FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

Joseph F Barber | Create Your Badge
This blog does not promote, support, condone, encourage, advocate, nor in any way endorse any racist (or "racialist") ideologies, nor any armed and/or violent revolutionary, seditionist and/or terrorist activities. Any racial separatist or militant groups listed here are solely for reference and Opinions of multiple authors including Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of conscience.

To be GOVERNED

Not For Profit - For Global Justice and The Fight to End Violence & Hunger world wide - Since 1999
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people" - John Adams - Second President - 1797 - 1801

This is the callout,This is the call to the Patriots,To stand up for all the ones who’ve been thrown away,This is the call to the all citizens ,Stand up!
Stand up and protect those who can not protect themselves our veterans ,the homeless & the forgotten take back our world today

To protect our independence, We take no government funds
Become A Supporting member of humanity to help end hunger and violence in our country,You have a right to live. You have a right to be. You have these rights regardless of money, health, social status, or class. You have these rights, man, woman, or child. These rights can never be taken away from you, they can only be infringed. When someone violates your rights, remember, it is not your fault.,


DISCOVER THE WORLD

Facebook Badge

FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

The Free Thought Project,The Daily Sheeple & FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience are dedicated to holding those who claim authority over our lives accountable. “Each of us has a unique part to play in the healing of the world.”

Thursday, December 31, 2015

The Spoiled System

The Spoiled System

 Do you feel disadvantaged? Is your volume of business down? Are you a member of a minority group and feel like you need an edge? Are you not a member of a minority group but wish you had your own bailout? Do you think that everyone's getting money from the government but you. Don't worry, there's a solution. The Spoiled System.



The art of politics is the art of patronage, as money and political support is invested in politicians as a down payment on the government largess that they will dispense back to their supporters once in office. As the size of government has expanded, the American spoils system has gone from encompassing jobs for a few thousand bureaucrats in the early 19th century to a spoiled system in which all Americans are expected to support politicians in exchange for a share of the government loot.

The health care debate is only the latest example of how the expansion of government has drawn up battle lines among Americans who are expected to fight over the latest episode of the Spoiled System. And is it only the latest. For if we declare that government provided health care is a legal right, then why not housing or internet access and cars? The Romans had a name for this sort of thing, panem et circenses, or Bread and Circuses, in which politicians dispense the spoils of government treasuries to the public in exchange for their support.

That sort of thing has an ancient history in America going back to the earliest days of government, in which politicians realized that to survive both individually and on a party basis, they would have to create their own base. And so they did. Back in 1800, Aaron Burr, the original Democratic party scoundrel, created an entire electorate with a bill to provide free water to New Yorkers, with a company that also doubled as a bank. Some 200 years later, variations on the same trick are being played over and over good, with the instruments of the public good being exploited in order to perpetuate the spoiled system. It is only now that the system is approaching its final breaking point, as out of control government spending fueled by corruption, party politics and 'bread and circuses' social spending, is bankrupting America.

The key ingredient of course is the size of government. To give away something, you must control it. And as political parties strive to secure their power base through giveaways to individual and entire demographic groups of supporters-- the entitlement arms race takes on a desperate note. Because not only do both parties have to spend money to reward their supporters, but when neither party is dominant, the spending increases two-fold, because the only thing more expensive than single party piggery, is bipartisanship in which both parties tack on the spending they want to get anything passed.

That is how Bush got so many bills passed, by dramatically increasingly spending in order to reward Democratic congressmen and Senators for their cooperation. It's why the NEA's budget shot up to new heights under Bush, and why the same Democratic Senators now assailing Republicans for their spending, were living high on the hog back then, literally. It's why Obama and congressional Democrats are now pondering how much money they're going to have to spend in order to buy off a few Republican Senators to get their agenda through. Because except for the occasional moment of genuine national solidarity in a time of crisis, bipartisanship mainly means twice as much theft.


It will be much harder though, because most Republican Congressmen and Senators understand that they can't afford to vote for much of Obama's agenda. Not because it's too expensive, frankly that has stopped very few politicians on either side over the last decade, but because it's not mere waste or the spoils system in action, but an attempt by Obama and the Democrats to use spending to create their own base. The fundamental difference between the bailouts and health care is that the latter represents a political power grab, that few but the loosest Republicans will go along with for any amount of bribery. And having an aggressive grass roots movement agitating for fiscal conservatism at their doorstep, only reinforces that.

But to paraphrase Marlene Dietrich, the problem with fiscal conservatism is that it doesn't pay... politicians that is. Fiscal conservatism looks good on the letterhead, but in the days when 99 percent of the reason to hold elected office is to bring home the pork, electing or getting elected in order to stop spending money is counterintuitive on both sides of the aisle. There are politicians who make fiscal conservatism their agenda, and some do a better job of camouflaging their earmarks than others, some like Ron Paul go so far as to insert the earmarks and then make a charade of voting against them, but none of them can really stop handing out public money to shore up their own base of support. They can't, because the entire political system is geared to reward those who grab the money.

It is the system itself that is spoiled. Soviet economic planning created a top down system in which the absence of a free market turned the entire economy into one big black market, in which everything belonged to the government, and everyone had to earn a living by stealing from the government and reselling it on the black market. But in fact we have the same system, it just runs out of D.C. and the politicians do all the stealing for us.

In our system you don't need to steal and resell office supplies or fish. Instead two or three politicians get up and promise to steal as much of the budget as they can on your behalf. And raise the debt limit so they can steal even more. The best thief goes off to the state capitol or Washington D.C. and the same game goes on. Most politicians disdain the system, but argue that since everyone does it, they have to deliver the pork to their constituents too. And they're right. How many politicians would get reelected if they actually didn't bring any of the money from Washington D.C. home? How many people would really vote for a man if he promised that their district wouldn't receive a single dollar in Federal money? In many parts of the country it would be easier to run as a convicted child molester than a politician who actually doesn't bring any money home at the end of the day.

The public benefits here and there, a new road, a renovated museum and the occasionally helpful government service. But for every dollar of value that the general public receives, nine dollars are routed into kickbacks to contributors (often passed off as waste), funneled into an endless bureaucracy or just shredded as part of the long drawn out process in which the government's own size and lack of accountability results in more money being spent in a year than a committee of madmen loosed in a bank vault ever could.

But the competition ensures that the spoils system will go on. Imagine two greedy sons who open a safe containing all the money that their father left to them. They both look at each other, each brother suspecting that his sibling will go for the money. So naturally they both begin taking money, and as both shovel hundred dollar bills in their pockets, they begin grabbing the money faster and faster, as each one tries to grab as much as he can so the other one doesn't get it.


That is what we have now. A system in which politicians get elected in order to spend money by paying back their donors and constituents for their support. A system in which parties scheme to make the public more and more dependent on them, in order to control their support. Tammany Hall and the Carpetbaggers were two sides of the same coin. Government can't be reformed, because government is the problem. Fighting the War on Drugs always runs up against the problem that there are people who want drugs and people who want to profit by selling it to them. Fighting government corruption runs up against the same problem. To win the War on Drugs, you somehow have to convince people to stop using drugs or trying to profit from selling them. To win the War on Government Spending, you have to convince politicians to stop spending money.

As long as government can spend money it does not have, raise taxes to collect more money, go into debt to spend more money and has virtually unlimited spending discretion vested in politicians who are supposed to be the people's representatives, but instead have become their pimps, the crisis will only get worse. It will take more than a new election to change that, but a transformation in the relationship between the politicians and the people.


Daniel Greenfield 

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber- 

“We cannot have peace if we are only concerned with peace. War is not an accident. It is the logical outcome of a certain way of life. If we want to attack war, we have to attack that way of life.” “The problem after a war is with the victor. He thinks he has just proved that war and violence pay. Who will now teach him a lesson?” “No Big Power in all history ever thought of itself as an aggressor. That is still true today.” There is no way to peace; peace is the way. The Spoiled System

 Do you feel disadvantaged? Is your volume of business down? Are you a member of a minority group and feel like you need an edge? Are you not a member of a minority group but wish you had your own bailout? Do you think that everyone's getting money from the government but you. Don't worry, there's a solution. The Spoiled System.



The art of politics is the art of patronage, as money and political support is invested in politicians as a down payment on the government largess that they will dispense back to their supporters once in office. As the size of government has expanded, the American spoils system has gone from encompassing jobs for a few thousand bureaucrats in the early 19th century to a spoiled system in which all Americans are expected to support politicians in exchange for a share of the government loot.

The health care debate is only the latest example of how the expansion of government has drawn up battle lines among Americans who are expected to fight over the latest episode of the Spoiled System. And is it only the latest. For if we declare that government provided health care is a legal right, then why not housing or internet access and cars? The Romans had a name for this sort of thing, panem et circenses, or Bread and Circuses, in which politicians dispense the spoils of government treasuries to the public in exchange for their support.

That sort of thing has an ancient history in America going back to the earliest days of government, in which politicians realized that to survive both individually and on a party basis, they would have to create their own base. And so they did. Back in 1800, Aaron Burr, the original Democratic party scoundrel, created an entire electorate with a bill to provide free water to New Yorkers, with a company that also doubled as a bank. Some 200 years later, variations on the same trick are being played over and over good, with the instruments of the public good being exploited in order to perpetuate the spoiled system. It is only now that the system is approaching its final breaking point, as out of control government spending fueled by corruption, party politics and 'bread and circuses' social spending, is bankrupting America.

The key ingredient of course is the size of government. To give away something, you must control it. And as political parties strive to secure their power base through giveaways to individual and entire demographic groups of supporters-- the entitlement arms race takes on a desperate note. Because not only do both parties have to spend money to reward their supporters, but when neither party is dominant, the spending increases two-fold, because the only thing more expensive than single party piggery, is bipartisanship in which both parties tack on the spending they want to get anything passed.

That is how Bush got so many bills passed, by dramatically increasingly spending in order to reward Democratic congressmen and Senators for their cooperation. It's why the NEA's budget shot up to new heights under Bush, and why the same Democratic Senators now assailing Republicans for their spending, were living high on the hog back then, literally. It's why Obama and congressional Democrats are now pondering how much money they're going to have to spend in order to buy off a few Republican Senators to get their agenda through. Because except for the occasional moment of genuine national solidarity in a time of crisis, bipartisanship mainly means twice as much theft.


It will be much harder though, because most Republican Congressmen and Senators understand that they can't afford to vote for much of Obama's agenda. Not because it's too expensive, frankly that has stopped very few politicians on either side over the last decade, but because it's not mere waste or the spoils system in action, but an attempt by Obama and the Democrats to use spending to create their own base. The fundamental difference between the bailouts and health care is that the latter represents a political power grab, that few but the loosest Republicans will go along with for any amount of bribery. And having an aggressive grass roots movement agitating for fiscal conservatism at their doorstep, only reinforces that.

But to paraphrase Marlene Dietrich, the problem with fiscal conservatism is that it doesn't pay... politicians that is. Fiscal conservatism looks good on the letterhead, but in the days when 99 percent of the reason to hold elected office is to bring home the pork, electing or getting elected in order to stop spending money is counterintuitive on both sides of the aisle. There are politicians who make fiscal conservatism their agenda, and some do a better job of camouflaging their earmarks than others, some like Ron Paul go so far as to insert the earmarks and then make a charade of voting against them, but none of them can really stop handing out public money to shore up their own base of support. They can't, because the entire political system is geared to reward those who grab the money.

It is the system itself that is spoiled. Soviet economic planning created a top down system in which the absence of a free market turned the entire economy into one big black market, in which everything belonged to the government, and everyone had to earn a living by stealing from the government and reselling it on the black market. But in fact we have the same system, it just runs out of D.C. and the politicians do all the stealing for us.

In our system you don't need to steal and resell office supplies or fish. Instead two or three politicians get up and promise to steal as much of the budget as they can on your behalf. And raise the debt limit so they can steal even more. The best thief goes off to the state capitol or Washington D.C. and the same game goes on. Most politicians disdain the system, but argue that since everyone does it, they have to deliver the pork to their constituents too. And they're right. How many politicians would get reelected if they actually didn't bring any of the money from Washington D.C. home? How many people would really vote for a man if he promised that their district wouldn't receive a single dollar in Federal money? In many parts of the country it would be easier to run as a convicted child molester than a politician who actually doesn't bring any money home at the end of the day.

The public benefits here and there, a new road, a renovated museum and the occasionally helpful government service. But for every dollar of value that the general public receives, nine dollars are routed into kickbacks to contributors (often passed off as waste), funneled into an endless bureaucracy or just shredded as part of the long drawn out process in which the government's own size and lack of accountability results in more money being spent in a year than a committee of madmen loosed in a bank vault ever could.

