A legitimate question one could ask of the left these days is “When does a fear become a phobia?” If you Google the word “Islamophobia” you instantly get 4,360,000 hits and the word appears daily in almost every major publication, multiple newscasts, and reams of political thought. For the left, it has become an accusatory term to be used against anyone who expresses concern over Islamic terrorists, Syrian refugees, or the silent Christian genocide taking place in the Middle East. But is it an accurate term or is it a bastardization of the language? Where exactly on the scale do we flip the switch from fear to phobia?

Many activities involve a certain level of fear. Let’s take a look at crossing the street. An average person who crosses the street has a background level of fear in his mind that he could get hit by a car. Almost 100% of the time that fear is so far removed that it never really makes it to the conscious level; it’s embedded back in there from his childhood when his parents taught him how to cross the street. Moving up to a slightly higher spot on the fear scale, maybe our street-crosser notices that a car is coming from one direction and is forced to decide when to cross. At this point, some small level of fear may cause him to choose to wait rather than make a dash.

As the amount of vehicles increases from one car to two, the speed increases, and the decision eventually becomes about “traffic” rather than single cars the level of fear goes up slowly but surely. We can imagine ratcheting up the fear further by adding larger and faster vehicles (a speeding concrete truck is slightly more worrisome than a slow-moving Smart car) or adding the element of surprise (a vehicle that surprises you when you thought none were coming can definitely raise your heart rate).

Let’s imagine some even higher levels of fear of street crossing. Let’s say for some emergency reason our street-crosser decides he must cross an Interstate highway. Maybe it’s a medical emergency or he has to save his dog. Now, there is a palpable fear. His brain is shouting at him, “I better be careful. If I make the wrong choice here I could get hit by a car and killed!” Now we are to the level of real heart pounding fear. Let’s look at one final level of street-crosser’s fear. Let’s imagine a person who, on a clear sunny day with not a car in sight in either direction and absolutely zero real danger of having a problem crossing the street, is totally paralyzed with fear at just the thought of crossing the street.

So where does our fear of crossing the street become a phobia? The dictionary says a phobia is “a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.” By this definition it seems that all of the fears we looked at for our street-crosser except the last one were normal, healthy survival mechanisms. The point where we flip the switch from fear to phobia is when the fear is no longer rational.

So, transferring this to our national discussion of Islamic terror, the question becomes is the current level of fear rational? It seems rational to have a certain amount of fear that the Paris attacks could be duplicated by Islamic terrorists here in the U.S. Many of our cities, our gatherings at sporting events, and our restaurants are almost identical. They only needed 11 terrorists to kill 130 people. We now also know that the death toll could have been much higher. The plan was to detonate a suicide bomb inside a soccer stadium (think Patriots football game in the U.S.) and then two more detonations outside the stadium when the panicked crowd rushed out. This plan was foiled when an alert member of security noticed the first bomber’s vest.

It also seems rational to have a certain level of fear that Islamic terrorists might try to infiltrate the flow of Syrian refugees. One of the 11 Paris attackers did just that. Those with such concerns have been mocked by the President as being “afraid of widows and orphans” as if such fears were ridiculous or irrational. Does it still seem irrational however when we realize that one of the Paris attackers was a woman? A woman who tried to entice a police officer to come nearer by pleading for help just before she blew herself up? Is it rational to be concerned about the influx of those the President mocks as “orphans” when we realize that the Boston bomber Tsarnaev brothers came to the U.S. when they were ten years old?

Amazingly, at this point in my writing of this post, Islamic terrorists did attack here in the U.S. In San Bernardino two terrorists claimed 14 lives and were suspected to have another attack planned. One of the attackers was a woman. Should we still be unconcerned about “widows and orphans” Mr. President? CBS also reports this morning that the woman, Tashfeen Malik, passed DHS counterterrorism screening. It now seems extremely rational to demand an even higher level of screening than we now provide for the entry of Syrian refugees if we decide to allow any at all.

And, finally, there are multiple reports that an individual in the neighborhood where the terrorists lived witnessed large numbers of packages arriving, large numbers of Middle Eastern men coming and going, and work going on in the garage late at night. Although suspicious of these activities he did not report it to anyone because he feared he might be accused of profiling. In this case it seems the problem is not Islamophobia but Islamophobia-phobia (an irrational fear of being called an Islamophobe). This is the fear that Islamic terrorists want to cultivate and our current administration is helping them do it.

Let’s cut to the chase on Islamophobia in this country. There is no irrational fear. There is fear. It is completely rational and highly deserved. It needs to be addressed. You could make the case that it is currently being ignored by our government officials but let’s just say that it is not getting the attention it requires. Worst of all, our current administration mocks those who demand stronger actions as victims of a phobia.

Is it not more irrational to stick your head in the sand and invite tens of thousands of Middle Eastern refugees into the country when you cannot properly screen them? Especially, when ISIS has told us they would infiltrate them and have already done so in other places?  Real fear is a survival mechanism which must lead to action if you wish to survive.

