Bald eagle nest cam,
Noted surgeon turned author says it’s not too late to turn back.
by Nadra Enzi (“Cap Black”), Contributing Writer
My maternal grandparents gave me my worldview. This worldview has been tested by time, challenges and exploration of many philosophies. That said, I’ve found nothing superior to their loving counsel and example from my childhood.
Grand Dad bequeathed a moral code informed by the Bible and the Knights of the Round Table. He enriched my active imagination with his love of martial history, comic books, Westerns and pulp novel heroes. He personified what an intelligent, safety-conscious man should be. Little did I know how much I’d need such an example as inner-city America became a haven for thugs and real life zombies from the late 1980s forward.
Grand Ma was the compassionate warrior, much loved by former students from her teaching career and someone who simply loved America enough to fight for it, if need be. From her I saw someone who demonstrated the power of Agape love and reverence. On the eve of big moments, she’d often advise me to say, “This is the day that the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it.” Her moral warnings echo in the background while waging the culture war against the left.
As I take up their mantle, in my own Hood conservative way, I daily realize how I can’t go wrong by following in the footsteps of a man who always prayed on his knees before going to bed and a woman who painfully drew herself to her full five feet, hand over her heart, whenever the National Anthem played on TV. That’s an American Blackness and Americanism which seems in such short supply today!
I’m old school in my advocacy, in honor of Grand Dad and Grand Ma and hope others do the same while all we hold dear is slowly deleted from America’s social software!
Nadra Enzi aka Cap Black is an anti-crime activist and Project 21 member in New Orleans. Twitter: @nadraenzi
by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer
Argentina is on the brink of defaulting on its debts. What this means is that, if its now worthless paper money is not accepted as full repayment of what it owes, then its assets are subject to seizure by creditors. Since much of Argentina’s assets are located outside of Argentina, the socialist nation’s urban economy will collapse, leaving its farmers in the proverbial driver seat, in control of the nation.
Argentina’s farmers are now its only producers of real wealth, that is, food. The urban economy produces false wealth, that is, pieces of paper with numbers on them, promising to rob Peter to pay Paul and then promising to rob Paul, as well. These pieces of paper are not, however, nourishing to hungry city dwellers.
The government does, however, have another form of real wealth: guns, ammunition and an army that, although incapable of defending the nation against foes like Britain (a la the Falklands War), is well practiced in the art of ‘terrorizing’ its citizens.
A likely political move for Argentina: collectivizing its farms. We know how well that worked in Soviet-era Russia, with the starvation/extermination of 20 million Ukrainians in the 1920s. More recently, North Korea used the former USSR’s method of execution when it starved a million of its peasants on its farming collectives. (By the word, “we,” I mean, of course, people who actually bother to follow the news, a slim minority of us, indeed.)
It is questionable, however, whether the Argentine army can actually seize the farms and confiscate enough food from them to feed its people. Even if they can bully the farmers, soldiers likely cannot do the work required to raise crops. Farming is a lot more complicated than gardening. The farmers themselves may surrender, but how hard will they work to feed the army that is seizing their land?
The politicians in Buenos Aires might try to strike some kind of deal, but unless they meet the demands of the farmers—and they will certainly not cede power to them—the result is going to be famine and civil riots in the cities. Buenos Aires is more than big enough to host a world-class food riot.
The impending Argentine disaster is a warning to the United States and Western economies around the world. Central banks can print money, but they cannot grow food. In the US, the central bank is the Federal Reserve, and it has been printing paper money (or worse, just entering ‘ones and zeroes’ in computer databases) for years. Their intent is to hold down interest rates and impoverish citizens who depend on interest earnings on their savings to sustain them in their old age.
The US is blessed with an adequate food supply, but millions of acres of farmland have already disappeared due to industrial growth and government regulation. Very few family farms remain, with big industrial corporations owning most food production.
The US government may seize the assets of these companies by declaring a national emergency. It is questionable whether food production will then decrease as a result. An interruption in the food supply of only one week will empty the grocery shelves of major cities such as New York. Hungry New Yorkers will then arm themselves, and go on the hunt for the scarce reserves of food that might remain.
Socialism has always put intense focus on the redistribution of wealth. When the ‘wealth’ finally runs out, its only remaining asset is brute force. Eventually, that too will be depleted because soldiers have to eat.
For further information, reference
by Frank McHale
Last year, I wrote a commentary called RINOs?, where I criticized Republicans generally, and conservative Republicans specifically, for using this term when discussing party members more than them. Republicans In Name Only are Republicans, folks. They certainly are not Democrats, are they? Or radical leftists? Certainly not Obamanuts.