But the competition ensures that the spoils system will go on. Imagine two greedy sons who open a safe containing all the money that their father left to them. They both look at each other, each brother suspecting that his sibling will go for the money. So naturally they both begin taking money, and as both shovel hundred dollar bills in their pockets, they begin grabbing the money faster and faster, as each one tries to grab as much as he can so the other one doesn't get it.


That is what we have now. A system in which politicians get elected in order to spend money by paying back their donors and constituents for their support. A system in which parties scheme to make the public more and more dependent on them, in order to control their support. Tammany Hall and the Carpetbaggers were two sides of the same coin. Government can't be reformed, because government is the problem. Fighting the War on Drugs always runs up against the problem that there are people who want drugs and people who want to profit by selling it to them. Fighting government corruption runs up against the same problem. To win the War on Drugs, you somehow have to convince people to stop using drugs or trying to profit from selling them. To win the War on Government Spending, you have to convince politicians to stop spending money.

As long as government can spend money it does not have, raise taxes to collect more money, go into debt to spend more money and has virtually unlimited spending discretion vested in politicians who are supposed to be the people's representatives, but instead have become their pimps, the crisis will only get worse. It will take more than a new election to change that, but a transformation in the relationship between the politicians and the people.


Daniel Greenfield 

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber- 

“We cannot have peace if we are only concerned with peace. War is not an accident. It is the logical outcome of a certain way of life. If we want to attack war, we have to attack that way of life.” “The problem after a war is with the victor. He thinks he has just proved that war and violence pay. Who will now teach him a lesson?” “No Big Power in all history ever thought of itself as an aggressor. That is still true today.” There is no way to peace; peace is the way.

December 31, 1912

December 31, 1912


(The posting of this article has become an annual tradition at this blog since it appeared.)

The next year  sweeps around the earth like the hand of a clock, from Australia to Europe and across the great stretch of the Atlantic it rides the darkness to America. And then around and around again, each passing day marking another sweep of the hours.


In Times Square crowds of tourists gather in clumps behind police barricades, clutching their corporate swag beneath video billboards shifting and humming in the cool air. And the same scene repeats in other squares and other places even if it doesn't feel like there is a great deal to celebrate.

While the year makes its first pass around the world, let us leave it behind, open a door in time and step back to another year, a century past.

December 31, 1912.

The crowds are just as large, though the men wear hats. The word gay is employed with no touch of irony. Liquor is harder to come by because the end of the year, one hundred and two years ago, has fallen on a Sunday.

There are more dances and fewer corporate brands. Horns are blown, and the occasional revolver fired into the air, a sight unimaginable in the controlled celebrations of today's urban metropolis.

The Hotel Workers Union strike fizzled out on Broadway though a volley of bricks was hurled at the Hotel Astor during the celebrations. New York's finest spent the evening outside the Rockefeller mansion waiting to subpoena the tycoon in the money trust investigation. And the Postmaster General inaugurated the new parcel service by shipping a silver loving cup from Washington to New York.

On Ellis Island, Castro, a bitter enemy of the United States, and the former president of Venezuela, had been arrested for trying to sneak into the country while the customs officers had their guard down. Gazing at the Statue of Liberty, Castro denied that he was a revolutionary and bitterly urged the American masses to rise up and tear down the statue in the name of freedom.

Times Square has far fewer billboards and no videos, but it does have the giant Horn and Hardart Automat which opened just that year, where food comes from banks of vending machines giving celebrating crowds a view of the amazing world of tomorrow for the world of 1912 is after all like our own. We can open a door into the past, but we cannot escape the present.

The Presidential election of 1912, like that of 2012, ended in disaster. Both Taft and Roosevelt lost and Woodrow Wilson won. In the White House, President Taft met with cabinet members and diplomats for a final reception.

Woodrow Wilson, who would lead America into a bloody and senseless war, subvert its Constitution, and begin the process of making global government and statism into the national religion of his party, was optimistic about the new year. "Thirteen is my lucky number," he said. "It is curious how the number 13 has figured in my life and never with bad fortune."

Americans today face the lightbulb ban. Americans then were confronted with the matchstick ban as the Esch bill in Congress outlawed phosphorus "strike 'em on your pants" matches by imposing a $1,000 tax on them. This was deemed to be Constitutional. In Indianapolis, the train carrying union leaders guilty of the dynamite plot was making its secret way to Federal prison even while the lawyers of the dynamiters vowed to appeal.

The passing year, a century past, had its distinct echoes in our own time. There had been, what the men of the time, thought of as wars, yet they could not even conceive of the wars shortly to come. There were the usual dry news items about the collapse of the government in Spain, a war and an economic crisis in distant parts of the world that did not concern them.

A recession was here, after several panics, and though there was plenty of cheer, there was also plenty of worry. The Federal Reserve Act would be signed at the end of 1913, partly in response to the economic crisis.


Socialism was on the march with the Socialist Party having doubled its votes in the national election.  All three major candidates, Wilson, Roosevelt and Taft, had warned that the country was drifting toward Socialism and that they were the only ones who could stop it.

"Unless Socialism is checked," Professor Albert Bushnell Hart warned, "within sixteen years there will be a Socialist President of the United States." Hart was off by four years. Hoover won in 1928. FDR won in 1932.

At New York City's May Day rally, the American flag was torn down and replaced with the red flag, to cries of, "Take down that dirty rag" and "We don't recognize that flag." The site of the rally was Union Square, one of the locations where the rag ends of Occupy Wall Street now hangs out.

There was tension on the Mexican border and alarm over Socialist successes in German elections. An obscure fellow with the silly name of Lenin had carved out a group with the even sillier name of the Bolsheviks. China became a Republic. New Mexico became a state, the African National Congress was founded and the Titanic sank.

There was bloody fighting in Benghazi where 20,000 Italian troops faced off against 20,000 Arabs and 8,000 Turks. The Italians had modern warships and armored vehicles, while the Muslim forces were supplied by voluntary donations and fighters crossing from Egypt and across North Africa to join in attacking the infidels.

The Italian-Turkish war has since been forgotten, except by the Italians, the Libyans and the Turks, but it featured the first strategic use of airships, ushering in a century of European aerial warfare.

There was a good deal going on while the horns were blown and men in heavy coats and wet hats made their way through the festivities.

World War I was two years away, but the Balkan War had already fired the first shots. The rest was just a matter of bringing the non-phosphorus matches closer to the kindling. The Anti-Saloon League was gathering strength for a nationwide effort that would hijack the political system and divide it into dry and wet, and, among other things, ram through the personal income tax.

Change was coming, and as in 1912, the country was no longer hopeful, it was wary.

The century, for all its expected glamour, had been a difficult one. The future, political and economic, was unknown. Few knew exactly what was to come, but equally few were especially optimistic even when the champagne was flowing.

If we were to stop a reveler staggering out of a hotel, stand in his path and tell him that war was five years away and a great depression would come in on its tail, that liquor would be banned, crime would proliferate and a Socialist president would rule the United States for three terms, while wielding near absolute power, he might have decided to make his way to the recently constructed Manhattan Bridge for a swan dive into the river.


And yet we know that though all this is true, there is a deeper truth. For all those setbacks, the United States survived, and many of us look nostalgically toward a time that was every bit as uncertain and nerve-wracking as our own.

December 31, 1912 was a door that opened onto many things.

Our December 31 is likewise a door, and if a man in shiny clothes from the year 2115 were to stop us on the street and spill out everything he knew about the next century, it is likely that there would be as much greatness as tragedy in that tale.

As the year sweeps across the earth, let us remember that history is more than the worst of its events, that all times bear the burden of their uncertainties, but also carry within them the seeds of greatness. Looking back on this time, it may be that it is not the defeats that we will recall, but how they readied us for the fight ahead.

America has not fallen, no more than it did when the clock struck midnight on December 31, 1912. Though it may not seem likely now, there are many great things ahead, and though the challenges at times seem insurmountable and the defeats many, another year and another century await us.



Posted by Daniel Greenfield 

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber- 

“We cannot have peace if we are only concerned with peace. War is not an accident. It is the logical outcome of a certain way of life. If we want to attack war, we have to attack that way of life.” “The problem after a war is with the victor. He thinks he has just proved that war and violence pay. Who will now teach him a lesson?” “No Big Power in all history ever thought of itself as an aggressor. That is still true today.” There is no way to peace; peace is the way. December 31, 1912


(The posting of this article has become an annual tradition at this blog since it appeared.)

The next year  sweeps around the earth like the hand of a clock, from Australia to Europe and across the great stretch of the Atlantic it rides the darkness to America. And then around and around again, each passing day marking another sweep of the hours.


In Times Square crowds of tourists gather in clumps behind police barricades, clutching their corporate swag beneath video billboards shifting and humming in the cool air. And the same scene repeats in other squares and other places even if it doesn't feel like there is a great deal to celebrate.

While the year makes its first pass around the world, let us leave it behind, open a door in time and step back to another year, a century past.

December 31, 1912.

The crowds are just as large, though the men wear hats. The word gay is employed with no touch of irony. Liquor is harder to come by because the end of the year, one hundred and two years ago, has fallen on a Sunday.

There are more dances and fewer corporate brands. Horns are blown, and the occasional revolver fired into the air, a sight unimaginable in the controlled celebrations of today's urban metropolis.

The Hotel Workers Union strike fizzled out on Broadway though a volley of bricks was hurled at the Hotel Astor during the celebrations. New York's finest spent the evening outside the Rockefeller mansion waiting to subpoena the tycoon in the money trust investigation. And the Postmaster General inaugurated the new parcel service by shipping a silver loving cup from Washington to New York.

On Ellis Island, Castro, a bitter enemy of the United States, and the former president of Venezuela, had been arrested for trying to sneak into the country while the customs officers had their guard down. Gazing at the Statue of Liberty, Castro denied that he was a revolutionary and bitterly urged the American masses to rise up and tear down the statue in the name of freedom.

Times Square has far fewer billboards and no videos, but it does have the giant Horn and Hardart Automat which opened just that year, where food comes from banks of vending machines giving celebrating crowds a view of the amazing world of tomorrow for the world of 1912 is after all like our own. We can open a door into the past, but we cannot escape the present.

The Presidential election of 1912, like that of 2012, ended in disaster. Both Taft and Roosevelt lost and Woodrow Wilson won. In the White House, President Taft met with cabinet members and diplomats for a final reception.

Woodrow Wilson, who would lead America into a bloody and senseless war, subvert its Constitution, and begin the process of making global government and statism into the national religion of his party, was optimistic about the new year. "Thirteen is my lucky number," he said. "It is curious how the number 13 has figured in my life and never with bad fortune."

Americans today face the lightbulb ban. Americans then were confronted with the matchstick ban as the Esch bill in Congress outlawed phosphorus "strike 'em on your pants" matches by imposing a $1,000 tax on them. This was deemed to be Constitutional. In Indianapolis, the train carrying union leaders guilty of the dynamite plot was making its secret way to Federal prison even while the lawyers of the dynamiters vowed to appeal.

The passing year, a century past, had its distinct echoes in our own time. There had been, what the men of the time, thought of as wars, yet they could not even conceive of the wars shortly to come. There were the usual dry news items about the collapse of the government in Spain, a war and an economic crisis in distant parts of the world that did not concern them.

A recession was here, after several panics, and though there was plenty of cheer, there was also plenty of worry. The Federal Reserve Act would be signed at the end of 1913, partly in response to the economic crisis.


Socialism was on the march with the Socialist Party having doubled its votes in the national election.  All three major candidates, Wilson, Roosevelt and Taft, had warned that the country was drifting toward Socialism and that they were the only ones who could stop it.

"Unless Socialism is checked," Professor Albert Bushnell Hart warned, "within sixteen years there will be a Socialist President of the United States." Hart was off by four years. Hoover won in 1928. FDR won in 1932.

At New York City's May Day rally, the American flag was torn down and replaced with the red flag, to cries of, "Take down that dirty rag" and "We don't recognize that flag." The site of the rally was Union Square, one of the locations where the rag ends of Occupy Wall Street now hangs out.

There was tension on the Mexican border and alarm over Socialist successes in German elections. An obscure fellow with the silly name of Lenin had carved out a group with the even sillier name of the Bolsheviks. China became a Republic. New Mexico became a state, the African National Congress was founded and the Titanic sank.