All we really have to fear is the fear of Islamophobia.

There is a huge void on college campuses these days and it might not be where you think. Here’s just a small sampling of some of the insanity:

At Amherst College protesters demanded “a statement of apology to students, alumni and former students, faculty, administration and staff who have been victims of several injustices including but not limited to our institutional legacy of white supremacy, colonialism, anti-black racism, anti-Latinx racism, anti-Native American racism, anti-Native/ indigenous racism, anti-Asian racism, anti-Middle Eastern racism, heterosexism, cis-sexism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, ableism, mental health stigma, and classism.”

They had further demands in regard to the student(s) who posted the “All Lives Matter” posters, and the “Free Speech” posters that stated that “in memoriam of the true victim of the Missouri Protests: Free Speech.” “Student Affairs may require them to go through the Disciplinary Process if a formal complaint is filed, and that they will be required to attend extensive training for racial and cultural competency.”

At Boston College activists demanded “the introduction of compulsory, in-person, and regular anti-oppression training” to be “led and organized by people of color with significant experience in anti-oppression activism or scholarship” who should be compensated and acknowledged for their labor beginning in spring 2016.” At St. Louis University activists demanded “Mutually agreed upon commissioned artwork” for minorities.

At Princeton protesters occupied the president’s office and demanded “eradication of every reference to progressive racial segregationist Woodrow Wilson at Princeton”, “cultural competency training for all staff and faculty,” “a racially segregated safe space dedicated specifically to Black students who oppose racial segregation,” and “classes on the history of marginalized peoples” because “learning about marginalized groups, their cultures, and structures of privilege is just as important as any science or quantitative reasoning course.”

Such nonsense continues ad nauseam across the university spectrum to the point where the very meaning of the word “university” no longer applies. “Safe spaces” (public spaces taken over by PC warriors) where certain types of speech are not allowed? Limitations on media attendance at rallies to only those who are willing to pledge to provide favorable coverage (Smith College)? Do these seem like places where independent thought and a free exchange of ideas are encouraged?

Although well beyond that point now, I can say that were I to have high school aged children I would be wondering where the hell can I actually send my kid to college to actually get an education? I would also be willing to bet that there are thousands of parents across the country right now wondering the same thing.

The first group of trustees and or school administrators who can actually show some intestinal fortitude and run a school properly will have students and parents beating down the doors to get in. A simple reply to these protesters would have to include only a few simple items. First, the students do not run the school. Second, there is a system in place to deal with serious offenses and it is run fairly. Third, if your feelings are hurt by thoughts different than your own maybe you should transfer to another school. This would also apply to newly formed schools. Parents with their heads screwed on straight are seriously looking for places where their kids can get a classical, useful, education. Will the free market start generating some of these? We’ll see.

In a semi-related story, the newly renamed University of Missouri “Special Snowflakes” played a basketball game against Kansas State on Monday. Apparently during the game, one of the K-State players blocked a Snowflake player’s shot and taunted him with something like “don’t bring that weak stuff in the lane.” This was enough to trigger a microaggression response from the Snowflake team. They retreated to their “safe space” at center court, demanded that the player in question be ejected from the game, have his scholarship revoked, and thrown out of school. After all, it upset them. They also demanded the opposing coach be fired. Just as a side note, the Snowflakes lost 66-42.

The other day my wife shared with me a  Facebook post which appeared on a page she followed. I would like to share my reactions here (I don’t do Facebook). In the interest of complete and total accuracy the entire text of the post follows:

“I’m a 44-year-old white man. I grew up in a middle class homophobic racist home and went to an evangelical christian college and then went into corporate management. Basically the most hated type of human in the world right now.  I became a leader in the evangelical church I attended and believed with all my heart that I was loving the people in my life that I invited to church. I rejected much of the disgusting beliefs of my childhood but I still voted Republican like a champ. Ten years ago, my life transformed as I was rejected by my church and embraced by many of those that I thought needed my message of love. Hah. I needed them. I went into coaching which is a decidedly liberal profession and I spend my life teaching, learning, and living what I hope is authentic love. But here is my problem: my Facebook feed is like the civil war. Blue States vs Red States. Obama lovers vs Obama haters. It’s all too much for me. I love you all. But you are all fucking wrong. Well, not wrong about what you believe–but wrong about how you treat each other. A clever meme might get a laugh from your friends but you are not convincing anyone–except you are convincing them to hate you more. I get it–the other side needs to be shouted down because their voice is too loud. Please, for the love of all that is good, see the human over there behind your belief about them. They woke up with fear and love in their heart just like you. They are managing their fear and love differently than you. A couple of clues for you to notice yourself–if you find yourself feeling like you are better or worse than the group of people you are describing–you are probably dehumanizing them or yourself. If you find you find yourself saying “I  ….” you are probably dehumanizing them. If you find yourself saying “I need to be seen as smart, clever, loving, patriotic, fill in the blank” you are probably dehumanizing them. What would the human in you say to the human in them? Try that! Please! Creating peace is hard work but we an (sic) do it.”  *** End of post ***

I absolutely agree with the sentiment that we should all be civil to one another. On the other hand, that does not exclude a passionate and sometimes loud debate about our beliefs. More on that in a minute.