Even moderate and liberal Republicans are not as liberal as most Democats. With the exception of Joe Manchin, and perhaps a couple of other truly moderate Dems, all the other Democrats are as liberal and left as the day is long.
So please, friends. STOP with the name calling. It isn’t becoming. We need to unify with those who may be more liberal, or moderate than we think we are. Or soon, there will be no Republican Party of Lincoln, TR, or Reagan which will save the nation from the attempt to fundamentally change us.
Is that not the whole point? Let us put our efforts to win as a united party rather than divided one.
I present RINOs?, a chastisement to those who forgot Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Let’s remember this the next time you want to use that four letter word.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Why do conservatives castigate Republicans who are more moderate, more centrist or even more liberal than they are? People like Chris Christie, John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Paul Ryan are as Republican as Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, yet are criticized for working with liberal Democrats in the House or Senate. Even Marco Rubio was slammed by conservatives as a “traitor” to his conservative ideals because he worked with Democrats on the immigration bill.
Now, for the sake of full disclosure, I am a registered Republican, but I have libertarian and socially moderate leanings. I am a fiscal conservative and I admit, I have voted for Democrats many times over the years. Does that make me a traitor? Absolutely not! Instead, it makes me a free-thinking and high-information American. If we want to think monolithically, perhaps we would prefer to be Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or Red China, the best examples of monolithic governments from the 20th century.
Do we? I don’t think so.
Instead, we are a nation of diversity, exemplified by our ancestry, race, color, creed and even sexual orientation. So why wouldn’t we be diverse in our politics? I mean, isn’t that what being American is all about?
Other than, perhaps, Canada, there is no other country on earth like the USA. And even Canada is mostly English-based, except for French Quebec. So, Canada is not nearly as diverse as we are. Nor are its politics.
We need to understand that it is our fault as Republicans that Barack Obama is serving a second term. Why? Because as a party, we couldn’t get behind a winner early in the primary season and we allowed the MSM to define our candidates, rather than defining them ourselves. By the time Mitt Romney finally won enough delegates to secure the nomination, he was so bloodied by the battle and was so short of money, he struggled, and ultimately, lost the election.
I agree that Mitt could have been more forceful and challenging during the debates and the campaign. And as the honest man he is, Mitt would admit to that, as well. But the problem also was that during the campaign, he was still trying to win over the conservatives, who by and large, stayed home on Election Day, like a bunch of spoiled children who didn’t get what they wanted.
He won over the independents, and he won over many Reagan Democrats. But he was largely unable to win over his own party’s base. And guess what, folks? Whoever becomes the Republican standard-bearer for 2016, will have the same difficulties, if this attitude continues. The result will be another four years of the nonsense we have suffered through since 2009. Hillary or Joe, or whoever else is nominated by the Democrats, will be elected due to our own discord.
So, if we want to continue identifying people as Republicans In Name Only, or RINOs, soon enough we will be the 21st century version of the Whigs or the Federalists. It will be our own damn fault. And Barry will thank you all very much for completing his transformation of the USA for him.
And we will have no one to blame but ourselves.
Originally Posted by Frank McHale on July 22, 2013 in Frankmchalesviews.blogspot.com
Reprinted with Permission
by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer
Whenever there is a debate about a controversial law, the discussion tends to center around the question of whether the law promotes a good policy. The problem with this is that while most laws do promote good policies, they also promote bad ones at the same time. The unforeseen consequences, do not become known until the policy is so deeply embedded that the only way to correct it is to pass yet another law, risking yet more unforeseen consequences.
A well known example of this is the body of laws restricting gun ownership and the right to carry firearms.
These laws promote a laudable policy – the policy of reducing gun violence in our society. Every time there is a major incident involving murder by gunshot, there is an outcry for “tougher gun laws.”
However, we already have the toughest gun law imaginable. It is the Second Amendment, which states that an armed militia is necessary to the security of a free state, and therefore, the right of the people – emphasis on the word, people, as opposed to government – to keep arms, and to bear them, is not to be infringed.
Many people on the left have attempted to twist the words of the Second Amendment to mean that a well-regulated militia translates to a ‘government-regulated militia.’ The word “regulated,” in colonial times, meant skilled, not restricted.
The militia was not an arm of the government, but an association of private citizens. The security of a free state did not mean more powerful government, but less.
President John F Kennedy exhibited a keen understanding of the Second Amendment, when he said the following:
“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”
These are not the words of a man who thought it a legitimate activity of the government to confiscate weapons from the public at large. While Pres. Kennedy was, indeed, killed by a firearm, there is a plausible argument that he was murdered by the very government that he sought to limit, and perhaps for that very reason he was assassinated.