There was bloody fighting in Benghazi where 20,000 Italian troops faced off against 20,000 Arabs and 8,000 Turks. The Italians had modern warships and armored vehicles, while the Muslim forces were supplied by voluntary donations and fighters crossing from Egypt and across North Africa to join in attacking the infidels.

The Italian-Turkish war has since been forgotten, except by the Italians, the Libyans and the Turks, but it featured the first strategic use of airships, ushering in a century of European aerial warfare.

There was a good deal going on while the horns were blown and men in heavy coats and wet hats made their way through the festivities.

World War I was two years away, but the Balkan War had already fired the first shots. The rest was just a matter of bringing the non-phosphorus matches closer to the kindling. The Anti-Saloon League was gathering strength for a nationwide effort that would hijack the political system and divide it into dry and wet, and, among other things, ram through the personal income tax.

Change was coming, and as in 1912, the country was no longer hopeful, it was wary.

The century, for all its expected glamour, had been a difficult one. The future, political and economic, was unknown. Few knew exactly what was to come, but equally few were especially optimistic even when the champagne was flowing.

If we were to stop a reveler staggering out of a hotel, stand in his path and tell him that war was five years away and a great depression would come in on its tail, that liquor would be banned, crime would proliferate and a Socialist president would rule the United States for three terms, while wielding near absolute power, he might have decided to make his way to the recently constructed Manhattan Bridge for a swan dive into the river.


And yet we know that though all this is true, there is a deeper truth. For all those setbacks, the United States survived, and many of us look nostalgically toward a time that was every bit as uncertain and nerve-wracking as our own.

December 31, 1912 was a door that opened onto many things.

Our December 31 is likewise a door, and if a man in shiny clothes from the year 2115 were to stop us on the street and spill out everything he knew about the next century, it is likely that there would be as much greatness as tragedy in that tale.

As the year sweeps across the earth, let us remember that history is more than the worst of its events, that all times bear the burden of their uncertainties, but also carry within them the seeds of greatness. Looking back on this time, it may be that it is not the defeats that we will recall, but how they readied us for the fight ahead.

America has not fallen, no more than it did when the clock struck midnight on December 31, 1912. Though it may not seem likely now, there are many great things ahead, and though the challenges at times seem insurmountable and the defeats many, another year and another century await us.



Posted by Daniel Greenfield 

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber- 

“We cannot have peace if we are only concerned with peace. War is not an accident. It is the logical outcome of a certain way of life. If we want to attack war, we have to attack that way of life.” “The problem after a war is with the victor. He thinks he has just proved that war and violence pay. Who will now teach him a lesson?” “No Big Power in all history ever thought of itself as an aggressor. That is still true today.” There is no way to peace; peace is the way.

The Ten Worst People in Politics in 2015

Cecile Richards, Paul Ryan, Paul Krugman, Justin Trudeau, Debbie Wassermann-Schultz, Pope Francis, Robbie Blankenship and Jesse Cruz, Black Lives Matter, Bill DeBlasio, Alan McCollough

The Ten Worst People in Politics in 2015



Let’s face it—2015 was a pretty bad year, all things considered.  The United States of America, and indeed the whole world, became poorer, more corrupt, less stable, and less free as a result of the actions of a relatively small number of people.  While there are many, many people who could be included in a list of the “worst people in politics” because of their systematic badness, these are a few especially reprehensible individuals who have gone above and beyond in the effort to make our country and the world an appalling place for those who actually care about human freedom and progress.  Below is a list of ten of these worst offenders who especially stood out for their “contributions” in 2015.

#10—Paul Krugman
Where to begin with Paul Krugman, the Nobel-prize winning economist who is nevertheless consistently wrong on just about everything he says, economic or otherwise.  He wins a spot on this list for his recent assertion that, contrary to all evidence, global warming…er…climate change is a greater threat to human civilization than is terrorism, even as we saw record coverage for Antarctic ice and the Northern hemisphere is seeing record snowfalls.  Krugman deserves his spot, however, because he isn’t merely blinkered.  He knows full well that global warming is nothing more than a scare tactic designed to get people to go along with the destruction of jobs, wealth, and industrial civilization—he wants those things to happen, and lent his weight of support to the hoaxworthy Paris climate conference, even as Paris was recovering from one of the most deadly terrorist attacks in recent years.  Talk about a clueless, tone deaf moron.  This is despite the fact that there is actually no consensus on the reality of man-made climate change, and indeed, a majority of actual accredited scientists in the relevant fields are skeptical of in it. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

#9—Justin Trudeau
Canada’s new prime minister, known in some circles as “Canada’s Obama,” demonstrates all the same cluelessness coupled with arrogance that we have come to know and love in our own Pres__ent.  Like Obama, Trudeau has a number of uncomfortably close ties to radical Islamic groups, and is known for his recent defense of the anti-female niqab, a face covering used in some Islamic countries that indicates a husband’s ownership of his wife—something about which feminists would normally be upset, except when it involves Muslims and popular left-wing politicians.  Trudeau has also ended Canadian involvement in air strikes against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, something which caused Islamic State supporters to cheer his election as prime minister back in October.  Anyone who gets the enthusiastic support of 7th century Islamic barbarians cannot be a positive force for good, in this world or in any other.http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/islamic-state-supporters-celebrate-trudeaus-election-in-canada

#8—Paul Ryan
What can we say about Paul Ryan?  In just three short years, he has gone from hero to zero.  Supposedly he was this great, free market, fiscally responsible conservative.  Now, he is just another cog in the Washington machine that perpetually removes liberty from the people and the states, and centralizes it into the hands of the DC bureaucracy.  This was most recently shown by his complete abandonment of any fiscally responsible principles when he handed the Democrats a budget which Nancy Pelosi could scarcely have made any worse.  If there’s one saving grace for Paul Ryan, it’s that we can thank him for showing us once against why you just can’t trust any of these Washington politicians.

#7—Debbie Wassermann-Schultz
The Florida congresswoman and Democratic National Committee Chair is living proof that anyone will say anything, no matter how stupid or hamfisted, so long as they’re either being paid or aren’t troubled by the need to think for themselves.  This woman is so dumb that even left-wingers in the media can’t help but make fun of her.  If her influence on the American political culture was limited to being the butt of late night comedy jokes, that would be fine.  Unfortunately, however, she has the real ability to direct the activities and ideology of one of the two major political parties in this country.  Which means she can spread the stupid around but good.  At least we can take some comfort in the fact that on her watch, the Democratic National Committee is going further and further into debt.  Until they get a taxpayer-funded bailout, of course.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/12/1430983/-Wasserman-Schultz-Ramps-Up-the-Stupid

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/debbies-dilemma-democrats-drenched-debt

#6—Pope Francis
Some might be surprised to find the pope, of all people, on this list.  Don’t be.  This past year, Pope Francis spent much of his time circuiting the globe and selling the poisoned brew of socialism to already poor people the world over, so that they could become even poorer because of the policies he advocates.  Instead of bringing hope or goodness to their lives, he has merely helped to extend their despair.  By using his position and moral authority to assail capitalism—which is the only proven economic engine that lifts people out of poverty and makes their lives objectively better—Pope Francis has helped to ensure that people in the Third World will continue to languish in grinding poverty, with all the accompanying famines, plagues, and other ills that come with it.  Meanwhile, he heads up a religious organization worth billions and which hasn’t exactly been quick to redistribute all of its own wealth to the poor and needy, as the pope asks everyone else to do.

#5—Robbie Blankenship and Jesse Cruz
You may not have heard of these two goobers, but they are the gay “couple” who, while living in Ohio, crossed the border into a completely different state (Kentucky) specifically for the purpose of finding a county clerk (Kim Davis) whom they could harass for refusing to issue them a marriage license.  In other words, these guys are enemies of the Constitution and of the American people, who made a conscious decision to try to cause trouble and attack religious liberty.  They are quite obviously nothing more than tools of the liberty-hating Gaystapo.  One can hope that when the time rolls around for them to get their “gay divorce,” that the laws haven’t caught up yet and they’re stuck with each other.

#4—Black Lives Matter founders
Because it is supposedly a “mass movement” (though actually, it is just controlled by shadowy elements behind the scenes), I’m going to put the entire #BLM movement in this spot.  While I actually have a lot of sympathy for those protesting legitimate excessive force and misuse of authority by the police (which I’ve written about before), the fact of the matter is that the Black Lives Matter movement is built on lies, and is being used to do nothing but create disunity between Americans and destroy our social fabric.  It gained national prominence after the defensive shooting of Michael Brown, a scumbag who had robbed a convenience store and then physically assaulted a police officer while trying to take his gun away.  It has since allowed itself to morph into a great big thug sandwich that does little more than threaten people, block traffic, and harass folks who have nothing to do whatsoever with police brutality.  The only redeeming quality of #BLM is that it openly demonstrates to regular Americans the excesses and nastiness of left-wing activism. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/dunkin/150424

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/dunkin/140111

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/dunkin/111003

#3—Bill DeBlasio
Bill de Blasio is New York City’s communist mayor and arch-hater of the Constitution.  Under his watch, crime has greatly increased, making the lives of average citizens in the city that much more dangerous and difficult.  De Blasio has also used his position to undermine educational and economic freedom.  Most egregiously, however, is his support for New York City’s new fine of $250,000 on business owners who do not refer to transgendered employees by the employees’ “preferred gender pronoun.”  Yes, thanks to Bill de Blasio, a business owner can potentially have his or her livelihood ruined for not pandering to the fantasies of any psychologically-damaged perverts they happen to employ.  Hizzoner apparently thinks that the First Amendment ends where NYC’s boundaries begin.

#2—Alan McCollough
“Judge” Alan McCollough is the black-robed fascist who issued the ruling against the owners of Sweet Cakes Bakery in Oregon, which was fined over $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a gay “wedding.”  Hence, he was an active participant in the ruination of a Christian couple’s lives because he didn’t like their personal beliefs.  Despite spending years assuring us that gay “marriage” would in no way infringe on anyone else’s rights, the gay lobby is now digging up anti-constitutional thugs like McCollough to assault religious freedom and the freedom of association in this country.  Dangerous lunatics like this judge don’t belong on the bench—they belong in prison or in an asylum!

#1—Cecile Richards
I believe that we can fairly ask the question, “Could there be a worse human being in the United States of America than Cecile Richards?”  If you don’t recall who she is, Mizz Richards is the head of Planned Parenthood, and became the public face and chief apologist for that organization during the scandal that erupted when undercover videos of their illegal activities broke to the surface.  One has to go back to 1945 to find as spirited a defense of the dismemberment of human beings and the sale of their body parts as Cecile Richards made.

And while sticking to your guns may be a good thing in some cases, it is not when it means continuing in the hypocrisy of murdering babies while pretending it’s all about “freedom.”  She is one sick individual who nevertheless gives a voice to lots of other sick individuals. Cecile Richards, Paul Ryan, Paul Krugman, Justin Trudeau, Debbie Wassermann-Schultz, Pope Francis, Robbie Blankenship and Jesse Cruz, Black Lives Matter, Bill DeBlasio, Alan McCollough

The Ten Worst People in Politics in 2015



Let’s face it—2015 was a pretty bad year, all things considered.  The United States of America, and indeed the whole world, became poorer, more corrupt, less stable, and less free as a result of the actions of a relatively small number of people.  While there are many, many people who could be included in a list of the “worst people in politics” because of their systematic badness, these are a few especially reprehensible individuals who have gone above and beyond in the effort to make our country and the world an appalling place for those who actually care about human freedom and progress.  Below is a list of ten of these worst offenders who especially stood out for their “contributions” in 2015.