I would first like to suggest (quite politely and respectfully) that the author shine the light of his observations on himself and take a good look. He says he “shed his disgusting beliefs” but “still he voted Republican like a champ.” That sure sounds to me like, to use his words, he is “feeling like he is better than the group of people he is describing” and “dehumanizing them” in the middle of his plea to not dehumanize anyone. My intent here is not to tear apart this gentleman’s post (because I agree with the general premise) but to argue for its equal application.

I agree that the social media world is on fire these days. Along with increasing demonstrations in the streets, media stunts, and other attention-grabbing tactics Facebook, Twitter, and the entire social media world seem to have gone nuclear. Why exactly is that? I believe there are several reasons.

First, I believe the lack of civility comes from the top. Our current president is quite comfortable using the bully pulpit to insult those who do not agree with him. There is a list as long as your arm of him publicly insulting opponents of his policies including members of his own party. Just in recent memory, he called opponents of the Iran deal “crazies” and taunted those advocating for greater screening of Syrian refugees as being “afraid of widows and orphans.” Never mind that one of the suicide bombers in Paris was a woman and that the Boston bomber Tsarnaev brothers came here when they were ten years old, but I digress. Those who are just reaching voting age now have known nothing but this example of being “presidential” since they were old enough to begin paying attention to politics in 2008. Perhaps our author would offer the same advice to the President he offered to all who read his post, “A clever meme might get a laugh from your friends but you are not convincing anyone–except you are convincing them to hate you more. I get it–the other side needs to be shouted down because their voice is too loud. Please, for the love of all that is good, see the human over there behind your belief about them.” A president leads people in some direction whether he wants to or not; his example is out there for all to see.

Second, and most importantly, there are times when shouting is necessary. When the theater is actually on fire it is necessary to shout “Fire!” Again, I agree whole heartedly with the author when he speaks of his fellow citizens saying, “They woke up with fear and love in their heart just like you. They are managing their fear and love differently than you.”  All kinds of people have all kinds of fears. Homosexuals fear being persecuted, blacks fear racism, the religious fear a loss of their freedom, and businessmen fear a crushed economy.  Everybody has their own bag to deal with. There has now emerged, however, a fear that eclipses all the rest. That is the fear that our system of government which for centuries has protected all of its citizens from those aforementioned individual fears is now being (or may already be) lost. People are feeling that their voice in government is no longer heard and, thus, try to influence their society in other ways. Some feel that they can influence culture through demonstrations and social media and, in that way, indirectly influence government. This fear is also currently visible in the popularity of candidates on the Republican side who are perceived as “outside” of government.

As someone old enough to be the father of our author, I would like to offer a little history. The first President of which I was really aware in a political sense was JFK. For most of my life my impression was that the pendulum of political policies swung back and forth but within a limited range. JFK-LBJ-Nixon-Ford-Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush.. no matter your disposition sometimes things moved your way, sometimes they moved the other way but there was always a sentiment that everything was OK, you could affect things with the next election if you weren’t happy with your representation. All of that has changed drastically with the current mix of politics in Washington. A power-grabbing President, a weak Congress, and a Supreme Court not interested in actual law have created a huge shift in power from the people to the Executive branch. Washington is ruling against the will of the people and does not care what you or I think about it. A couple of examples might be in order.

Neither the Cap and Trade proposals nor the Immigration Reform proposals ever had the votes to pass Congress even with a President and a majority of both houses of Congress of the same party. Just let that sink in a little. The Cap and Trade provisions are now being back-doored into effect by regulations generated by the Executive Branch (the EPA) against the will of the people. The provisions of the Immigration Reform Act are being back-doored into effect by Executive Order of the President against the will of the people. This is to say nothing of Obamacare which was force-fed to the public by a one vote margin of that same super-majority Senate in the middle of the night on Christmas Eve. At no time did it ever have the approval of a majority of the country.

Some people who agree with the policies which are being “back-doored” might be actually smiling thinking that “their guy” is getting things done or that “their team” is winning. I would suggest they temper their joy with a healthy dose of “what if.” Even if 50% of people favor these things and 50% oppose, 100% (everybody) should oppose them being done in this way. The danger here is not the particular issue or which policy one favors. The danger is the allocation of power. Once the power is transferred to the executive branch the precedent is set for future presidents to use that power to do the absolute opposite of what you may favor today. Suppose that two or three presidents down the line from today we get a president who directs his EPA to regulate the wind and solar businesses out of existence (based on bird kills and environmental impacts of solar disposal this would not be difficult). At the same time this president might give massive subsidies to his friends in the coal industry. Would the people who are applauding today’s results still be applauding? What if a future president decided to enforce federal immigration laws against “sanctuary cities” but not to enforce federal abortion laws against a new phenomenon called “pro-life cities?” Would today’s smiling liberals be happy about that? Outraged? Freaking out on Facebook? How about if a future president decided to turn a blind eye to the enforcement of federal gun laws in the same way our current president is not enforcing immigration laws?

