There’s an old WWII era joke about the definition of hell. It says that hell is a world in which the British are the cooks, the French are the mechanics, and the Germans are the police. Obviously, in heaven the job assignments are different. In a similar way, most of the talking about guns these days is being done by those who know the least about the subject.

For example, Alan Grayson, Congressman (D) from the district where the shooting took place, said that the gun used by the terrorist could fire “700 rounds per minute.” This is absolutely not possible. This fire rate is a specification referring to the fire rate while there is ammunition available. It disregards time necessary to reload and, even if the gun was connected to an endless belt of ammunition, one could not fire 700 rounds in a minute. According to Steven Howard (a lawyer and gun expert), due to heat build up “in reality, you’ll get to 500 rounds and the gun will just melt.” 

Grayson also said of the killer on CNN, “If somebody like him had nothing worse to deal with than a Glock pistol which was his other weapon today, he might have killed three or four people and not 50.”  Let’s examine that with two scenarios; one with the Sig Sauer MCX actually used and one with a Glock 17. According to local news outlets, a total of 202 rounds were fired by the shooter and the police. Let’s assume the shooter fired 200 of those.

Scenario #1 Sig Sauer MCX: A skilled shooter can fire 60 rounds per minute. Let’s give our shooter 50 rounds per minute. This gives us roughly 4 minutes actually pulling the trigger 200 separate times. Reload time is roughly 4 seconds. With the 30 round magazine he had that is roughly 27 seconds. Total gun operations time: 4 minutes, 27 seconds.

Scenario #2 Glock 17: The fire rate for the Glock is the same (as fast as you can pull the trigger) so we will still have 4 minutes actual firing time. Reload time is actually a little quicker but we’ll say it’s the same. With 10 round magazines he would have to reload 20 times. At 4 seconds each that’s 1 minute, 20 seconds. Total gun operation time: 5 minutes, 20 seconds.

So, it appears Mr. Grayson’s claim that only 3 or 4 people would have been killed had the evil “assault rifle” (a political buzzword only) been banned is also nonsense. With a display of his lack of knowledge it seems obvious he is grasping for political points at the expense of the death of 49 people. His is but one example of the sad politicization of a terrorist attack. When a major newspaper (using the term loosely) actually blames the NRA for a terrorist attack you know you’ve jumped the shark.

Remove every supposed “assault rifle” on the planet and a terrorist will use the Glock handgun. Remove all the Glocks and he’ll use a bomb. Remove all the bombs and he’ll use a pressure cooker. Remove all the pressure cookers and he’ll use box cutters.

Remember not to be distracted folks. The discussion of the weaponry used by a terrorist is meant to force you to look away from the fact that your government is failing to do the one thing that would help. Remove the terrorists.

The results of the terrorist attack in Orlando – 49 shot and killed, 53 injured.

The results of daily life in Chicago for the last 15 days – 30 shot and killed, 167 injured.

95% of the victims in Chicago were either Black or Hispanic.

Where is the outrage over this terrible loss of life that is not a rare event but one that goes on every day? Where are the Democrats wringing their hands on all the “news” shows of their lap-dog media outlets? Where’s President Obama trying to make his political points? Where’s Steven Colbert and the supposedly funny people using ridicule to try to make their political points? Why don’t the editorial pages of the liberal press churn out some of their professorial sounding nonsense about these deaths? Where are all the candlelight vigils in “solidarity with the Black community” or with the “Hispanic community?” Doesn’t anybody care about this “tragedy?”

It could have something to do with the fact that Chicago has been under the control of the Democrat Party for the last 85 years. These are their results. It could be that they do not want to draw attention to the fact that some of the strictest gun laws in the country are failing miserably. How could this be?

In the interest of human life, allow me to offer a suggestion. Maybe the Democrats running the city should enforce the laws they already have instead of wailing for more restrictions on law-abiding citizens. According to the Chicago Police Department, in the first 9 months of 2015 there were 2477 arrests on gun charges. Of those, 600 had been arrested on weapons charges before.

Now, hang on to your hat. 460 of those had one prior arrest on weapons charges. 132 had two prior arrests on weapons charges. 28 had three prior arrests on weapons charges. 6 had four priors and 2 had five prior arrests on weapons charges. Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said that the current system is “equivalent to a catch and release system.”

I have to ask…. What would passing yet another law really accomplish? Using their logic, we could crack down on repeat drunk drivers by making it impossible to buy a car.

As you venture out there into the world of discussion please do not allow yourselves to be drawn into discussions of the attack on Orlando that are designed to distract you from what is really happening. A few simple things to remember:

First, this is not about gun laws. There is no law that could be passed that a terrorist would not break.

Second, although the LGBT community suffered agonizing losses, this is not about the attitudes of the general population towards LGBT’s (which have actually been improving). If there was an anti-gay component to this attack (as opposed to just wanting to kill Americans of any kind) it was because terrorists are commanded to kill gays. In the Middle East they throw them off of buildings.

And finally, this is not about politics or elections. While these sad events should definitely help us consider who we want to lead us going forward we should not be discussing the “horse-race” aspect of how it will benefit which candidate.

Let’s stay focused on the fact the we are at war. We have been attacked on U.S. soil now at least five times. Our President refuses to acknowledge that fact to the point where he just gathered up enough nerve to even say the words “radical Islamic terror” yesterday after 7 1/2 years. Even at that, he did so in a mocking tone. It doesn’t match the narrative he wants in his little fantasy world. He wants to be President in the kind of world he wants it to be, not in the one he got.

As you watch, listen, or read coverage in the coming days remember the narrative your government fed you was that Benghazi was caused by a video. Remember, the architect of Obamacare admitted that they lied to take advantage of, in his words, the “stupid American voter.” Remember that White House aide Ben Rhodes recently bragged about lying to the American people about the Iran deal. They are, once again, trying to control the narrative and are, once again, counting on the “stupidity of the American voter.”

Stay focused. We are at war and our government is more concerned with their politics than with your security.

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.