not like her missing school, but said: “[We] respect that she wants to make a stand. She can either sit at home and be really unhappy, or protest, and be happy”. To lower her family’s carbon footprint, she insisted they become vegan and give up flying. She said she persuaded her parents to give up eating meat by making them feel guilty. “I kept telling them that they were stealing our future.” Her mother also gave up her international career as an opera singer. Thunberg has said that she has declined several international speaking engagements because flying would increase her carbon footprints.

This and the description of her “voyage” is a picture of a stolen childhood, the exploitation of an emotionally stunted youngster who in her own family has become the “inmate running the asylum”, and whose fame will crash and burn the moment she is no longer useful to the “adult” controllers who are running her. Erick Erickson has seen through the hypocrisy: “It is eye opening that the left has decided an obnoxious and spectacularly unaccomplished child must be the voice to which we must listen. It is a cult. Her arrival has been met with top of the fold status in various publications as if she is some conquering hero. She is no hero. She is a child. She is known for being brash and rude, which the left says is the super power autism gives her. Yes, they actually believe this. She is known for wanting civic protest to advance her cause. She is the child leader of the global warming cult who got the privilege to sail on a yacht owned by a prince.

“The people who worship you do so because they are using you as a shield against themselves. They demand we not question you and give your ramblings a level of authority most reserve for scripture. It is by faith they believe you will lead them to some promised land. You won’t. Why? Because you are an unaccomplished sixteen year old whose only power is making older progressives swoon and TV reporters smile. The reality is that you are only valuable to them now because you insult the right people and the irony is the very people who now bow down and worship at your feet would have been totally cool with your death had your mother decided you had no value before you were born.” Pow!

The case of the disingenuous aboriginal.

Sounds like a mystery? Disingenuous is such an interesting word. Merriam Webster defines it as “lacking in candor, giving a false appearance of simple frankness.” I don’t know how accurately it fits this case, but let’s try it out. The comments section of my blog has unexpectedly turned into a mutual rant on the value of being “aboriginal”, with my reader wearing that mantle as if it were intrinsically righteous and valuable, and me asking, “so what?” This person lives in Canada. There are three distinctive groups of indigenous peoples recognized in the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, sections 25 and 35: First Nations, Inuit and Métis. I assume he or she is designated First Nation since they are the most numerous. I’ve seen the signs in Canada, and wonder what exactly it means. Certainly, at the least it means that the present day nation of Canada, which has a national flag and anthem, a constitution, a national military force (some of the best snipers in the world!), a central government, provincial governments, and a national expression (“eh”), was not first. The aboriginals were “first”, but were they all one nation, or many nations, or perhaps they couldn’t care less about nation status. I don’t know. What’s worse, I don’t care.

Here is a tiny sample of my reader’s opinion. “But you are as bad as your Mr. Trump IF you think you can now control who can and cannot come to America to try to find a better life than they had at home. That is exactly what your forefathers did, and we allowed them to come and we helped then survive in a world they were not prepared for. HAPPY THANKSGIVING DAY! Go home to wherever your forefathers came from, and see if they accept you back. I doubt it. You have been Americanized. And it shows in your words.” Not to be picky, but who exactly “allowed” our forefathers—more precisely, the Pilgrims who landed in Plymouth, rather than the group who landed in Jamestown earlier—to sail here from Holland? While we are thankful to Squanto for teaching those early Pilgrims how to survive, he was hardly representative of my reader’s royal ”we”. Squanto had accompanied some Englishmen back to England, and when he returned to these shores he discovered his tribe had been wiped out in a plague, no, not deliberately but because they had no resistance to diseases the Europeans carried.

My aboriginal reader hates the United States, seems to like, even love Canada, but writes as if his forefathers were from Plymouth rather than Canada—someone is confused. He wants me and every post-aboriginal immigrant to “go back where we came from”, which would be a mite confusing, since most of us didn’t come from anywhere else and don’t even know from whence our immigrant forebears came. Why should we all do that? Because we aren’t aboriginal? What’s so great and holy about being aboriginal? I asked, and expect a reply any day now, though probably not in time before I finish this blog and really piss First Nation person off. Now the reason I worked disingenuous into this post is, doesn’t it seem disingenuous to write about the sin of not being aboriginal while reading my blog, and writing on a computer, or an iPad, or a smartphone, and surfing the Internet for answers to my penetrating questions? Perhaps I assumed too much. FNP might have found a way to convert smoke signals into HTML, but more likely (I am going to assume FNP is male, since I am a sexist white pig), he also enjoys indoor plumbing, electricity, TV, and frozen dinners. None of those conveniences are aboriginal either.