Again, it is not about which side of the political spectrum you occupy, it is about the changing of the very mechanism of government and how it serves (or does not serve) the will of the people. This concentration of power was the greatest fear of our founding fathers and was the reason for the Bill of Rights. This is not about a single issue. It is about the loss of our very essence and many who love what this country used to be are standing up and loudly entering the political arena for the first time out of a terrifying sense that we are losing America.

I vow to be civil. I vow to be respectful of my fellow-man but I will not be silent. In the name of the 1.3 million soldiers who gave their very lives in the formation and preservation of this formerly great country I will stand and be heard. I will honor their sacrifice. I owe my children no less than what my elders gave to me. When the government takes away my voice is when I will shout the loudest.

At the end of your third and final interview the owner of the company tells you he would like to hire you. He has to make multiple hires so he offers you a choice:

1. You can work the retail counter with minimal duties as a salaried employee at $35,000 per year.

2. You can work in the back office with a little more stress for a salary of $60,000 per year.

3. You can work in management for a salary of $80,000 per year.

(Massage the numbers to match your individual expected earnings level; the idea is you have a range to choose from)

What is the correct response? Be careful, the way you respond says a lot about you.

Correct answer tomorrow.

One of the strange things about a lie is that it has the ability to travel through time. Well, sort of. Think about what happens when you find out a person has been lying to you. The lie travels forward in time to effect every single thing that person may tell you in the future. Depending on the magnitude and content of the lie you are less likely in some degree to believe anything this person may tell you in the future. It also travels back in time affecting your memories of various things this person has told you in the past. Now that you know this person will lie, it forces you to reconsider what you may have believed in the past. This new reality could possibly open your eyes to the need to reclassify some portion of those memories as lies as well. Yesterday Politifact named “If you like your health care plan you can keep it, period” as the Lie of the Year. With that in mind, lets look back in time a bit and see if some who believed in “hope and change” might like to do a little reclassification of our President’s assertions (“period” added, mine):

1. “I didn’t set a red-line in Syria, period.”

2. “Our ambassador was killed in a riot caused by a movie, period.” (It was terrorism and he knew it while it was happening).

3. “I will not sign on to any health plan that adds one dime to our deficit over the next decade, period.” (Currently in the neighborhood of $1.6 trillion).

4. “When I am President corporate lobbyists will not find a job in my White House. I won’t take a dime of their money, period.”

5. “The public will have 5 days to look at every bill that lands on my desk, period.”

6. “There will be no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens, period.”

7. “I will cut the deficit in half, period.”

8. “I will close Guantanamo Bay, period.”

9. “I will eliminate entirely the income tax for seniors making less than $50,000 a year, period.”

10. “I will lower health care premiums by $2500 per family, period.”

11. “My parents met at the marches in Selma, Alabama, period.” (The marches were 4 years after he was born).

12. “My father served in World War II, period.” (His father was 9 years old when the war ended).

13. “The stimulus bill will create 3.5 million shovel ready jobs, period.” (5 years and $1 trillion later he himself cracked a joke saying, “Shovel ready was not as shovel ready as we expected.”)

14. “But we don’t want to put adults in a situation in which, on the front end, we are mandating them, we are forcing them to purchase insurance, and if the subsidies are inadequate, the burden is on them and they will be penalized, period.”

15. “The truth is I’m a South side kid and I had to break out the White Sox hat, period.” (When asked who his favorite White Sox player was, he couldn’t name even one).

16.”The American taxpayer will get back every penny of their TARP funds back, period.”

17. “I will televise the healthcare legislation debate on C-SPAN, period.”

18. “….the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration. When Eric Holder found out about it, he discontinued it, period.” (The program began in Sept. of 2009; eight months after Obama was inaugurated in Jan. 2009. If this were true, Eric Holder discontinued the program before the date he testified under oath that he even knew about it. If it were “field initiated” why did he have to exert executive privilege regarding Eric Holder’s knowledge of the program?)

19. “My grandfather fought in Patton’s army, period.” (His grandfather was a clerk).

20. “My father got to study in the U.S. thanks to JFK’s efforts to bring “young Africans over to America, period.” (It was Eisenhower who organized the Kenyan airlift).

21. In opposing Hillary’s mandates, “If mandates were the solution we could solve homelessness by mandating that everybody buy a house. The reason they don’t have a house is they don’t have the money, period.” 