#10—Paul Krugman
Where to begin with Paul Krugman, the Nobel-prize winning economist who is nevertheless consistently wrong on just about everything he says, economic or otherwise.  He wins a spot on this list for his recent assertion that, contrary to all evidence, global warming…er…climate change is a greater threat to human civilization than is terrorism, even as we saw record coverage for Antarctic ice and the Northern hemisphere is seeing record snowfalls.  Krugman deserves his spot, however, because he isn’t merely blinkered.  He knows full well that global warming is nothing more than a scare tactic designed to get people to go along with the destruction of jobs, wealth, and industrial civilization—he wants those things to happen, and lent his weight of support to the hoaxworthy Paris climate conference, even as Paris was recovering from one of the most deadly terrorist attacks in recent years.  Talk about a clueless, tone deaf moron.  This is despite the fact that there is actually no consensus on the reality of man-made climate change, and indeed, a majority of actual accredited scientists in the relevant fields are skeptical of in it. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

#9—Justin Trudeau
Canada’s new prime minister, known in some circles as “Canada’s Obama,” demonstrates all the same cluelessness coupled with arrogance that we have come to know and love in our own Pres__ent.  Like Obama, Trudeau has a number of uncomfortably close ties to radical Islamic groups, and is known for his recent defense of the anti-female niqab, a face covering used in some Islamic countries that indicates a husband’s ownership of his wife—something about which feminists would normally be upset, except when it involves Muslims and popular left-wing politicians.  Trudeau has also ended Canadian involvement in air strikes against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, something which caused Islamic State supporters to cheer his election as prime minister back in October.  Anyone who gets the enthusiastic support of 7th century Islamic barbarians cannot be a positive force for good, in this world or in any other.http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/islamic-state-supporters-celebrate-trudeaus-election-in-canada

#8—Paul Ryan
What can we say about Paul Ryan?  In just three short years, he has gone from hero to zero.  Supposedly he was this great, free market, fiscally responsible conservative.  Now, he is just another cog in the Washington machine that perpetually removes liberty from the people and the states, and centralizes it into the hands of the DC bureaucracy.  This was most recently shown by his complete abandonment of any fiscally responsible principles when he handed the Democrats a budget which Nancy Pelosi could scarcely have made any worse.  If there’s one saving grace for Paul Ryan, it’s that we can thank him for showing us once against why you just can’t trust any of these Washington politicians.

#7—Debbie Wassermann-Schultz
The Florida congresswoman and Democratic National Committee Chair is living proof that anyone will say anything, no matter how stupid or hamfisted, so long as they’re either being paid or aren’t troubled by the need to think for themselves.  This woman is so dumb that even left-wingers in the media can’t help but make fun of her.  If her influence on the American political culture was limited to being the butt of late night comedy jokes, that would be fine.  Unfortunately, however, she has the real ability to direct the activities and ideology of one of the two major political parties in this country.  Which means she can spread the stupid around but good.  At least we can take some comfort in the fact that on her watch, the Democratic National Committee is going further and further into debt.  Until they get a taxpayer-funded bailout, of course.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/12/1430983/-Wasserman-Schultz-Ramps-Up-the-Stupid

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/debbies-dilemma-democrats-drenched-debt

#6—Pope Francis
Some might be surprised to find the pope, of all people, on this list.  Don’t be.  This past year, Pope Francis spent much of his time circuiting the globe and selling the poisoned brew of socialism to already poor people the world over, so that they could become even poorer because of the policies he advocates.  Instead of bringing hope or goodness to their lives, he has merely helped to extend their despair.  By using his position and moral authority to assail capitalism—which is the only proven economic engine that lifts people out of poverty and makes their lives objectively better—Pope Francis has helped to ensure that people in the Third World will continue to languish in grinding poverty, with all the accompanying famines, plagues, and other ills that come with it.  Meanwhile, he heads up a religious organization worth billions and which hasn’t exactly been quick to redistribute all of its own wealth to the poor and needy, as the pope asks everyone else to do.

#5—Robbie Blankenship and Jesse Cruz
You may not have heard of these two goobers, but they are the gay “couple” who, while living in Ohio, crossed the border into a completely different state (Kentucky) specifically for the purpose of finding a county clerk (Kim Davis) whom they could harass for refusing to issue them a marriage license.  In other words, these guys are enemies of the Constitution and of the American people, who made a conscious decision to try to cause trouble and attack religious liberty.  They are quite obviously nothing more than tools of the liberty-hating Gaystapo.  One can hope that when the time rolls around for them to get their “gay divorce,” that the laws haven’t caught up yet and they’re stuck with each other.

#4—Black Lives Matter founders
Because it is supposedly a “mass movement” (though actually, it is just controlled by shadowy elements behind the scenes), I’m going to put the entire #BLM movement in this spot.  While I actually have a lot of sympathy for those protesting legitimate excessive force and misuse of authority by the police (which I’ve written about before), the fact of the matter is that the Black Lives Matter movement is built on lies, and is being used to do nothing but create disunity between Americans and destroy our social fabric.  It gained national prominence after the defensive shooting of Michael Brown, a scumbag who had robbed a convenience store and then physically assaulted a police officer while trying to take his gun away.  It has since allowed itself to morph into a great big thug sandwich that does little more than threaten people, block traffic, and harass folks who have nothing to do whatsoever with police brutality.  The only redeeming quality of #BLM is that it openly demonstrates to regular Americans the excesses and nastiness of left-wing activism. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/dunkin/150424

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/dunkin/140111

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/dunkin/111003

#3—Bill DeBlasio
Bill de Blasio is New York City’s communist mayor and arch-hater of the Constitution.  Under his watch, crime has greatly increased, making the lives of average citizens in the city that much more dangerous and difficult.  De Blasio has also used his position to undermine educational and economic freedom.  Most egregiously, however, is his support for New York City’s new fine of $250,000 on business owners who do not refer to transgendered employees by the employees’ “preferred gender pronoun.”  Yes, thanks to Bill de Blasio, a business owner can potentially have his or her livelihood ruined for not pandering to the fantasies of any psychologically-damaged perverts they happen to employ.  Hizzoner apparently thinks that the First Amendment ends where NYC’s boundaries begin.

#2—Alan McCollough
“Judge” Alan McCollough is the black-robed fascist who issued the ruling against the owners of Sweet Cakes Bakery in Oregon, which was fined over $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a gay “wedding.”  Hence, he was an active participant in the ruination of a Christian couple’s lives because he didn’t like their personal beliefs.  Despite spending years assuring us that gay “marriage” would in no way infringe on anyone else’s rights, the gay lobby is now digging up anti-constitutional thugs like McCollough to assault religious freedom and the freedom of association in this country.  Dangerous lunatics like this judge don’t belong on the bench—they belong in prison or in an asylum!

#1—Cecile Richards
I believe that we can fairly ask the question, “Could there be a worse human being in the United States of America than Cecile Richards?”  If you don’t recall who she is, Mizz Richards is the head of Planned Parenthood, and became the public face and chief apologist for that organization during the scandal that erupted when undercover videos of their illegal activities broke to the surface.  One has to go back to 1945 to find as spirited a defense of the dismemberment of human beings and the sale of their body parts as Cecile Richards made.

And while sticking to your guns may be a good thing in some cases, it is not when it means continuing in the hypocrisy of murdering babies while pretending it’s all about “freedom.”  She is one sick individual who nevertheless gives a voice to lots of other sick individuals.

Happy New Year! Multiple reports say Obama to go ahead with executive gun control

It was fun while it lasted.

Happy New Year! Multiple reports say Obama to go ahead with executive gun control


The issue is not even so much that he’s doing it. Of course he’s doing. Obama always pushes up to the line of his regulatory authority, and then blows past it. The issue is also not whether this will cut down on “mass shootings.” Of course it won’t. This is classic doing something for the sake of doing something.

The real issue is that - although he has no constitutional authority to act without Congress, and obviously he has no authority to restrict your Second Amendment rights - absolufreakinglutely no one cares that he does it. The same ignorance that put him in office in the first place enables him to pull this crap on a daily basis. Whether it’s blanket amnesty for illegals, international agreements without treaty ratification or the shredding of part of the Bill of Rights - it’s all so esoteric and who can be bothered with it when they’re trying to get ready for New Years Rockin’ Eve?

The issue is not even so much that he’s doing it. Of course he’s doing. Obama always pushes up to the line of his regulatory authority, and then blows past it. The issue is also not whether this will cut down on “mass shootings.” Of course it won’t. This is classic doing something for the sake of doing something.

The real issue is that - although he has no constitutional authority to act without Congress, and obviously he has no authority to restrict your Second Amendment rights - absolufreakinglutely no one cares that he does it. The same ignorance that put him in office in the first place enables him to pull this crap on a daily basis. Whether it’s blanket amnesty for illegals, international agreements without treaty ratification or the shredding of part of the Bill of Rights - it’s all so esoteric and who can be bothered with it when they’re trying to get ready for New Years Rockin’ Eve?

Rob and I have no intention of putting up with the UAW’s crap here in the Republic of Michigan, and don’t pretend you don’t know what I mean:http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/31/politics/obama-to-announce-new-executive-action-on-guns/index.html

Obama has unlimited power
  Described as “imminent,” the set of executive actions would fulfill a promise by the President to take further unilateral steps the White House says could help curb gun deaths.

  Plans for the action are not yet complete, and those familiar with the process warn that unforeseen circumstances could delay an announcement. But gun control advocates are expecting the new actions to be revealed next week, ahead of Obama’s annual State of the Union address, set for January 12.

  The White House wouldn’t comment directly on the exact timing or content of Obama’s executive orders. White House spokesman Eric Schultz said that the President expected a set of recommendations on unilateral action to arrive at the beginning of the year.

  He said Obama was “expressing urgency” for a list of steps he can take on his own after high-profile incidents of gun violence at the end of this year.

Tell me again how supporting Donald Trump is backing a fascist but cheerleading for this guy is just mainstream politics at its finest, would you? Something happens that’s “high-profile” and thus there is a sense of urgency, so the Constitution is suspended because the president “must act.”

The people who should be screaming bloody murder about this, but are not, are not ignorant about the constitutional issues here. They just don’t care about them. They agree with Obama’s agenda and they figure it’s Congress’s own fault for refusing to rubber-stamp his agenda. They also admire power politics ploys, provided of course they’re employed on behalf of an agreeable agenda.

If Congress tries to use the power of the purse to stop this action - in other words, refusing to fund it - Obama will declare war with a government shutdown at stake, and Republicans will back down for fear of being blamed by the media. Thus, Obama has unlimited power.


Dan Calabrese It was fun while it lasted.

Happy New Year! Multiple reports say Obama to go ahead with executive gun control


The issue is not even so much that he’s doing it. Of course he’s doing. Obama always pushes up to the line of his regulatory authority, and then blows past it. The issue is also not whether this will cut down on “mass shootings.” Of course it won’t. This is classic doing something for the sake of doing something.

The real issue is that - although he has no constitutional authority to act without Congress, and obviously he has no authority to restrict your Second Amendment rights - absolufreakinglutely no one cares that he does it. The same ignorance that put him in office in the first place enables him to pull this crap on a daily basis. Whether it’s blanket amnesty for illegals, international agreements without treaty ratification or the shredding of part of the Bill of Rights - it’s all so esoteric and who can be bothered with it when they’re trying to get ready for New Years Rockin’ Eve?

The issue is not even so much that he’s doing it. Of course he’s doing. Obama always pushes up to the line of his regulatory authority, and then blows past it. The issue is also not whether this will cut down on “mass shootings.” Of course it won’t. This is classic doing something for the sake of doing something.

The real issue is that - although he has no constitutional authority to act without Congress, and obviously he has no authority to restrict your Second Amendment rights - absolufreakinglutely no one cares that he does it. The same ignorance that put him in office in the first place enables him to pull this crap on a daily basis. Whether it’s blanket amnesty for illegals, international agreements without treaty ratification or the shredding of part of the Bill of Rights - it’s all so esoteric and who can be bothered with it when they’re trying to get ready for New Years Rockin’ Eve?

Rob and I have no intention of putting up with the UAW’s crap here in the Republic of Michigan, and don’t pretend you don’t know what I mean:http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/31/politics/obama-to-announce-new-executive-action-on-guns/index.html

Obama has unlimited power
  Described as “imminent,” the set of executive actions would fulfill a promise by the President to take further unilateral steps the White House says could help curb gun deaths.

  Plans for the action are not yet complete, and those familiar with the process warn that unforeseen circumstances could delay an announcement. But gun control advocates are expecting the new actions to be revealed next week, ahead of Obama’s annual State of the Union address, set for January 12.

  The White House wouldn’t comment directly on the exact timing or content of Obama’s executive orders. White House spokesman Eric Schultz said that the President expected a set of recommendations on unilateral action to arrive at the beginning of the year.

  He said Obama was “expressing urgency” for a list of steps he can take on his own after high-profile incidents of gun violence at the end of this year.

Tell me again how supporting Donald Trump is backing a fascist but cheerleading for this guy is just mainstream politics at its finest, would you? Something happens that’s “high-profile” and thus there is a sense of urgency, so the Constitution is suspended because the president “must act.”

The people who should be screaming bloody murder about this, but are not, are not ignorant about the constitutional issues here. They just don’t care about them. They agree with Obama’s agenda and they figure it’s Congress’s own fault for refusing to rubber-stamp his agenda. They also admire power politics ploys, provided of course they’re employed on behalf of an agreeable agenda.