I pointed out that being aboriginal—being the first or earliest known of its kind present in a region—(or indigenous) hardly gives one a claim to land, unless they can hold on to it, and unless they can develop it they will not be able to hold on to it. He seems to think that the United States is unique when it comes to dispossession of aboriginals. According to IntercontinentalCry.org, there are over 5,000 indigenous peoples around the world, who speak over 4,000 of the 7,000 languages in use today. Many have been treated as shabbily, if not more so, than “native Americans” have. Let’s see: the Ainu in Japan, the Montagnards in Vietnam, the Aborigines in Australia (they don’t even get their own name?), the Maoris in New Zealand, but why go on. “Aboriginal” or “indigenous” designations have quite an “arbitrariness” quotient. In the US, we’re told that our aboriginals came over the Bering land bridge, a “postulated route of human migration to the Americas from Asia about 20,000 years ago.” According to whom? Anthropologists I guess, so technically Canadian and American aboriginals came the same way. What we aren’t told is how many of these tribes displaced, replaced, massacred and enslaved each other. I suppose you’d need a program to follow it all. The probable reality does kind of ruin the narrative of the noble aboriginal who just wanted a peaceful place to lay their head.

But let’s return to the main point. What’s so great about aboriginal? “We were here first” just means “before you”, but how does that idea give you squatter’s rights”? Maybe this concept comes from Palestinian propaganda. The so-called Palestinians have accepted billions of dollars worth of “foreign aid” by promulgating the victim story of a people who were involuntarily dispossessed of “their” land. The timeframe for indigenous seems so arbitrary to me. Back when Abraham fathered Ishmael, then Issac, the present day Israel was the “promised land” that the Lord sent Abraham to. Abraham encountered others living there and co-existed with them. Over 400 years later, the descendants of Isaac returned to the land in their exodus from slavery in Egypt, only this time the inhabitants weren’t cooperative and most were dispossessed with extreme prejudice by the Israelites. Many years later the remnant of the Israelites were carried off to Babylon. They returned again via the decree from Cyrus the Persian ruler. In 70 A.D. the Romans killed most of them living in Jerusalem. Pretty complicated. Where do the Palestinians come into the picture? It hardly matters. At any given time in history in any given land, someone’s displacing someone else, usually with extreme prejudice. Then why does indigenous or aboriginal matter in 2019? If you ask me, it’s an ignorant way of trying to make the present day United States and our ally Israel look bad.

Apostasy Now!

Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.” Psalm 51:1-4.

King David, a man “after God’s heart”, sinned grievously. But when confronted with his sin by the prophet Nathan, he repented immediately. In writing Psalm 51, he showed his understanding that his sin was against God, even more than against Uriah or Bathsheba. William Carey, British missionary and Baptist minister and social reformer, in the same spirit of humility directed in his will that the following inscription and nothing more should be cut on his gravestone:—William Carey, Born August 17th, 1761: Died – -“A wretched, poor, and helpless worm. On thy kind arms I fall.” Charles Spurgeon says, “Only on the footing of free grace can the most experienced and most honored of the saints approach their God. The best of men are conscious above all others that they are men at the best. Empty boats float high, but heavily laden vessels are low in the water. We have need that the Lord should have mercy upon our good works, our prayers, our preaching, our alms-givings, and our holiest things. If mercy be needed to be exercised towards our duties, what shall be said of our sins? How sweet the remembrance that inexhaustible mercy is waiting to be gracious to us, to restore our backsliding, and make our broken bones rejoice!”The vessel of humility is the fittest place from which the true lover of Jesus Christ should imbibe, in which they should bathe, and into which they should pour their fame, or the favor of the world. Instead, in many cases, pride “goeth before the fall”, and eventually they apostasize, fall away, renounce “my Christianity.” Can you renounce what you never had? You might think, “Who are you to judge someone else’s faith, or their heart?” Didn’t Jesus Christ himself say “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.”- John 10:27-29.