22. In opposing Hillary’s mandates, “What’s she not telling you about her healthcare plan? It forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can’t afford it, and you pay a penalty if you don’t, period.”

23. “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, period.”

24. “The IRS targeting of conservative groups was the action of one office in Cincinnati, period.”

25. “I, Barack Obama, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Period.”

That last one really should have won the award.

Thank. You. God.

As we approach my favorite holiday, Thanksgiving,  it will take some extra effort this year to put the  focus where it belongs; showing true gratitude for  that which God has given us. There are more  distractions than the usual bombardment of sales  and Black Friday events. This year, our own  government is urging its citizens to turn into  Obamacare sales reps at Thanksgiving dinner. The  full-blown propaganda machine is swinging into  high gear. OFA (Organizing for America), Obama’s  grass-roots victims-of-hypnotism support group,  is offering tips for the holiday. They include reminding your relatives to bring their social security and salary information along so they can sign up and how to find a nice relaxing time to discuss signing up. They suggest, “family time … downtime after meals or between holiday activities.” Boy, that’s a good way to encourage those family holiday moments. The White House satellite press corps in charge of brainwashing seniors, AARP, is offering e-cards to send to family members urging them to enroll with catchy little lines like “Get health insurance and I’ll admit you’re my favorite child.” Yesterday’s Washington Post has an apologia entitled A Guide to Surviving Obamacare which includes suggestions for handling grandpa who “has concerns about being death-paneled” and your uncle who “brings out his cancellation notice after a few glasses of wine.” In Colorado, one of a series of tasteless adds features a photo of a young attractive couple. As she mugs for the camera holding up her birth control pills the caption below says, “OMG he’s hot. I hope he’s as easy to get as these birth control pills.” At the top of the ad, in large letters, it asks “Got Insurance?” Looked at individually, these appear to be crazy little vignettes which generate a laugh, a head scratch, or perhaps a mild urge to vomit. Collectively, however, they are part of the ongoing daily brainwashing operation emanating from Washington. All of this, together with the continuing faith of cult-like followers who continue to support “Nanny” government no matter what, encouraged a little reading on the subject of brainwashing. And where better to look than to the old Soviet Union for the playbook on that operation?

In 1988, Cogs in the Wheel: The Formation of Soviet Man by Mikhail Heller was published. A review of the day offered the following quotes (followed by comments):

“Nationalization of the means of production by Lenin and the Bolsheviks was a tool for a specific purpose: to control all aspects of the social and economic environment so as to create the conditions necessary to make over human nature and produce a new Soviet or Communist Man.” (In the United States we have recently witnessed the partial or complete nationalization of several industries. The energy industry is being controlled by regulation rather than legislation but it is none the less being controlled. The banking and auto industries are under far more government control than ever before. If not stopped now, the entire health care industry (one sixth of the U.S. economy) will be under government control. It is arguable that the media, Hollywood, and all levels of the education system are now mouthpieces of Washington’s cultural messaging desires).

“But what Lenin and the Bolsheviks found after the Revolution was a Russian people imbued with the same “bourgeois” traits as everyone else: individuals primarily looking out for number one, more interested in improving the economic conditions of their immediate family, reluctant to work except for incentives and rewards for the labor to be performed, and generally disinterested in making sacrifices for a world revolution. To achieve their goal, therefore, Professor Heller explains, the Communist Party proceeded to destroy all the cultural and economic institutional structures that surrounded and protected the Russian people. As the author expresses it, the Soviet authorities began a process to “infantilize” every Russian, i.e., to make every Russian completely dependent upon the Soviet State, and, therefore, moldable in a social cast constructed by the Party elite. No corner in the society would be left in which the individual could hide and protect any personal qualities and characteristics undesigned by the State.” (First and foremost, the Soviets had to break the church. You be the judge of whether you see that happening here or not. They also had to break the family. See that happening? “Infantilizing” every citizen? Just think about if for a minute).

All of this could lead one to ask, “Did Reagan really win the Cold War?” Oh, come on now. The Soviet Union fell apart. There’s a bunch of new countries and Russia’s in trouble themselves. Fair enough, but did communism die? Maybe something else happened. In the famous Chinese essay “The Thirty-Six Stratagems,” ideas are offered to gain advantage in war, politics, and civil interaction. The stratagems include:

• “Create Something from Nothing“- A plain lie. Make somebody believe there was something when there is in fact nothing. One method of using this strategy is to create an illusion of something’s existence, while it does not exist. Another method is to create an illusion that something does not exist, while it does. 
• “Inflict Injury on Ones Self” –  Pretending to be injured has two possible applications. In the first, the enemy is lulled into relaxing his guard since he no longer considers you to be an immediate threat. The second is a way of ingratiating yourself to your enemy by pretending the injury was caused by a mutual enemy.
• “Chain Stratagems” – In important matters, one should use several stratagems applied simultaneously after another as in a chain of stratagems. Keep different plans operating in an overall scheme; however, in this manner if any one strategy fails, then the chain breaks and the whole scheme fails.