If Congress tries to use the power of the purse to stop this action - in other words, refusing to fund it - Obama will declare war with a government shutdown at stake, and Republicans will back down for fear of being blamed by the media. Thus, Obama has unlimited power.


Dan Calabrese

Have You Prepared for Terrorism?

Politicians always end a speech by saying, “God bless America,” but God has blessed America but America has not blessed God

Have You Prepared for Terrorism?



If America’s cities are destroyed by Muslim terrorists, then it could be very ugly for a few months (or years) and you should prepare for the worst. Your children should be aware of the possibilities but get them ready without scaring them to death! After all, there is no doubt that their lives will change forever. Don’t let this hit them in the face tomorrow morning. Carefully get them ready. Let them know that this disaster is no surprise to God. God did not look down recently and say, “Oops.” He has watched this coming on for many years and is permitting man to put himself in a “fine mess.”

Teach the children that they will have to assume more responsibilities around the house. (You should have been training them from earliest days.) Discuss some of the things they can do to help in surviving and thriving after such an attack on America. Let them know that children all over the world will have to grow up a little quicker than in the past. They should learn to take care of their own rooms, clean out the garage so you can store some food there, learn to care for the garden, to butcher rabbits, turkeys, and clean fish. Let them know that they are an important part of the family unit. (Again, I hope they already know that.)

Teach them to respect, understand, and care for guns. They should know how to hunt and clean game before they need to do so for survival. Children are children, so plan for long nights without much to do.

Purchase books, games, puzzles, and videos although televisions and VCRs may not work in some areas, so wean them away from television now. Get involved in some of their games and read to the very young.

Purchase school materials for them while they are still available. The public school system and many Christian schools will probably fold in some disaster areas. Prepare for such possibilities, and be sure to purchase Teacher’s Editions or answer keys.

When hard times come, do not wear gold jewelry or expensive clothes or drive large cars. Such people will be targets in an age of envy (generated by non thinking liberals for fifty years). Even decent people will be jealous of your apparent “good fortune.” Translation: you prepared and they did not!

Go to discount stores today—yes, today—and purchase toilet paper, honey, salt, pepper, ammunition, seeds, packaged and canned food, various spices, nails/screws, small tools, tape, knives and batteries. Then you should buy some silver and gold. A few boxes of potassium iodide anti-radiation tablets will be more valuable than gold if you are in a contaminated area. Get a supply today.

Following are some items that should be in your home: Extra pair of eye glasses or contact lenses, needles and thread, plastic sheeting, medicine dropper, matches, flashlight and batteries, aluminum foil, disposable baby bottle liners, toilet paper, sanitary napkins, insect repellent, toothpaste and toothbrushes, shampoo, candles, lamp oil, battery operated smoke alarm and carbon monoxide detectors. You also need paper cups, plates, and plastic utensils, baby needs, diapers (cloth), household bleach, Lysol, large and small plastic trash bags, deodorant, good shovel, garden rake, good hoe, hatchet, hack saw and extra blades, ammunition (can be used for bartering as well as protection), dishwashing soap, bath soap, laundry soap, tools for repairs, kits to repair flat tires on various vehicles (also an air pump), assorted nails and screws, solder, lead, oil for autos and tractors, portable AM-FM radio, flashlights with plenty of batteries, duct tape, mouse traps, lime, shoe laces, rubber gloves, W-D 40 or similar product, extra set of tires and sparkplugs, and computer paper and ink (in event we have power).

You may not have drinking water for a while so plan to treat your water from the roof or from a lake or pond. You can boil water for ten minutes and while it will kill the bugs, it will not help the taste much. However, you can add Kool Aide, Tang, or other mix to improve the taste. It will also help the taste if you pour the water (after it has cooled) back and forth from different containers.

You could always use household bleach to treat your water if the bleach contains a 5.25% solution of the chlorine compound sodium hypochlorite. It may warn, “Not for personal use,” but that can be disregarded (according to FEMA) if sodium hypochlorite is the only active ingredient. Purchase the brand that has no additives such as perfumes, soaps, etc. It takes 8 drops of bleach per gallon of clear water; 16 drops per gallon of cloudy water; 1/2 teaspoon per 5 gallons of clear water and 1 teaspoon per 5 gallons of cloudy water to make water drinkable.

After adding the bleach to water, thoroughly mix by stirring then let stand for at least 30 minutes. Remember that iodine and bleach do not purify water but do make it safer by neutralizing harmful bacteria.

You can collect water at your downspout, your swimming pool, waterbed, back of commode, lake, ditch, river, etc. You can even drag towels across the grass early in the morning and collect enough water to keep you alive!

You can purchase products that will treat drinkable water and keep it drinkable for about 5 years without using any other chemicals. It is tasteless and can be purchased through various outlets. Don’t use milk jugs to store water since they will not withstand longtime storage; however, plastic soda bottles can be safely used after a thorough cleaning with very hot water. Metal cans are not the best storage containers for water since the metal affects the taste. They may also rust.

Politicians always end a speech by saying, “God bless America,” but God has blessed America but America has not blessed God by reacting in a proper way. Hence, the coming judgment brought to you by the followers of that “peaceful religion” of Islam. Be prepared!

Is it possible for us to repent and return to greatness, or must we ride the toboggan slide to the garbage heap of history? We will soon know the answer to that question.

Dr. Don Boys Politicians always end a speech by saying, “God bless America,” but God has blessed America but America has not blessed God

Have You Prepared for Terrorism?



If America’s cities are destroyed by Muslim terrorists, then it could be very ugly for a few months (or years) and you should prepare for the worst. Your children should be aware of the possibilities but get them ready without scaring them to death! After all, there is no doubt that their lives will change forever. Don’t let this hit them in the face tomorrow morning. Carefully get them ready. Let them know that this disaster is no surprise to God. God did not look down recently and say, “Oops.” He has watched this coming on for many years and is permitting man to put himself in a “fine mess.”

Teach the children that they will have to assume more responsibilities around the house. (You should have been training them from earliest days.) Discuss some of the things they can do to help in surviving and thriving after such an attack on America. Let them know that children all over the world will have to grow up a little quicker than in the past. They should learn to take care of their own rooms, clean out the garage so you can store some food there, learn to care for the garden, to butcher rabbits, turkeys, and clean fish. Let them know that they are an important part of the family unit. (Again, I hope they already know that.)

Teach them to respect, understand, and care for guns. They should know how to hunt and clean game before they need to do so for survival. Children are children, so plan for long nights without much to do.

Purchase books, games, puzzles, and videos although televisions and VCRs may not work in some areas, so wean them away from television now. Get involved in some of their games and read to the very young.

Purchase school materials for them while they are still available. The public school system and many Christian schools will probably fold in some disaster areas. Prepare for such possibilities, and be sure to purchase Teacher’s Editions or answer keys.

When hard times come, do not wear gold jewelry or expensive clothes or drive large cars. Such people will be targets in an age of envy (generated by non thinking liberals for fifty years). Even decent people will be jealous of your apparent “good fortune.” Translation: you prepared and they did not!

Go to discount stores today—yes, today—and purchase toilet paper, honey, salt, pepper, ammunition, seeds, packaged and canned food, various spices, nails/screws, small tools, tape, knives and batteries. Then you should buy some silver and gold. A few boxes of potassium iodide anti-radiation tablets will be more valuable than gold if you are in a contaminated area. Get a supply today.

Following are some items that should be in your home: Extra pair of eye glasses or contact lenses, needles and thread, plastic sheeting, medicine dropper, matches, flashlight and batteries, aluminum foil, disposable baby bottle liners, toilet paper, sanitary napkins, insect repellent, toothpaste and toothbrushes, shampoo, candles, lamp oil, battery operated smoke alarm and carbon monoxide detectors. You also need paper cups, plates, and plastic utensils, baby needs, diapers (cloth), household bleach, Lysol, large and small plastic trash bags, deodorant, good shovel, garden rake, good hoe, hatchet, hack saw and extra blades, ammunition (can be used for bartering as well as protection), dishwashing soap, bath soap, laundry soap, tools for repairs, kits to repair flat tires on various vehicles (also an air pump), assorted nails and screws, solder, lead, oil for autos and tractors, portable AM-FM radio, flashlights with plenty of batteries, duct tape, mouse traps, lime, shoe laces, rubber gloves, W-D 40 or similar product, extra set of tires and sparkplugs, and computer paper and ink (in event we have power).

You may not have drinking water for a while so plan to treat your water from the roof or from a lake or pond. You can boil water for ten minutes and while it will kill the bugs, it will not help the taste much. However, you can add Kool Aide, Tang, or other mix to improve the taste. It will also help the taste if you pour the water (after it has cooled) back and forth from different containers.

You could always use household bleach to treat your water if the bleach contains a 5.25% solution of the chlorine compound sodium hypochlorite. It may warn, “Not for personal use,” but that can be disregarded (according to FEMA) if sodium hypochlorite is the only active ingredient. Purchase the brand that has no additives such as perfumes, soaps, etc. It takes 8 drops of bleach per gallon of clear water; 16 drops per gallon of cloudy water; 1/2 teaspoon per 5 gallons of clear water and 1 teaspoon per 5 gallons of cloudy water to make water drinkable.

After adding the bleach to water, thoroughly mix by stirring then let stand for at least 30 minutes. Remember that iodine and bleach do not purify water but do make it safer by neutralizing harmful bacteria.

You can collect water at your downspout, your swimming pool, waterbed, back of commode, lake, ditch, river, etc. You can even drag towels across the grass early in the morning and collect enough water to keep you alive!

You can purchase products that will treat drinkable water and keep it drinkable for about 5 years without using any other chemicals. It is tasteless and can be purchased through various outlets. Don’t use milk jugs to store water since they will not withstand longtime storage; however, plastic soda bottles can be safely used after a thorough cleaning with very hot water. Metal cans are not the best storage containers for water since the metal affects the taste. They may also rust.

Politicians always end a speech by saying, “God bless America,” but God has blessed America but America has not blessed God by reacting in a proper way. Hence, the coming judgment brought to you by the followers of that “peaceful religion” of Islam. Be prepared!

Is it possible for us to repent and return to greatness, or must we ride the toboggan slide to the garbage heap of history? We will soon know the answer to that question.

Dr. Don Boys

Social, Fiscal Values Are Equally Important


Conservative movement must continue to uphold fiscal, social conservative, national-defense values during these trying times. Quiet majority of the American people are beginning to understand the damage "elites" in media and politics have brought

Social, Fiscal Values Are Equally Important



“This Constitution was made for a moral and religious people, it is wholly unsuited for the governance of any other”
– John Adams, primary author of the U.S. Constitution and second pres. of the United States

Though the first votes of the 2016 Republican primary are only weeks away, the conservative movement continues to struggling with identity. After losing the presidency in 2008 and 2012, and enduring years of social and fiscal liberalism tearing at the fabric of American society, most Republicans realize the stakes are higher now than at any other time in modern history. The questions before us is, how do Republicans win the general election while maintaining non-negotiable conservative values? And should the focus be solely on fiscal matters to marginalize divisive social issues?

First, conservatives should have learned from the campaigns of 2008 and 2012 not to compromise on core conservative values by nominating a moderate. The 2010 congressional elections, compared with the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections, prove the point. In 2009, grassroots conservatives saw establishment Republicans in Congress practice fiscally liberal, Keynesian economics with the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) bailout after the 2008 economic collapse. That came after Republicans had practiced big-government spending prior to the collapse.

The 2008 Republican nominee, John McCain, was a fiscal liberal, and even pushed the TARP bailout before losing the general election. He was to the left of many Republicans on social issues, though a clear national-defense conservative.

With the excesses of fiscal and social liberalism early in the Obama administration, the TEA Party gathered steam and brought a number of fiscally and socially conservative candidates to office with the 2010 congressional elections. They were able to help stem the tide before the nation went off a liberal cliff. Unfortunately, the Republican Party played a repeat of the 2008 presidential campaign in nominating moderate Mitt Romney in 2012. With the same result.

Due to the radically liberal fiscal policies in the early years of the Obama administration, 2010 saw the rise of the libertarians within the conservative movement. This group is as fiscally conservative as any, but arguably liberal on social issues and isolationist on national defense. In fact, many in this group see the social issues as a distraction from the fiscal and some even see social conservatism in opposition to “liberty.”

The gay marriage question showed the stark contrast. A number of other conservatives began to beat the drums of marginalizing social issues like marriage and abortion in the seeming attempt to win on the fiscal front. Things have only become more liberal in all areas: fiscal, social, and national defense.