From the Vancouver Sun: Esther Yuen has friends who are angry they once took so seriously American author Joshua Harris’s celebrated advice to avoid kissing your partner until marriage. One of them blames Harris’s “purity culture” for his singleness. Harris’s book, I Kissed Dating Goodbye, which sold 1.2 million copies, was “must-reading for the devout Christian teenager in the late ’90s and early 2000s,” says Yuen, a Christian in Vancouver. “I remember girls in my church passing copies of the book around, using it to encourage each other as they waited for their future husbands.” Yuen, a communication specialist who has attended Anglican and evangelical churches, says many Christians have been taken aback because I Kissed Dating Goodbye, an evangelical classic published in 1997 when Harris was in his early twenties, had made him an intimate source of biblical relationship wisdom.His separation and supposed de-conversion has got to be one of the biggest announcements I’ve seen lately in Christian circles. My cousin, a pastor’s wife, contacted me shortly after she learned of the news, was shocked. Growing up in the church, many of us assumed that Harris did things ‘by the book’ and thus, would forever and ever have a blissful, perfect marriage,” said Yuen. Like many, Yuen in part owes the evangelist’s changes of heart to the decision to move to Vancouver, “a city that prides itself on inclusivity.”

No, fame does not a Christian, “an intimate source of biblical relationship wisdom”, or even a wise person make. When Jesus “holds you in His hand”, can you have a mere “change in heart”? Pride = Apostasy, unless you truly repent.

Let’s play “Monopoly Socialism!”

Twitter unknown and “professor” (must be a low bar for that title) Nick Kapur was not happy about Hasbro’s parody adult board game, Monopoly Socialism. Nick went so far as to do an extensive tweetstorm that provided great fodder for Ted Cruz to demonstrate his wickedly funny sense of humor, which hit the nails on their collective heads. We could do the Venezuela edition: start out (in 1950) with the 4th highest GDP per capital in the world: end starving in the street with massive shortages of food & medicine. We could do the Russia/USSR edition: the “old timey” playing pieces are all the tech the common people are allowed. When Yeltzin toured a TX supermarket in 1989, he told his comrades that if their people—who faced breadlines—saw the choices in the US “there would be revolution.” We could do the Cuba edition: start (in the 1950s) as the world’s top sugar producer; end up earning $25 per month and risking your life to put your children in rafts seeking freedom. We could do the East Germany edition: you build a wall across your living room; put all the food, technology & prosperity on one side; erect machine guns on the wall; and shoot anybody who tries to get to the West. Or we could do the University edition: you imagine a magic money tree; you give everything free to anybody who wants it; nobody works, studies, or innovates; and everybody gets an A!

Though Kapur claims he bought a game so “you won’t have to”, I still want to buy the game, so I looked first on Amazon. $90! No way. Target claimed to have the same game for half that, and eBay had all sorts of buying choices for even less. Walmart doesn’t claim to have it…yet, but they will. Or I can wait until someone buys it, loses interest, and resells it on Craigslist or Letgo or OfferUp. That’s capitalism for you. If we had a socialist system, and you wanted to buy this game, you’re an enemy of the state, since it satirizes Socialism, but you’d still have choices—the Gulag or the gun. Personally, I would prefer 9mm to the cerebellum to 9 years hard labor, but then I’m lazy. However, let’s fantasize about buying the game in a socialist system. First, I go to the huge central market, and wait in line to get in. There’s always lines, even though there are few shoppers. The linetender‘s union insists on having a linetender to regulate the flow, such as it is. Once I get inside, there is no game on the mostly empty shelves, and the dust gathered is a sign that there hasn’t been a game there for weeks, at least. There’s no customer service person to ask. Fortunately, due to the thriving black market in popular items, an entrepreneur sidles up to me, flashing a game (and fortunately nothing else) under his trenchcoat.