There is a beast out there. It has been prowling the planet for hundreds of years. It is more fearsome than any creature that stalked the nightmares of Bram Stoker, Steven King, or Hollywood’s kings of horror. In its teeth are the entrails of crushed lives, broken dreams, and the deaths of millions. It has destroyed entire cities. It has turned millions into wide-eyed stumbling zombies wandering about life in a never-ending search for something to consume. As horrifying as it is today, the carnage will get worse if it is not slain. Like a shark, it never stops moving and not just to feed. The feeding merely fuels its search for new ways to debilitate and destroy. Every day it adds new tentacles, new teeth, and macabre new abilities to become a more efficient machine of destruction and to grow ever larger. By far, its greatest survival adaptation is its ability to camouflage itself.  Were it ever recognized for its true nature, the beast would not survive yet it continues to walk among us. Amazingly, it is invisible to millions thanks to its incredible power to deceive. The beast is liberalism. You may call it progressivism, collectivism or socialism. They are all just different names for the same beast. A system in which the productive have the fruits of their labors confiscated to pay for the unproductive at the same time funding regulation of everything at the whim of the ruling class elites. While they live their lives safely outside of the “systems” they build, they know what is best for you. Just trust them. It is the great destroyer of spirit, of freedom, and of life itself. All of this a bit over the top, you say? Let’s take a look.

Let’s start with the deaths of millions. Looking back, the beast was still fairly small in the fall of 1962. It was, however, about to sprout a major tentacle and begin one of its earliest and most deadly acts of destruction. It was then that the book Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was published. The book drew a connection between the misuse of the pesticide DDT and the size and composition of the eggs of some raptors. DDT was and is the most (and maybe the only) effective way to combat the spread of malaria. Prior to the use of DDT, malaria afflicted roughly 7 million Americans each year, killing thousands. One estimate makes the claim that half the people who have ever lived on Earth have died of malaria. But never mind all that; some raptor eggs had thinner shells. Using the peacock feathers of NBC to attract attention, the unblinking eye of CBS to hypnotize, and speaking in the captivating voice of the Grey Lady of New York the beast convinced us that we were “destroying the environment.” Government must act on our behalf. The use of pesticides, DDT in particular, must be banned they said.   After much liberal science-bending and media manipulation, DDT was finally banned in 1972. Since that September day 50 million people have died of malaria. Fifty. Million. Most of those were in poor undeveloped countries and most were children. 2700 people will die today of malaria, 2700 tomorrow, and 2700 every day for the foreseeable future. Most of those will be children and all of them would have the ability to avoid malaria with 90% efficiency were it not for the unavailability of DDT. In retrospect, it is clear that Ms. Carson’s claims were hysteria, not science. There are numerous books and articles in which her book is totally debunked but the beast still has many under its spell 50 years later. Even if her claims were true, on the scales of relative worth, should more weight be given to 50 million human lives or to a slightly reduced reproductive rate of raptors?

This particular tentacle of the beast has continued to grow over the years and is now one of its most powerful weapons. In 2005, again in the name of the environment, it was mandated that all U.S. gasolines be supplemented with ethanol. Not suggested. Not incentivized. Mandated. Ethanol is based on corn which is one of the most basic and pervasive food sources on the planet.The mad scramble for the corn-based alcohol product sent food prices soaring worldwide leading to massive increases in the number of those who could not afford or even grow food. Food riots struck the third world. There were tortilla riots in Mexico. Children were starving in Guatemala and tens of thousands Ugandans were burned out of their homes so that land could be dedicated to the god of “green.” The spread of starvation and the worldwide land grab continues to this day. In a cruel ironic twist it now turns out that the production of ethanol is actually worse for the environment than fossil fuels. The beast had again destroyed or ended thousands of lives in the name of a non-existent global warming crisis fed to the masses with the hypnotic powers of the media and once again the science was phony. Tens of thousands of green zombies now roam the U.S. and Europe with blank stares droning buzz words like “climate change” and “carbon footprint” over and over again, not having any idea what they are talking about. The phony science model has now been totally wrong for longer (16 years) than it was ever right. But no matter. It’s what the beast’s hypnosis has them believing. Meanwhile people starve and die.

At this point you could be forgiven for thinking that, except for the higher food and gas prices, those are third world effects. True enough, but all you need to do is take a look at Detroit to see how the beast has ravaged an entire city right here in the U.S..  Detroit was, in its heyday one of the finest cities in the world. It was home to the U.S auto industry which was the envy of the world and was a flourishing, vibrant place to live. Today it’s a war zone. In many places it could be mistaken for a bombed out post World War II European city. The number of murders last year (386) was the same as in 2000 even though 200,000 people have fled. The violent crime rate is 2123 for every 100,000 residents. People “joke” that you can get a pizza delivered quicker than you can get a police car. Some joke. Over 40% of the citizens of Detroit cannot read. There are serious discussions about bulldozing large areas of the city so that water, sewer, police, and fire services can be withdrawn to save money. The city is bankrupt, broken, and lawless. So, how did this happen? It’s really not a mystery. Today’s Detroit is the ultimate natural outcome of decades spent under the control of the beast.