As a traditional “Reagan” fiscal, social and national-defense conservative, I believe it is time to speak out in defending the priority of all three prongs of the traditional conservative movement. As the conflict with ISIS appears to have solidified support among Republicans for national defense, my primary concern is the priority given to so-called “social issues.” That’s not to purport we don’t need to fight for national defense, as I have been outspoken about the need for a strong military and the fight against radical Islamist groups like ISIS (The issue of national defense will be saved for another article prior to the primary). Though the social issues may appear to be marginal to the direction and health of the nation, in comparison to the fiscal, nothing is further from the truth. Fighting for issues like life and marriage (while also fighting for small government) is not only a moral duty, but critical to the fiscal health and even national security of the nation.

Statistics help prove the importance of “social issues” and the clear connection to fiscal health. The primary thrust of social conservatism is in keeping the two parent, man-woman home intact and children being raised by parents in a lifelong committed bond. Social conservatism voices the importance of promoting sex within the bonds of marriage, of honoring marriage as a unique, time-honored institution, of raising children in the two-parent household, and of preventing the destruction of children in the womb.

Statistics bear out the importance of social conservatism and the cost to our nation of the breakdown of the family. Children raised by single parents, compared to children raised by two-parent families (from 2004 Bureau of Justice report) are 20-times more likely to go to prison, five-times more likely to commit suicide, 20-times more likely to have behavioral problems, 14-times more likely to become rapists, 32-times more likely to run away, 10-times more likely to abuse chemical substances, nine-times more likely to drop out of school, 33-times more likely to be seriously abused, 73-times more likely to be fatally abused, and only a tenth as likely to get A’s in school. Single parenthood should not be encouraged if we are to turn the nation around.

The economic impact of the breakdown of the family is obvious, particularly when the substantial majority of our national budget goes toward the social safety net attempting to stem the damage as much as possible (in the early 1960s, the majority of our budget went to national defense).

Additionally, a problem plaguing both Western Europe and the U.S. is the negative birthrate. Some studies put the European birthrate as low as 1.3 percent and the U.S. birthrate as low as 1.7 percent. A birthrate of 2.1 percent is a needed just to sustain a population, so negative birthrates bring a number of demographic issues we can witness in places like Greece, France, Scandinavia, and the Netherlands, which are experiencing a quickly aging population (tied to an unworkable state retirement, and uncontrolled and un-assimilated immigration).  

In America, economic “solutions” to rising social issues have made matters worse. Johnson’s “War on Poverty” and “Great Society” of the mid-1960s, instituting welfare and other similar entitlements, appears to have furthered family breakdown.

Taking the Bible and Prayer from school, No-fault divorce, Roe v. Wade, and other such “experiments” all came during the same period of social revolution. The consequences did not take long: Out-of-wedlock birth rates went from under 25 percent in 1962 to over 75 percent within a few decades in the hardest hit demographics. The same demographics most dependent upon social welfare paid by the taxpayer. As Ronald Reagan succinctly put it: “Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem.” However, it’s critical to note that this is a problem of both fiscal and social being tied together.

We are now faced with social and fiscal liberalism being pushed on the nation at an astonishing rate and, as during the period of the “Great Society”, they are being pushed together to equally devastating consequences. Marriage is being redefined into oblivion, religious expression (and the traditional honoring of God in America) is being driven in the ground, gender roles and identity is being flipped upside down by legal fiat. At the same time, for the first time we see Democratic candidates openly advocating “democratic socialism” and “wage equality” and other such euphemisms for a movement to socialism.

The conservative movement must continue to uphold fiscal, social conservative and national-defense values during these trying times. The quiet majority of the American people are beginning to understand the damage “elites” in media and politics have brought, to the detriment of the nation, by pushing liberal social and fiscal values. We must fight the problem on both fronts or we will lose all. Let’s keep our focus where it belongs, traditional conservatism. As our Lord warned us at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, to build our lives on rock and not sand. We need to ensure the U.S. is on the foundation of rock and not the sand of social liberalism.


Lt. Col. (P) Bill Connor
Conservative movement must continue to uphold fiscal, social conservative, national-defense values during these trying times. Quiet majority of the American people are beginning to understand the damage "elites" in media and politics have brought

Social, Fiscal Values Are Equally Important



“This Constitution was made for a moral and religious people, it is wholly unsuited for the governance of any other”
– John Adams, primary author of the U.S. Constitution and second pres. of the United States

Though the first votes of the 2016 Republican primary are only weeks away, the conservative movement continues to struggling with identity. After losing the presidency in 2008 and 2012, and enduring years of social and fiscal liberalism tearing at the fabric of American society, most Republicans realize the stakes are higher now than at any other time in modern history. The questions before us is, how do Republicans win the general election while maintaining non-negotiable conservative values? And should the focus be solely on fiscal matters to marginalize divisive social issues?

First, conservatives should have learned from the campaigns of 2008 and 2012 not to compromise on core conservative values by nominating a moderate. The 2010 congressional elections, compared with the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections, prove the point. In 2009, grassroots conservatives saw establishment Republicans in Congress practice fiscally liberal, Keynesian economics with the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) bailout after the 2008 economic collapse. That came after Republicans had practiced big-government spending prior to the collapse.

The 2008 Republican nominee, John McCain, was a fiscal liberal, and even pushed the TARP bailout before losing the general election. He was to the left of many Republicans on social issues, though a clear national-defense conservative.

With the excesses of fiscal and social liberalism early in the Obama administration, the TEA Party gathered steam and brought a number of fiscally and socially conservative candidates to office with the 2010 congressional elections. They were able to help stem the tide before the nation went off a liberal cliff. Unfortunately, the Republican Party played a repeat of the 2008 presidential campaign in nominating moderate Mitt Romney in 2012. With the same result.

Due to the radically liberal fiscal policies in the early years of the Obama administration, 2010 saw the rise of the libertarians within the conservative movement. This group is as fiscally conservative as any, but arguably liberal on social issues and isolationist on national defense. In fact, many in this group see the social issues as a distraction from the fiscal and some even see social conservatism in opposition to “liberty.”

The gay marriage question showed the stark contrast. A number of other conservatives began to beat the drums of marginalizing social issues like marriage and abortion in the seeming attempt to win on the fiscal front. Things have only become more liberal in all areas: fiscal, social, and national defense.

As a traditional “Reagan” fiscal, social and national-defense conservative, I believe it is time to speak out in defending the priority of all three prongs of the traditional conservative movement. As the conflict with ISIS appears to have solidified support among Republicans for national defense, my primary concern is the priority given to so-called “social issues.” That’s not to purport we don’t need to fight for national defense, as I have been outspoken about the need for a strong military and the fight against radical Islamist groups like ISIS (The issue of national defense will be saved for another article prior to the primary). Though the social issues may appear to be marginal to the direction and health of the nation, in comparison to the fiscal, nothing is further from the truth. Fighting for issues like life and marriage (while also fighting for small government) is not only a moral duty, but critical to the fiscal health and even national security of the nation.

Statistics help prove the importance of “social issues” and the clear connection to fiscal health. The primary thrust of social conservatism is in keeping the two parent, man-woman home intact and children being raised by parents in a lifelong committed bond. Social conservatism voices the importance of promoting sex within the bonds of marriage, of honoring marriage as a unique, time-honored institution, of raising children in the two-parent household, and of preventing the destruction of children in the womb.

Statistics bear out the importance of social conservatism and the cost to our nation of the breakdown of the family. Children raised by single parents, compared to children raised by two-parent families (from 2004 Bureau of Justice report) are 20-times more likely to go to prison, five-times more likely to commit suicide, 20-times more likely to have behavioral problems, 14-times more likely to become rapists, 32-times more likely to run away, 10-times more likely to abuse chemical substances, nine-times more likely to drop out of school, 33-times more likely to be seriously abused, 73-times more likely to be fatally abused, and only a tenth as likely to get A’s in school. Single parenthood should not be encouraged if we are to turn the nation around.

The economic impact of the breakdown of the family is obvious, particularly when the substantial majority of our national budget goes toward the social safety net attempting to stem the damage as much as possible (in the early 1960s, the majority of our budget went to national defense).

Additionally, a problem plaguing both Western Europe and the U.S. is the negative birthrate. Some studies put the European birthrate as low as 1.3 percent and the U.S. birthrate as low as 1.7 percent. A birthrate of 2.1 percent is a needed just to sustain a population, so negative birthrates bring a number of demographic issues we can witness in places like Greece, France, Scandinavia, and the Netherlands, which are experiencing a quickly aging population (tied to an unworkable state retirement, and uncontrolled and un-assimilated immigration).  

In America, economic “solutions” to rising social issues have made matters worse. Johnson’s “War on Poverty” and “Great Society” of the mid-1960s, instituting welfare and other similar entitlements, appears to have furthered family breakdown.

Taking the Bible and Prayer from school, No-fault divorce, Roe v. Wade, and other such “experiments” all came during the same period of social revolution. The consequences did not take long: Out-of-wedlock birth rates went from under 25 percent in 1962 to over 75 percent within a few decades in the hardest hit demographics. The same demographics most dependent upon social welfare paid by the taxpayer. As Ronald Reagan succinctly put it: “Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem.” However, it’s critical to note that this is a problem of both fiscal and social being tied together.

We are now faced with social and fiscal liberalism being pushed on the nation at an astonishing rate and, as during the period of the “Great Society”, they are being pushed together to equally devastating consequences. Marriage is being redefined into oblivion, religious expression (and the traditional honoring of God in America) is being driven in the ground, gender roles and identity is being flipped upside down by legal fiat. At the same time, for the first time we see Democratic candidates openly advocating “democratic socialism” and “wage equality” and other such euphemisms for a movement to socialism.

The conservative movement must continue to uphold fiscal, social conservative and national-defense values during these trying times. The quiet majority of the American people are beginning to understand the damage “elites” in media and politics have brought, to the detriment of the nation, by pushing liberal social and fiscal values. We must fight the problem on both fronts or we will lose all. Let’s keep our focus where it belongs, traditional conservatism. As our Lord warned us at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, to build our lives on rock and not sand. We need to ensure the U.S. is on the foundation of rock and not the sand of social liberalism.


Lt. Col. (P) Bill Connor

Seven Steps to Changing Your Life In 2016

Seven Steps to Changing Your Life In 2016


“Now there are more overweight people in America than average-weight people. So overweight people are now average. Which means you’ve met your New Year’s resolution.”
Jay Leno


It is important to make New Years Resolutions, because people are 10 times more likely to achieve their goals if they set measurable goals and New Year’s resolutions are one way to accomplish the pursuit of self-satisfaction and happiness. Only forty-five percent of all Americans will make a New Years Resolution on n annual basis. Thirty nine percent of the population will never make a New Years Resolutions.http://www.statisticbrain.com/new-years-resolution-statistics/

The percent of people who achieve their goals is a paltry eight percent. However, almost half (49%) of us experience partial success in the pursuit of our goals. Goal-orientated people live longer, make more money and are significantly happier.


Statistic Verification
Source: University of Scranton. Journal of Clinical Psychology
Research Date: 1.1.2014 :http://www.statisticbrain.com/new-years-resolution-statistics/

Rank Top 10 New Years resolutions for 2014
1
Lose Weight
2
Getting Organized
3
Spend Less, Save More
4
Enjoy Life to the Fullest
5
Staying Fit and Healthy
6
Learn Something Exciting
7
Quit Smoking
8
Help Others in Their Dreams
9
Fall in Love
10
Spend More Time with Family
Achieving Success

There are some tried and true principles associated with success as noted by many behavioral experts.

1. Your goals should be measurable and should be broken down into smaller goals. Your first subgoals should not take more than 10-14 days to achieve. Too many of the goals listed above, are too vague in terms of measuring successful attainment.

2. Reward yourself for reaching milestones. Write out the plan.

3. Keep the goal simple by holding it to a single dimension.  Some goals need to be divided into two simultaneous subgoals. For example, if your goal is to lose weight, you will want to cut calories as well as increase activity level. Both are separate goals and should be treated as such.

4. Activities in pursuit of your goals should contain fun activities. Therefore, you should schedule time each week for things you enjoy. Otherwise, you run the risk of losing interest in the goal and giving up.

5. Focus on changing yourself instead of the world around you.

6. Realize that you are going to have setbacks in the pursuit of a goal. The person who achieves success has an average of three relapses, or setbacks. It is part of the process. Do not beat yourself up. When you have a relapse, tell yourself that it is part of the process and go back to your plan.