He assures me that it’s in the original Hasbro shrink wrap, and that the police will look the other way for a suitable bribe. When I hesitate, he tells me with a “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” that some fool from a capitalist country said he could get the game, delivered to his door, without waiting in a line, from his choice of Amazon, eBay, Target, Letgo, OfferUp, Walmart, and a bunch of other capitalist fantasy outlets. Neither of us are fooled, such things don’t exist. As of today, the Target part might be correct.

“Monopoly: Socialism” pokes fun at the flaws of command-and-control economies and also mocks health food and veganism. The game was released with little fanfare, but last week Kapur tweeted his displeasure at the game, creating a firestorm of controversy. Amid this controversy, “Monopoly: Socialism” disappeared from the Target website, and the company did not respond to multiple requests for comment on the game’s availability. Target had clearly been selling the game online, and it had been available at this link. As late as August 22, “Monopoly: Socialism” was available for purchase. Why should Target care about the opinion of a humorless so-called professor at a minor college, delivered in a tweet no less, the laziest form of communication?

Yes, I am really praising CNN for something.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders scolded the crowd at a Minnesota State Fair Q&A on Saturday for cheering on the death of billionaire philanthropist David Koch. An audience member was given the microphone to ask Sanders a question and began with, “Yesterday, oligarch David Koch passed away,” which prompted applause from his fellow audience members. “And we’re going to be dealing with his pollution and the radicalization of his politics. He’s made a killing off of the misery of other people, and I want to talk about retroactive justice,” he continued. “How would you follow up for the victims of folks who are coming down in the future generations?”

Sanders, however, wasn’t pleased with the cheering. “I don’t applaud, you know, the death of somebody. We needn’t do that,” the 2020 Democratic presidential contender said. He continued, “I think what we can say is that the Koch brothers and other billionaires, because of this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, have been able to spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to represent the wealthy and the powerful, and the fossil fuel industry, which is where the Koch brothers made a lot of their money.” Note how quickly the rhetoric reflex takes over after his lukewarm admonition to the crowd. But Sanders’ lukewarm admonition is still better than brazen hostility. The incident comes as Koch’s Friday passing was met with celebration from some liberal activists. HBO’s Bill Maher gladly joined in, rejoicing on Friday’s episode of Real Time with Bill Maher.”F–k him .. I’m glad he’s dead,” Maher said. He hates Koch because Bill loves people so much.

But bless CNN, they actually dialed back the rhetoric and presented a more balanced (nuanced?) portrayal of the Koch organization. “The Koch brothers were best known-and vilified by Democrats–for their role in politics, and they used their vast wealth to build a sprawling array of think tanks, foundations and political groups to spread their small-government, free-market message. In some elections, the Koch network rivaled the spending and scope of the national Republican Party, and analysts view their activism as helping to have fueled the Tea Party movement. The organization already was in midst of transformation when David Koch stepped away from his formal roles. The Koch groups now are called Stand Together and have made more investments in philanthropy and policy issues, such as K-12 education. David Koch was most active in Americans for Prosperity. In June, Americans for Prosperity announced four new political action committees and said it would wade into primaries to help incumbent politicians, including Democrats, who side with Koch on trade, immigration and other issues.

But in the era of President Donald Trump-whom Charles Koch pointedly declined to support in 2016-the network has undergone a significant shift in focus, upping its commitment to work across party lines on top priorities, such as promoting free trade and creating a path to permanent legal status for undocumented immigrants brought to the US as young children. Their activism made them villains to Democrats; then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, once denounced them as ‘power-drunk billionaires’ out ‘to buy the country.’ But it also put them at odds with Trump, who called them a ‘total joke’ last year after Charles Koch and his top lieutenants publicly criticized the administration’s trade policies.”

So can anyone explain to me why folks like Bill Maher, who hate Donald Trump, also hate the Koch brothers, who are at odds with Trump?

Somewhere to lay my head? Or banned for life?