What about other murders, especially mass murders? Would those not be reduced by eliminating the private ownership of guns?
At first, that would seem to be the case. Certainly, specific anecdotes seem to bear that out, but a closer look at the facts reveals the opposite to be true. Here is a specific case:
On April 16, 2007, at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (better known as Virginia Tech), 32 people were killed by one man with a gun. Thirty-two! If only the killer had not been able to get his hands on a gun, those murders could have been prevented. Does not this make a strong case for outlawing the private possession of guns?
It makes the opposite case. Seung-Hui Cho, the killer, chose his venue carefully. He did not walk into a police station to kill. Indeed, he did not even go into a city street. No, he avoided any place where his potential victims might be armed, and able to fight back. Instead, he chose the college campus where he was a student because he knew that campus regulations prohibited anyone except police from carrying fire-arms on the property. In short, he had a ready-made shooting gallery.
How did our government respond? Was it to come to the logical conclusion that armed, law-abiding students could have saved many lives? Not at all. The response was to call for stronger controls on gun possession. Indeed, the call was for disarming even more future victims.
The 32 victims at Virginia Tech are part of the statistical support for violating the Second Amendment. But what of the several hundred, perhaps several thousand victims who never became victims, because they, or someone nearby, either possessed fire-arms, or were in a situation where a would-be murderer had an expectation that he would be shot himself if he tried to use a fire-arm illegally?
Those who do not become victims are not counted in the statistics. The lives saved are ignored. The lives not lost are not measured.
Another anecdote about guns in schools involves my own father. He was born in 1913, and beginning in about 1919 began attending public schools in rural Florida, which at that time closely resembled the wild west. My father carried a gun to school. So did most of the boys. Many of them walked more than a mile to get to school, and on the way home, took the opportunity to put some meat on the family table, due to the abundance of wild game in the area. Sometimes these boys, being boys, would get into fist-fights. The fight would often end with one boy on the ground with a bloody nose or black eye. He would say “uncle,” and get up. The boys would then pick up their guns, and proceed home. Not a shot was ever fired. Moreover, and this is the most vital thing to understand, not one of the boys ever remotely considered using his gun against a fellow student. It was unthinkable.
If gun ownership is the cause of violence, then the 1920s should have had mass murders in schools every day. In those days, the most notorious mass murder was that of the seven gangsters killed by rival gangsters in the infamous Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre in 1929. Seven, not seventy.
Why were there no mass murders in schools in the 1920s? It was the culture, not the guns.
What about Switzerland, one of the most peaceful nations on the face of the earth? Surely it must be because they have a total ban on guns, right?
Not quite. Virtually every home in Switzerland is required by law to keep and maintain guns, as a military obligation, and most of those are the much vilified assault rifles.Yet Switzerland has had no mass murders on the scale of those in the US – not in spite of, but probably because of this policy.
According to Time Magazine, hardly a ‘right-wing rag,’ “Switzerland trails behind only the U.S, Yemen and Serbia in the number of guns per capita; between 2.3 million and 4.5 million military and private firearms are estimated to be in circulation in a country of only 8 million people. Yet, despite the prevalence of guns, the violent-crime rate is low: government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. By comparison, the U.S rate in the same year was about five firearm killings per 100,000 people, according to a 2011 U.N. report.”
True, the United States has a very serious problem with gun violence. Something must be done about it, but that ‘something’ is not more laws. It is better social policy.
We used to have that…
The Best of
~ The E-Blast ~
Why Americans Cannot Agree
~ Robert Arvay ~
Years ago I was exchanging messages with a committed liberal
on an internet discussion board. We were attempting to bridge a
gap which, as it turns out, now seems utterly unbridgeable. I
give the other fellow credit for effort, but we both failed.
The eye-opening moment came when the liberal responded to
the question, what is your definition of a good government? His
response was almost word for word, the definition of a
Central American Media Promote
Illegal Child Immigrant Tsunami,
Meanwhile, another major Guatemalan newspaper, El Periódico,
reports that among the initial 1,000 Central American minors
housed at Lackland Air Force base in Texas, two thirds-are from
Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, while 12% are Mexican.
About 80% of the minors housed at the base are male, and 83%
are over age 14.
50 Shocking And Hilarious
Photos From The Past
“These photographers may have never known the significance of
the pictures they took and that millions would be marveling at
them in the future. From thousands of images, I chose these to
give us a rare and fascinating look at how different (and similar)
life used to be.”