7. Some goals should be important to your overall life. Take a moment and write down what you would do if you only had six months to live. Do those things, perfect those skills and most of all, have fun! Seven Steps to Changing Your Life In 2016


“Now there are more overweight people in America than average-weight people. So overweight people are now average. Which means you’ve met your New Year’s resolution.”
Jay Leno


It is important to make New Years Resolutions, because people are 10 times more likely to achieve their goals if they set measurable goals and New Year’s resolutions are one way to accomplish the pursuit of self-satisfaction and happiness. Only forty-five percent of all Americans will make a New Years Resolution on n annual basis. Thirty nine percent of the population will never make a New Years Resolutions.http://www.statisticbrain.com/new-years-resolution-statistics/

The percent of people who achieve their goals is a paltry eight percent. However, almost half (49%) of us experience partial success in the pursuit of our goals. Goal-orientated people live longer, make more money and are significantly happier.


Statistic Verification
Source: University of Scranton. Journal of Clinical Psychology
Research Date: 1.1.2014 :http://www.statisticbrain.com/new-years-resolution-statistics/

Rank Top 10 New Years resolutions for 2014
1
Lose Weight
2
Getting Organized
3
Spend Less, Save More
4
Enjoy Life to the Fullest
5
Staying Fit and Healthy
6
Learn Something Exciting
7
Quit Smoking
8
Help Others in Their Dreams
9
Fall in Love
10
Spend More Time with Family
Achieving Success

There are some tried and true principles associated with success as noted by many behavioral experts.

1. Your goals should be measurable and should be broken down into smaller goals. Your first subgoals should not take more than 10-14 days to achieve. Too many of the goals listed above, are too vague in terms of measuring successful attainment.

2. Reward yourself for reaching milestones. Write out the plan.

3. Keep the goal simple by holding it to a single dimension.  Some goals need to be divided into two simultaneous subgoals. For example, if your goal is to lose weight, you will want to cut calories as well as increase activity level. Both are separate goals and should be treated as such.

4. Activities in pursuit of your goals should contain fun activities. Therefore, you should schedule time each week for things you enjoy. Otherwise, you run the risk of losing interest in the goal and giving up.

5. Focus on changing yourself instead of the world around you.

6. Realize that you are going to have setbacks in the pursuit of a goal. The person who achieves success has an average of three relapses, or setbacks. It is part of the process. Do not beat yourself up. When you have a relapse, tell yourself that it is part of the process and go back to your plan.

7. Some goals should be important to your overall life. Take a moment and write down what you would do if you only had six months to live. Do those things, perfect those skills and most of all, have fun!

THE BEAUTY AND DIGNITY OF THE PRODUCTIVE CLASS

THE BEAUTY AND DIGNITY OF THE PRODUCTIVE CLASS


At one time I lived very close to the Field Museum of Chicago; I had a membership and spent a good deal of time there. One evening, about ten minutes before closing, I noticed that workmen had begun preparing the first floor for an evening event. I had a panoramic view from where I stood at the second floor balcony, and what I saw has stuck with me ever since.
What I saw was a lone man setting up tables and chairs – simple work, the kind that any teenager could do. But what I watched this man do was every bit as beautiful as dance. He moved with integrity, with precision, and with intent. He carefully spaced the tables in a precise geometry, he moved every chair with efficiency. This was more than just work; it was also art. This man knew that he was doing his job well, and, perhaps most importantly, heenjoyed doing it well.
I was transfixed by it all, and I stood there until the guards asked me to leave. And even then, I moved very slowly until I lost sight of him.
There is real beauty in doing a job well, even a simple job. It is our great loss that this form of beauty is never mentioned in public these days – double-sad, because at one time, such beautywas acknowledged.
This brings us to an obvious question: What happened? How did we lose the beauty and dignity of work? I’ll answer that in a moment, but first I want to explain what I mean by “the productive class.”

What Is The Productive Class?

The productive class includes all those people who are engaged in improving life upon Earth: The people who build and repair our cars, our houses, and our computers. The people who provide us with air conditioning, electricity, plumbing, and food. The people who make, clean, and repair our clothing. The people who treat our sicknesses and wounds.
If you can drive around town and point out places where you repaired things, or delivered things, or fed people, or made human life better in any of a thousand ways, you are a producer.
If you survive and persist at the expense of others, on the other hand, you are not a producer.
But if you are a producer, there is an inherent dignity in what you do. You are actively making the world better. You are directly creating benefit for yourself and for other human beings. What you do every day is morally virtuous and worthy of respect. And you should never let anyone tell you otherwise.
And, it’s worth pointing out: Money is not a measure of your worth. In a perfect world, that might be true, but this isn’t a perfect world. In our time, morality and money don’t always travel together.
Money is certainly useful, and getting it should matter to you, but merely having money is no measure of your dignity or your value as a producer. Actively improving the world, however – producing – is a proper measure of dignity.

What Happened?

So, how were the beauty and dignity of work ruined?
The short answer: They were killed by hierarchy and status. I’ll explain briefly:
Humans have been carefully taught to accept, respect, and respond to hierarchy for thousands of years. As a result, we respond emotionally to images of kings, ‘great leaders,’ and so on. But it was the industrial era that finally did in the respect for work. After all, this was a time when millions of people accepted deathly boring jobs simply for better pay. The meaning of their work became a paycheck and nothing more.
And in the industrial setting, there was one clear marker of status: the position of ordering other people around.
The bosses got status and the workers got checks, and both lost meaning and satisfaction from their work. The assumption that was planted in us over the industrial era was this:
Only people who order others around matter. Everyone else should feel shame in their presence.
This, of course, played perfectly into the hands of politicians. This can be seen in the plague of “great leaders” and world wars that erupted at the height of the industrial era, in the first half of the 20th century.
In any event, status is gorilla-level garbage; what matters is what you are, not which position you hold within some kind of hierarchy. By believing in hierarchy and status, we lost the satisfaction of work.

What, Really, Is Work?

It’s important to look at things directly; to focus and see them for what they really are, not just by what other people say about them.
This is what I see when I focus on work itself:
Productive work is the insertion of creativity into the world. It is the birthing of benefit into the world. People who do this should be deeply satisfied by what they do.
Compared to productive work, status is merely ornamental puffery, a shiny coat with the word “Important” emblazoned upon it, and worn by a sad little man.
If you are a member of the productive class, you should re-arrange your mind and stop responding to the demands of hierarchy and status. Instead, pay attention to things that reallyimprove human life in the world.
Creating things, improving things, or making it possible for other people to create… these are noble, beautiful, and important things. We should gain a deep and enduring satisfaction from doing them.
And, indeed, when we put our minds and efforts to it, that’s exactly what we will gain.
Paul Rosenberg

THE BEAUTY AND DIGNITY OF THE PRODUCTIVE CLASS


At one time I lived very close to the Field Museum of Chicago; I had a membership and spent a good deal of time there. One evening, about ten minutes before closing, I noticed that workmen had begun preparing the first floor for an evening event. I had a panoramic view from where I stood at the second floor balcony, and what I saw has stuck with me ever since.
What I saw was a lone man setting up tables and chairs – simple work, the kind that any teenager could do. But what I watched this man do was every bit as beautiful as dance. He moved with integrity, with precision, and with intent. He carefully spaced the tables in a precise geometry, he moved every chair with efficiency. This was more than just work; it was also art. This man knew that he was doing his job well, and, perhaps most importantly, heenjoyed doing it well.
I was transfixed by it all, and I stood there until the guards asked me to leave. And even then, I moved very slowly until I lost sight of him.
There is real beauty in doing a job well, even a simple job. It is our great loss that this form of beauty is never mentioned in public these days – double-sad, because at one time, such beautywas acknowledged.
This brings us to an obvious question: What happened? How did we lose the beauty and dignity of work? I’ll answer that in a moment, but first I want to explain what I mean by “the productive class.”

What Is The Productive Class?

The productive class includes all those people who are engaged in improving life upon Earth: The people who build and repair our cars, our houses, and our computers. The people who provide us with air conditioning, electricity, plumbing, and food. The people who make, clean, and repair our clothing. The people who treat our sicknesses and wounds.
If you can drive around town and point out places where you repaired things, or delivered things, or fed people, or made human life better in any of a thousand ways, you are a producer.
If you survive and persist at the expense of others, on the other hand, you are not a producer.
But if you are a producer, there is an inherent dignity in what you do. You are actively making the world better. You are directly creating benefit for yourself and for other human beings. What you do every day is morally virtuous and worthy of respect. And you should never let anyone tell you otherwise.
And, it’s worth pointing out: Money is not a measure of your worth. In a perfect world, that might be true, but this isn’t a perfect world. In our time, morality and money don’t always travel together.
Money is certainly useful, and getting it should matter to you, but merely having money is no measure of your dignity or your value as a producer. Actively improving the world, however – producing – is a proper measure of dignity.

What Happened?

So, how were the beauty and dignity of work ruined?
The short answer: They were killed by hierarchy and status. I’ll explain briefly:
Humans have been carefully taught to accept, respect, and respond to hierarchy for thousands of years. As a result, we respond emotionally to images of kings, ‘great leaders,’ and so on. But it was the industrial era that finally did in the respect for work. After all, this was a time when millions of people accepted deathly boring jobs simply for better pay. The meaning of their work became a paycheck and nothing more.
And in the industrial setting, there was one clear marker of status: the position of ordering other people around.
The bosses got status and the workers got checks, and both lost meaning and satisfaction from their work. The assumption that was planted in us over the industrial era was this:
Only people who order others around matter. Everyone else should feel shame in their presence.
This, of course, played perfectly into the hands of politicians. This can be seen in the plague of “great leaders” and world wars that erupted at the height of the industrial era, in the first half of the 20th century.
In any event, status is gorilla-level garbage; what matters is what you are, not which position you hold within some kind of hierarchy. By believing in hierarchy and status, we lost the satisfaction of work.

What, Really, Is Work?

It’s important to look at things directly; to focus and see them for what they really are, not just by what other people say about them.
This is what I see when I focus on work itself:
Productive work is the insertion of creativity into the world. It is the birthing of benefit into the world. People who do this should be deeply satisfied by what they do.
Compared to productive work, status is merely ornamental puffery, a shiny coat with the word “Important” emblazoned upon it, and worn by a sad little man.
If you are a member of the productive class, you should re-arrange your mind and stop responding to the demands of hierarchy and status. Instead, pay attention to things that reallyimprove human life in the world.
Creating things, improving things, or making it possible for other people to create… these are noble, beautiful, and important things. We should gain a deep and enduring satisfaction from doing them.
And, indeed, when we put our minds and efforts to it, that’s exactly what we will gain.
Paul Rosenberg


STATUS, EVOLUTION, AND HUMAN NATURE

STATUS, EVOLUTION, AND HUMAN NATURE


As we move into a new year, I’d like to post something that I feel has fundamental importance. I hope you can take the time to read it carefully.

Status

Status is generally defined as a person’s condition, position, or standing relative to that of others.

Please read that definition again and consider this:

Status automatically creates division and conflict.

Status forces us to think in terms of position, hierarchy, and dominance, and can’t possibly do otherwise; it is built solely upon our standing relative to others.

In other words, status is a poison. It causes us to think of others as adversaries and to compulsively compare positions.

To be very blunt about it, status is a primate model of seeing other beings. But it’s even worse than that: Not only does status poison our inter-relationships, it poisons our self-image. After all, it requires us to think of ourselves as above or below every other person.
http://www.freemansperspective.com/dignity/

Here are the two central problems with status:

Status is plainly irrational. We are massively complex beings, at the same time better and worse than the next person in a dozen ways.
Status forces us to see each other as adversarial. Status seeds hate, malice, and war.

Evolution

Status stands before us as an evolutionary hurdle. If humanity is to rise as a species, it absolutely must transcend status. Until we do, humans will continue to think primate thoughts, and human history will remain centered on conflict.

Status is a continuous, pervasive, and internalized culture of man versus man. And most human minds do hold this as a central concept. How many people like to see themselves as richer, prettier, taller, or more powerful than others? By so thinking, they build the foundations of envy, abuse, and violence.

Our present world is dominated by status-based structures. Whether kingdom, democracy, theocracy, or whatever, status-based structures set one man or group of men above all others. These people of a “higher” position-relative-to-others collect the production of the “lower” people, issue edicts they are forced to obey, and punish those who do not.

In other words, the ruling systems of the present world are incarnations of status… they are “status made flesh,” to paraphrase a famous scripture. This is a primary reason why the world is perpetually at war. The very model on which our society is built sets man against man and group against group, automatically and unavoidably.