The once flourishing auto industry was slowly done in by the million paper cuts of union wage extortion made possible by the self-serving circle of the union-Democrat alliance. The tax and spend philosophy worked as a double-edged sword of destruction. In order for the government to “take care” of literally everyone they had to create more and more government programs. These required more and more taxes which created the incentive for businesses to leave.
They did in large numbers. It also created incentives for those of a certain mindset to game the system rather than work. They did, again, in large numbers. Each of these fed off the other; more people taking from the system required higher taxes which led to more businesses leaving which led to more people needing assistance which led to….. well you get the idea. The normal insulator to social upheaval, the family, was crushed as fathers were replaced with government checks. All the while government grew like a cancer, slowly consuming more and more of the city’s economic lifeblood. This outcome points out the basic flaw of the beast’s hypnotic message. If ever examined in the bright light, it becomes clear that whatever the state provides is done with money taken from someone else. No matter how you slice it, this is always a net negative for the economy. The money that is taken from the productive is always put back into the economy somewhere else at less than 100% of the original amount as originally discussed here: https://chronicleofchange.com/?p=497. When the scales finally tip to the point where there are more people on the wagon than are pulling the wagon, the producers flee. When there are few enough producers left that most businesses and citizens would not want to live there the “death spiral” begins. Detroit is but the best example of a long list of failures which includes many other cities such as Oakland as well as entire states such as Illinois, New Jersey, and California.

These are but a few examples of the failures of that which is created by the beast. Under close examination almost every single thing done in its name has done harm. Beast controlled zombies may offer up an example such as Social Security as an exception to the rule of big government failure. After all, it takes care of so many of our elderly. It would be cruel for our elderly to not have such a program. Shining a little light on the subject, however, shows us that, if those seniors had been given the opportunity to opt out and invest their money in even something as safe and mundane as T-bills, they would have double the retirement funds they currently get back from the beast. Even as an inefficient lifelong theft program, Social Security is in deep trouble to the point where future retirees may get nothing at all. Medicare, the Post Office, Amtrak, Cash for Clunkers, food stamps, Obamaphones, the Department of Education, and the Department of Energy would all appear on the list of beast programs which have completely failed or had harmful unintended consequences. A complete list would require hours of typing.

This is a critical moment for us in the United States as the harmful effects of the beast become more and more visible by the day. With each episode of the evening news we see the beast attempt to sprout its newest tentacle. This would be the most powerful of all of its weapons. It would have powers over life and death greater than all of its previous metastases. The beast now wants control of your healthcare.

If not stopped now, what was once the greatest country on Earth will be just a “location” for the epic horror movie of all time and we will all have a part.

It seems a bit ironic, as the President flounders in the polls following last week’s debate, that the demographic group which may actually put the final nail in his Presidential coffin is the one he has always been able to count on. Until now, that is.

It seems likely that blacks, while still supporting him in huge numbers, will not be supporting him in the same kind of numbers which got him elected in 2008. There are several reasons for a drop off in black support. The novelty of electing the first black President has worn off. The only group hit harder by unemployment than blacks is women and at least some of these folks are realizing that the President’s “War on Business” is actually making it harder for them to find work. The unemployment rate among black youth in some places is near 50%. The President’s stand on gay marriage is also not sitting well with many black church members. And then there is the following blockbuster story broken this week by Thomas Sowell.  Any black voter who is even remotely capable of being open-minded enough to ever vote against any black candidate will have his view of Barack Obama forever altered by this.

I would like to be extremely clear here in the documentation of what occurred so there can be no doubt that what follows is factual. A video was recently released by The Daily Caller showing President Obama, in part, hinting at racial bias in the response to hurricane Katrina . You can see the President’s own words here: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/obama-speech-jeremiah-wright-new-orleans/. A transcript of the June 5, 2007 speech at Hampton University is also available from the Federal News Service. The other relevant piece of information you might want to verify for yourself is page S6823 of the Congressional Record for May 24, 2007.

As you begin to watch the video it quickly becomes obvious that then-Senator Obama is not speaking in his usual tone of voice. He has put on his “local dialect” for this speech in an attempt to have a greater appeal to his audience. Slightly phony, but fair enough. Around the 1:15 mark he begins a discussion of the response to hurricane Katrina and the Stafford Act. The Stafford Act normally requires local governments to put up $1.00 for every ten (10%) they get in federal relief. Senator Obama points out that the government waived the 10% requirement for the NY response to 9/11 and for hurricane Andrew because of the “devastation.” He goes on to complain that it was not waived for hurricane Katrina saying, “What’s happenin’ down in New Orleans? Where’s yo’ dolla’? (his fake dialect, not mine) Where’s yo’ Stafford Act money? Makes no sense. Tells me the bullet hasn’t been taken out. Tells me that the people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much.”