I used to be a huge fan, and member, and major user, of Airbnb. As recently as October, 2015, when I traveled to Yellowstone from Spokane, WA with 3 others, we had marvelous accommodations from Airbnb, in Red Lodge and Missoula, Mt., and Griggs, Idaho. I have used them in big cities like Seattle, middle cities like Spokane, and tiny towns like Moscow, Idaho. The hosts were all great, and I treated the properties like they were mine. That was then, this is now. I will no longer use Airbnb for any reason. Not because I did not have positive experiences with the hosts nor complaints about accommodations, not because the lodgings were not bargains….they were. But when I travel, I am simply looking for a place to lay my head at night, social credit be damned. I use Expedia.com and Hotels.com to find hotels, because Airbnb has become the Gestapo of accommodations.

From Stephen Green, PJMedia.com: “Airbnb—a major provider of travel accommodation and tourist activities—bragged in March that it now has more than 6 million listings in its system. That’s why a ban from Airbnb can limit travel options. Airbnb can disable your account for life for any reason it chooses, and it reserves the right to not tell you the reason. The company’s canned message includes the assertion that “This decision is irreversible and will affect any duplicated or future accounts. Please understand that we are not obligated to provide an explanation for the action taken against your account.” The ban can be based on something the host privately tells Airbnb about something they believe you did while staying at their property. Airbnb’s competitors have similar policies.”

Continuing the article: It’s now easy to get banned by Uber, too. Whenever you get out of the car after an Uber ride, the app invites you to rate the driver. What many passengers don’t know is that the driver now also gets an invitation to rate you. Under a new policy announced in May: If your average rating is “significantly below average,” Uber will ban you from the service. Canadian firm PatronScan helps restaurants keep digital track of their customers, so you might want to remove that MAGA hat before coming into view of any security cameras. In New York, the state’s Department of Financial Services has given the A-OK to insurance companies scanning your social media for bad behavior, with higher premiums for anyone flaunting their naughtiness. On the flip side, “a Facebook post showing you doing yoga might save you money. Android (Google) is ‘free, with the operating system powering something like 80% of the world’s mobile devices, but clearly, it isn’t without cost to free-thinking users.”

I have been saying for years now and the latest pronouncements merely underscore my concern: Perfectionist Progressives (i.e. left-leaning and leftist liberals) are the true totalitarians. They are possessed by the Spirit of Totalitarianism, which distorts their concern for others into the need to control how others think, what they say, even what they believe. It doesn’t matter whether they are technocrats—Google hypocrites saying “don’t be evil” while the embodiment of it—or politicians, or media hacks, or ultra-privileged tenured college profs, controlling others is their spiritual food. It follows then, that they hate, more than anything else, someone who is not cowed, who doesn’t fear their censure nor covet their good opinion, anyone they can’t control or back down. Such a person is doubly dangerous when he or she is in a position of influence, the more influential the greater the threat. If you accept my 1st proposition that PPs are control freaks, then my 2nd, that their enemies are those they can’t control follows, and my 3rd, that more influence makes a more dangerous enemy, is practically a given. Who has more influence than the president of the United States? Yet who’s less subject to being popular with the “intelligentsia”? Donald Trump fulfills the criteria. Perhaps that’s why the NY Times has torched their editorial integrity in favor of the 1619 narrative.

In case you didn’t get enough America love..

Members of the boy scouts carry an American flag during the Independence Day Parade in Independence, Iowa July 4, 2011. Voters in the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary will be the first to cast ballots in the upcoming U.S. Presidential race.

Kevin Williamson, writing for National Review, says, “you can’t love America without loving Americans—and neither of our political tribes seems capable of being content with a country in which the other exists. If you believed that white supremacy is the uniquely defining feature of American life, as Ta-Nehisi Coates believes, how could you bear to feel patriotism? Yet Coates does admit a qualified pride in his country, occasioned—this part is difficult for me to understand—by a visit to Washington, of all cities:

‘Out there, on the Mall, among the monuments, in this state, it all came at me—the recent readings of American history, my own movements through life—and it congealed into the oddest thing: an intense pride in country. I spend much of this blog discussing race and teasing at the problems of American history. I think that it would be easy to see in that a scornful, pessimistic and cynical view of the country. . . . I’ve found it increasingly harder to do when measuring the country against the breadth of human history. . . .At the end of the 19th century, Utah and Colorado were two of the only places in the entire world where women could vote. The hackneyed notion that “America is a beacon for democracy” is usually deployed in arrogance. But in the time of Abraham Lincoln, it was a demonstrable fact.’Out there, on the Mall, among the monuments, in this state, it all came at me—the recent readings of American history, my own movements through life—and it congealed into the oddest thing: an intense pride in country. I spend much of this blog discussing race and teasing at the problems of American history. I think that it would be easy to see in that a scornful, pessimistic and cynical view of the country. . . . I’ve found it increasingly harder to do when measuring the country against the breadth of human history. . . .I think of my parents born into a socially engineered poverty, and I think of their children enjoying the fruits (social mobility) garnered by the nonviolent, democratic assault on that social engineering. And then I consider that for centuries, over the entire world, if your parents were peasants, you were a peasant, as were your children. I think it is proper to be proud of that change. I would not argue for a pride that insists America has worked out all of its problems, and evidences that work by exporting its institutions via tank and bomber. I would argue for a studied pride, a gratitude, that understands all that was sacrificed, that we could have easily tilted the other way, that the experiment is still, even now, fragile, and remains in constant need of the lost 19th century concept of improvement.” Ta-Nehisi Coates. As my readers are probably aware, I am not a fan of Mr. Coates, who is one of the leading spokesmen for slavery reparations. Yet, it’s good to be able to commend a person who can speak a truth contrary to his own vested interest. Still, I like the details. Thirsty? Slake it here.

“A hot day in a foreign country. You sit at a café. You order something to drink. You get 350 milliliters of liquid — roughly four thirsty sips, if you want to be technical — and if you’re still dry you need to order another 350 milliliters of whatever it was you were drinking, and they will keep track, and you will pay for each 350-milliliter installment. You’ll know it’s 350 milliliters because, often, that number is on the glass itself, etched alongside a line about two-thirds up the side. The line is there to reassure both parties. There is no ice. This is also to reassure both parties. Ice is a comfort and a pleasure, but it’s impossible to charge for, so the café management prefers to omit it. Ice is also a cheap way to get the primary liquid to hit the etched line sooner, and the customer is wise to that scam. What remains is this: a few sips of a lukewarm beverage served in an atmosphere of mutual dislike and suspicion.

“A hot day anywhere in the U.S.A.: You sit at a coffee shop, or a diner, or you walk up to the counter at a fast-food place. You order something to drink. You then enter into an unspoken arrangement with the establishment in which they agree to refill your cup with water, iced tea, Diet Coke — you name it — until your thirst is slaked or your bladder complains. Someone will come by every few minutes and top off your water or iced tea, often by pouring sideways from the pitcher in order to give you plenty of ice. You don’t mind the ice, for two reasons: One, the cup is usually enormous — the size of a typical European bathroom sink — so plenty of room for everything; and two, they will keep refilling it, over and over again. They will refill your cup whether you order anything else or not; they will refill your cup after presenting you with the check; and they will refill your cup in the momentary interval between your paying the check and your walking out the door. If you make the same request at a McDonald’s, the transaction takes on a Buddhist simplicity: They hand you a cup, point you to the drink machine, and say, essentially, ‘Have at it.’ While it is true that America in 2019 often seems like a toxic stew of anger and mistrust, that is the case mostly in virtual realms — online or onscreen. In the real-life dimensions of diners and fast-food places and hunger and thirst, America is a spectacularly generous place. Americans mostly pour from the side of the pitcher, to give you more of what you really want.” Rob Long.

“I spent the afternoon after my citizenship ceremony in a dive bar in Florida. It was the perfectly American way to top off a perfectly American day. The dive bar is to the United States what the pub is to England; an unassuming and uncomplicated coat stand on which the country’s cultural touchstones can be hung and enjoyed. To look at the wall in any good dive bar is to find the detritus of a happy nation: discarded license plates and road signs of a still-yearned-for era; faded baseball cards of sentimental import to the owner; advertisements for gasoline and automobiles and soft drinks and fast food; war or police memorabilia the regulars’ fathers would have recognized; political paraphernalia from long-dead candidates of varied repute; invitations to concerts and meetings both local and remote. America’s dive bars represent living scrapbooks for a country that never was and always will be.