Human Nature

Status is not “us.” It may be something we’ve been trained in for dozens of generations; it may be something that has influenced us all our lives; but it is not “us.” It is, rather, a dirty and old habit.

Individual humans tend to transcend status fairly well when they exert effort on it. They usually learn, for example, to drop the concept among people they love. And therein lies the proof that it is not truly “us.” We are better than status.

The truth is that humans can and do demonstrate non-oppositional thinking and living. And in this we see that human nature has been sold short.

Humans, even while immersed in the poisonous and persistent mindscape of status, still demonstrate love and charity.

That fact speaks extremely well of us. Human nature is better than we thought it was.
http://www.freemansperspective.com/are-you-a-god-or-gorilla/

It’s time to start stripping status from our minds and lives.

Paul Rosenberg STATUS, EVOLUTION, AND HUMAN NATURE


As we move into a new year, I’d like to post something that I feel has fundamental importance. I hope you can take the time to read it carefully.

Status

Status is generally defined as a person’s condition, position, or standing relative to that of others.

Please read that definition again and consider this:

Status automatically creates division and conflict.

Status forces us to think in terms of position, hierarchy, and dominance, and can’t possibly do otherwise; it is built solely upon our standing relative to others.

In other words, status is a poison. It causes us to think of others as adversaries and to compulsively compare positions.

To be very blunt about it, status is a primate model of seeing other beings. But it’s even worse than that: Not only does status poison our inter-relationships, it poisons our self-image. After all, it requires us to think of ourselves as above or below every other person.
http://www.freemansperspective.com/dignity/

Here are the two central problems with status:

Status is plainly irrational. We are massively complex beings, at the same time better and worse than the next person in a dozen ways.
Status forces us to see each other as adversarial. Status seeds hate, malice, and war.

Evolution

Status stands before us as an evolutionary hurdle. If humanity is to rise as a species, it absolutely must transcend status. Until we do, humans will continue to think primate thoughts, and human history will remain centered on conflict.

Status is a continuous, pervasive, and internalized culture of man versus man. And most human minds do hold this as a central concept. How many people like to see themselves as richer, prettier, taller, or more powerful than others? By so thinking, they build the foundations of envy, abuse, and violence.

Our present world is dominated by status-based structures. Whether kingdom, democracy, theocracy, or whatever, status-based structures set one man or group of men above all others. These people of a “higher” position-relative-to-others collect the production of the “lower” people, issue edicts they are forced to obey, and punish those who do not.

In other words, the ruling systems of the present world are incarnations of status… they are “status made flesh,” to paraphrase a famous scripture. This is a primary reason why the world is perpetually at war. The very model on which our society is built sets man against man and group against group, automatically and unavoidably.

Human Nature

Status is not “us.” It may be something we’ve been trained in for dozens of generations; it may be something that has influenced us all our lives; but it is not “us.” It is, rather, a dirty and old habit.

Individual humans tend to transcend status fairly well when they exert effort on it. They usually learn, for example, to drop the concept among people they love. And therein lies the proof that it is not truly “us.” We are better than status.

The truth is that humans can and do demonstrate non-oppositional thinking and living. And in this we see that human nature has been sold short.

Humans, even while immersed in the poisonous and persistent mindscape of status, still demonstrate love and charity.

That fact speaks extremely well of us. Human nature is better than we thought it was.
http://www.freemansperspective.com/are-you-a-god-or-gorilla/

It’s time to start stripping status from our minds and lives.

Paul Rosenberg

What's the Matter with 'All Lives Matter'

What's the Matter with 'All Lives Matter'


George Zimmerman, a white male neighborhood watchman, shot and killed Trayvon Martin, a black male youth. Zimmerman was charged, tried, and acquitted in July 2013. In the aftermath, a grassroots movement began titled Black Lives Matter.
Black Lives Matter is working to "broaden the conversation" around race from the legal system and black poverty to the burdens on black women, children, black queer and trans folks, and blacks with disabilities.
In response, some white folks have countered with the phrase, "All Lives Matter." While this is seemingly a more empowering as well as a diversity affirming response, it is neither.
In the Shadow of 'All Lives Matter'
1. In the shadow of 'All Lives Matter' is a form of willful colorblindness -- the erasure of the issue of race.
When people say "All Lives Matter" in response to "Black Lives Matter," they are not simply opening their arms to the greater diversity of humanity. Instead, they are taking race out of the conversation. While the statement masquerades as a bright and inclusive light, in the shadow of this statement hides a willful ignorance of America's racist past and present.
There is not doubt that racism exists today. The research evidence is vast, clear and widely available from differential stop and frisk ratessentencing levels and job hiring.
A most telling statistic about the difference in the lack of valuation of a black life comes from a study conducted by Allan Collard-Wexler, an NYU Stern School economist: "[T]he cost of adopting a black baby needs to be $38,000 lower than the cost of a white baby, in order to make parents indifferent to race."
Adding insult to injury, asserting that all lives matter in response to black folks declaring that black lives matter, turns our eyes away from acknowledging America's racist past, functioning as a form of dismissal or denial.
Through the constitution, slavery and Jim Crow laws, America stood for the belief that some lives were more human, more worthy -- that some live mattered more. How can we forget that America codified in its constitution (the same constitution that some insist must be strictly and literally interpreted in its original form) the notion that a black life was only considered to be 3/5ths of a white life?
If we stop highlighting and focusing on black lives, but instead focus more globally and generally on all lives, then we become complicit in not seeing color as a factor in American life. Putting it simply, if we erase race, we won't see racism.
2. In the shadow of 'All Lives Matter' lurks the privilege white folks have to not experience their own lives in racial terms.
Let's face it, most white people don't regularly think about themselves as white. We are not made to think about our race, because we are not living in a pervasive systemic atmosphere that injures us because of our skin color. As such, we easily think of ourselves as a "just a person," as a human being belonging to the human family.
But when a person is regularly injured because of a quality, it is veritably impossible to enjoy the luxury of ignoring that quality. As a Jewish man, my Eastern European brothers and sisters could not ignore the fact that they were Jewish. If they "forgot," they were quickly reminded! Women in boardrooms, disabled people getting on a bus, gay teens at a high school dance, and black youth in a school cafeteria are all aware of their social identity; straight white able bodied males ignore their social identity.
They enjoy the privilege of being free from that concern. (See also Beverly Daniel Tatum's masterwork, Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?)
When a white person responds to the statement "Black Lives Matter" by countering with "All Lives Matter" they exhibit a blindness to the privilege of living outside of a painful and marginalizing lens that highlights their race; a privilege not enjoyed by black and brown people.
3. In the shadow of 'All Lives Matter' is an aggressive resistance to focusing on the value of black lives.
The statement, "All Lives Matter" did not arise in a vacuum. It was not born of a passion for the value of all life; it is not a world-wide social movement for justice. It was a response, a retort, a counter-point to the statement "Black Lives Matter." While not everyone utters these words with this intent, the phrase nonetheless functions as a dismissal.
As such, we cannot only evaluate it purely in terms of its accuracy (i.e, "Isn't it true that all lives matter? Wouldn't it be good to live in a world where all lives mattered?") or as a general statement of care for all beings, including black beings. It is not simply said as a matter of truth or a statement of values. Instead, it's a rebuttal to the statement "Black Lives Matter."
Instead of communicating a love for all beings, "All Lives Matter" are words of negation, repudiation, and refutation. They are words of debate; they are fighting words. What are the users of these words fighting? Simple: That Black lives matter!
On a personal note, beyond all logical argument, I confess to having my tears flow and my heart melt when I first went to the Black Lives Matter website and found recorded black voices completing the phrase "In a world where black lives matter, I imagine...." One particular recording was made by Satchel, a four year old black boy, whose sweet giggling joy erupted when he said, "In a world where black lives matter, I imagine there's a lot of tickling."

In a world that would resist or belittle the declaration that Black Lives Matter, that would censor those who speak out for the beauty, power, intelligence and moral authority of black people, I fear there would be far too many black children doing a lot less smiling, laughing and giggling and a lot more hungering for food, safety, and a sense of self worth.

What's the Matter with 'All Lives Matter'


George Zimmerman, a white male neighborhood watchman, shot and killed Trayvon Martin, a black male youth. Zimmerman was charged, tried, and acquitted in July 2013. In the aftermath, a grassroots movement began titled Black Lives Matter.
Black Lives Matter is working to "broaden the conversation" around race from the legal system and black poverty to the burdens on black women, children, black queer and trans folks, and blacks with disabilities.
In response, some white folks have countered with the phrase, "All Lives Matter." While this is seemingly a more empowering as well as a diversity affirming response, it is neither.
In the Shadow of 'All Lives Matter'
1. In the shadow of 'All Lives Matter' is a form of willful colorblindness -- the erasure of the issue of race.
When people say "All Lives Matter" in response to "Black Lives Matter," they are not simply opening their arms to the greater diversity of humanity. Instead, they are taking race out of the conversation. While the statement masquerades as a bright and inclusive light, in the shadow of this statement hides a willful ignorance of America's racist past and present.
There is not doubt that racism exists today. The research evidence is vast, clear and widely available from differential stop and frisk ratessentencing levels and job hiring.
A most telling statistic about the difference in the lack of valuation of a black life comes from a study conducted by Allan Collard-Wexler, an NYU Stern School economist: "[T]he cost of adopting a black baby needs to be $38,000 lower than the cost of a white baby, in order to make parents indifferent to race."
Adding insult to injury, asserting that all lives matter in response to black folks declaring that black lives matter, turns our eyes away from acknowledging America's racist past, functioning as a form of dismissal or denial.
Through the constitution, slavery and Jim Crow laws, America stood for the belief that some lives were more human, more worthy -- that some live mattered more. How can we forget that America codified in its constitution (the same constitution that some insist must be strictly and literally interpreted in its original form) the notion that a black life was only considered to be 3/5ths of a white life?
If we stop highlighting and focusing on black lives, but instead focus more globally and generally on all lives, then we become complicit in not seeing color as a factor in American life. Putting it simply, if we erase race, we won't see racism.
2. In the shadow of 'All Lives Matter' lurks the privilege white folks have to not experience their own lives in racial terms.
Let's face it, most white people don't regularly think about themselves as white. We are not made to think about our race, because we are not living in a pervasive systemic atmosphere that injures us because of our skin color. As such, we easily think of ourselves as a "just a person," as a human being belonging to the human family.
But when a person is regularly injured because of a quality, it is veritably impossible to enjoy the luxury of ignoring that quality. As a Jewish man, my Eastern European brothers and sisters could not ignore the fact that they were Jewish. If they "forgot," they were quickly reminded! Women in boardrooms, disabled people getting on a bus, gay teens at a high school dance, and black youth in a school cafeteria are all aware of their social identity; straight white able bodied males ignore their social identity.
They enjoy the privilege of being free from that concern. (See also Beverly Daniel Tatum's masterwork, Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?)
When a white person responds to the statement "Black Lives Matter" by countering with "All Lives Matter" they exhibit a blindness to the privilege of living outside of a painful and marginalizing lens that highlights their race; a privilege not enjoyed by black and brown people.
3. In the shadow of 'All Lives Matter' is an aggressive resistance to focusing on the value of black lives.
The statement, "All Lives Matter" did not arise in a vacuum. It was not born of a passion for the value of all life; it is not a world-wide social movement for justice. It was a response, a retort, a counter-point to the statement "Black Lives Matter." While not everyone utters these words with this intent, the phrase nonetheless functions as a dismissal.
As such, we cannot only evaluate it purely in terms of its accuracy (i.e, "Isn't it true that all lives matter? Wouldn't it be good to live in a world where all lives mattered?") or as a general statement of care for all beings, including black beings. It is not simply said as a matter of truth or a statement of values. Instead, it's a rebuttal to the statement "Black Lives Matter."
Instead of communicating a love for all beings, "All Lives Matter" are words of negation, repudiation, and refutation. They are words of debate; they are fighting words. What are the users of these words fighting? Simple: That Black lives matter!
On a personal note, beyond all logical argument, I confess to having my tears flow and my heart melt when I first went to the Black Lives Matter website and found recorded black voices completing the phrase "In a world where black lives matter, I imagine...." One particular recording was made by Satchel, a four year old black boy, whose sweet giggling joy erupted when he said, "In a world where black lives matter, I imagine there's a lot of tickling."

In a world that would resist or belittle the declaration that Black Lives Matter, that would censor those who speak out for the beauty, power, intelligence and moral authority of black people, I fear there would be far too many black children doing a lot less smiling, laughing and giggling and a lot more hungering for food, safety, and a sense of self worth.