This is where the Congressional Record comes in. Less than two weeks earlier, Congress had waived the Stafford Act requirements for Katrina hurricane relief. It’s in the record. Senator Barack Obama voted on it. It’s in the record. He voted against it. That’s right, against it. It’s in the record.

For any black person willing to take a good, hard look at this it means that Barack Obama was willing to stand before you, put on a fake dialect to appeal to you, and lie to your face. It means he was willing to act as if some evil racists in Washington were denying the people of New Orleans help in a time of great need when he, himself, was one of only fourteen people who voted to deny that help only 12 days earlier. “Where’s yo’ Stafford Act money? Makes no sense,” he said. It apparently made sense to him. “Tells me the bullet hasn’t been taken out,” he said. It seems he is willing to leave that bullet right where it is. “Tells me that the people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much,” he shouted. Mr. Obama cares about those people…. as a voting block. If enough black voters are made aware of this story (you’ll never see it on the networks) I believe you will see a further loss of support for the President. Nobody likes being lied to and nobody likes being taken for granted. That’s especially true if it comes from a messianic leader you previously thought would be the one to finally stand up for you in Washington.

You can find the original Thomas Sowell story here: http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/10/09/phony_in_chief/page/full/

If you haven’t experienced “the moment” you have almost certainly known someone who has. The moment when you know the relationship has just ended, when you instantly realize that no matter what you do it cannot be saved. Relationships can survive many things. Addictions, money, and sexual issues can all put great stresses on relationships. The death-blow, however, usually comes from a lie. Once someone truly realizes (not just suspects) they can no longer trust in what the other person is saying, that relationship is over. Period. “The moment” may have arrived for Barack Obama last week and independent voters on, of all days, September 11th.

Previous statements by the President and his administration have been characterized by the right as “lies” and, while some were on the verge of being indisputable, many were at least debatable if you allowed for Clintonian parsing of words (“it depends on what the meaning of “is” is”). Informed voters may have had suspicions that their President was not telling them the truth but he is smooth and they didn’t really want to believe anything bad about him. The events in Libya, however, are absolute proof that this President is willing to lie to us. This one cannot be debated or parsed. This was not a “stretch” of the truth. He lied and we have to face it.

On September 11th, a hundred heavily armed men with AK-47’s and RPG’s attacked our scandalously unprotected consulate in Benghazi, killing our ambassador and three Navy Seals. We were told it was in reaction to a movie trailer when it was actually a pre-planned terrorist attack designed as a September 11th anniversary present. The movie story was not a one-time misstatement which was quickly corrected. This was a four-day campaign to get us to believe this attack was caused by spontaneous Muslim outrage over a trailer which was released in July. Our U.N. Ambassador, Susan Rice, went on five different Sunday talk shows and repeated the lie. The White House and the President’s press secretary, Jay Carney, stood by this story for four days. And, still, this week, during his recent speech to the U.N., the President himself said, “There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy.”  

Even ABC (All Barack Cheerleaders) News is now reporting that the White House knew immediately this was terrorism and not in reaction to the movie. The Libyan President said it was not in reaction to the movie. Several intelligence operatives are now telling us it was Al Quaeda. Really? How smart do you have to be to immediately draw a link between a heavily armed attack on a U.S. facility on September 11th and Al Quaeda? Only five days ago, the President himself was still telling us it was that darn movie. We have to face it. Whatever his reasons, whatever the political implications, whatever nuance you want to attach, and no matter how much of a likeable guy you might think the President is, he saw fit to lie to us. This is “the moment.”

Why is it that moral people place such a premium on telling the truth? Why do we make such a big deal out of teaching our kids to tell the truth? What is it about a lie that is just so toxic? It’s really simple. Thousands of years of experience have taught humanity that, once trust is broken, it is almost impossible to get it back as all kinds of thoughts flood in. “What else has he been lying about?” “Do I really know this person anymore?” And most importantly for the remainder of this election season, “Can I ever really believe him again?”

As in any election, the voters sit as a sort of jury and decide whose “testimony” they believe. Both campaigns will present their version of several critical issues and, with facts being twisted into almost unrecognizable shapes, it can become difficult for the voter to know who to believe. Voters now have one fact to file away to help them make their decision. They know for sure one of the candidates has lied to them before.

The Libya cover up will not be carried in any meaningful way by the mainstream media. That might be harmful to their chosen one. The only way this story will get to those who need to hear it is if we spread it in through the new media. Please share this with anyone you think may be remotely on the fence so that they may properly consider the believability of future claims coming from the White House. The moment has come.