“The older word for dive bar was “saloon,” and while the entertainment on offer has changed a little—the detuned piano in the corner has become a slightly subpar speaker system, and the bar fights have (mostly) been replaced by NASCAR, boxing, and football—the basic idea has not. Which is to say that a well-run dive bar serves as a self-conscious rejection of the Fun Police and their ever-expanding strictures. My local bar sells beers for two dollars; has secured a special dispensation to allow smoking; plays its music marginally too loud to permit easy conversation; boasts a set of floors and walls that would prompt any self-respecting blacklight operator to quit in disgust; and has a sufficient inventory of liquor to keep Oliver Reed happy for a month. Hanging above the bar is an impressive array of grenades, bayonets, and vintage firearms that may or may not have been decommissioned. What more could a boy want? The rules that do exist are enforced voluntarily, as a matter of tradition. The beer on offer is extremely cold and bad to middling in quality, and should not be discussed in any detail; the wine comes in just two colors — red and white; and the “cocktail menu” can be assumed to contain only those that one could reasonably expect to get on an airplane. Trash talk about sports, politics, and much else besides is allowed—even encouraged—but at no point are the participants permitted to leave the realm of mockery and to become genuinely upset with one another. The pool table and the arcade games are strictly first-come-first-serve, but on the understanding that the very moment their custodians wonder whether they stayed a little too long, they hand them over without being asked. Any music that would seem out of mood in a 1976 Ford Mustang is not to be played, except as an ironic joke. Thus can one spend a contented hour, or two—or five—blessedly unaware of what is happening outside the walls, unencumbered by the latest fads, and free from being asked to make any more complicated decision than “Another round, bud? The same?'” Charles Cooke.

Another round of America, gratitude for our privilege.

The people ran to Him.

The people, when they beheld him, were greatly amazed, and running to him saluted him.” Mark 9:15.

Charles Spurgeon:

How great the difference between Moses and Jesus! When the prophet of Horeb had been forty days upon the mountain, he underwent a kind of transfiguration, so that his countenance shone with exceeding brightness, and he put a veil over his face, for the people could not endure to look upon his glory. Not so our Savior. He had been transfigured with a greater glory than that of Moses, and yet, it is not written that the people were blinded by the blaze of his countenance, but rather they were amazed, and running to him they saluted him. The glory of the law repels, but the greater glory of Jesus attracts. Though Jesus is holy and just, yet blended with his purity there is so much of truth and grace, that sinners run to him amazed at his goodness, fascinated by his love; they salute him, become his disciples, and take him to be their Lord and Master. Reader, it may be that just now you are blinded by the dazzling brightness of the law of God. You feel its claims on your conscience, but you cannot keep it in your life. Not that you find fault with the law, on the contrary, it commands your profoundest esteem, still you are in nowise drawn by it to God; you are rather hardened in heart, and are verging towards desperation. Ah, poor heart! turn thine eye from Moses, with all his repelling splendor, and look to Jesus, resplendent with milder glories. Behold his flowing wounds and thorn-crowned head! He is the Son of God, and therein he is greater than Moses, but he is the Lord of love, and therein more tender than the lawgiver. He bore the wrath of God, and in his death revealed more of God’s justice than Sinai on a blaze, but that justice is now vindicated, and henceforth it is the guardian of believers in Jesus. Look, sinner, to the bleeding Savior, and as thou feel the attraction of his love, fly to his arms, and thou shalt be saved.”

As Paul said, he would not have known sin if not for the law. Do we have to be hardened in heart by our inability to keep the law, to do right, to choose the “narrow” way rather than the “broad path”?

And someone said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” And he said to them, Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. – Luke 13:23-24.12.

“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. – Matthew 7:12-14.

Most simply, the easy way in the beginning is really the hard way in the end. The easy way out, the shirking of duties and responsibilities, is the way of self loathing and excuses. If only human beings would admit when they have erred, or have run away, or find the right thing too difficult, the narrow gate to be too hard or unpleasant, they could move on and either accept themselves for who they really are, or strive to be better, but no. They must create the narrative that justifies self, and casts blame on circumstances, or others. Or, they could throw themselves on the mercy of our all loving savior. That’s the only real solution.