The oldest known selfie. (1839)
This opinion piece is a scorcher…
“Hope & Change” for the
Rest of the World – Coming Soon
to a Country Near You!
by Mario John Borgatti
This story is personal to me and my wife. Her family,
safe at the moment, lives in Simferopol, Crimea.
~ Mario ~
Barack Obama and his allies in the European Union claim that
Vladimir Putin is interested in territorial expansion to former
Soviet Union borders. They characterize Putin’s response to the
anarchistic overthrow of the legitimate government in Ukraine, a
pledge to protect the Russian population in Crimea, as
aggressive and illegitimate.
However, it is not Putin’s response that is the issue here. The real
issue is whether or not the duplicitous Barack Obama, along with
his calculating partners in the EU – in this latest episode – had
the right to force regime change in Ukraine.
The History of Spoons,
Forks, and Knives
ancient Egyptian spoon
Spoons are one of the oldest eating utensils on the planet. This
isn’t particularly surprising if one considers that nearly as long as
humans have needed food, they’ve required something to scoop
it up with. Unlike knives and forks, that for the most part needed
to be fashioned, natural spoons could be utilized by employing
such things as seashells or conveniently shaped stones. Sure, the
earliest known instances of these didn’t have handles yet, but
from these humble beginnings, the spoon was born.
Rambo was a British soldier!
The British Soldier Who Killed
Nazis with a Sword and a Longbow
“Mad Jack” on the far right, clutching a claymore sword. Photo via WikiCommons
Then there’s the grim twist just under the surface of Churchill’s
Romanticism and braggadocio. The last of his famous lines is a
brief requiem for the end of his beloved war: “If it wasn’t for those
damn Yanks, we could have kept the war going another ten years.”
As Loades rightly points out, little glimmers into Churchill’s psyche
like this suggests his madness wasn’t all fun story fodder worthy
Hat Tip to Sharon of Alabama
When govt goes rogue
at every level…
SWAT Team Refuses Public Records
‘We’re Not a Government Agency’
“When we asked NEMLEC for records about their SWAT
policies and deployments, we were startled to receive this
response: we don’t have to give you documents because
we aren’t government agencies,” the ACLU blog,
The Time Has Come
for America to Stand Up
Eyal Yifrah, Gil-Ad Shaer and Naftali Fraenkel were teenagers
abducted and brutally murdered by Palestinian terrorists from
Hamas, a partner in the Palestinian Authority’s unity government.
The teens’ abduction and murder was supported by Palestinian
society as a whole. While Israelis were united as never before in
worry and prayer for the missing boys, Palestinian society was
united in its expressed delight at the abduction and murder
of the boys.
The international community’s indifferent response to the
Palestinian abduction of the boys demonstrated how far the
Palestinian campaign to deny the legitimacy of Israel and to
dehumanize Israelis has advanced.
Every year the US gives the PA up to $500 million in aid. At this
point, it is impossible to rationally argue that aid to the PA
advances the cause of peace, which is supposed to be the point
of the aid.
Sudanese Christian mom holed up
in US embassy, facing new charges
Meriam Ibrahim and her family are waiting for new travel
documents to be issued by the U.S. after being detained last
week for what Sudanese authorities alleged were forged South
Sudan papers when she tried to leave the country, a source
close to the family said. Making matters worse for the mother
of two are a new set of charges raised by her own Muslim
“Liberals are comparing the SCOTUS decision on Hobby Lobby
to Sharia Law… Because refusing to pay for someone else’s
birth control is so closely related to beheading, amputating,
and stoning women to death for getting raped. Right?”
A US$25 million crowdfunded, student-led mission plans to send
three CubeSat microsatellites all the way to Mars, landing time
capsules on the surface of the Red Planet, that will contain the
digital messages from tens of millions of people from all countries
around the world. You can upload a picture of your own, up to
10 MB in size, by contributing just 99 cents.
Have a Great Day,
~ The E-Blast ~
Created by Bruce O’Hara,
can also be viewed online at:
If you’d like to receive the E-Blast
daily, via email, contact me…
by Robert Arvay
I was born in 1948, and my formative years were in the decade of the fifties, the era of television shows such as Roy Rogers, Father Knows Best, and Leave it to Beaver. Today, these television shows are considered hopelessly naïve, nerdy, and unrealistic. Worse yet, many people today vilify these cultural artifacts as sexist, homophobic and racist. They are, whether literally or figuratively, spat upon.
Fast forward to 2014.
Over the period of the past few days, I have repeatedly found myself in various social gatherings of people who might be described as a cross section of typical Americans. In doing so, I found myself mildly distressed to be reminded of the title of the book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, a brief review of which is included below. Instead of slouching toward Gomorrah, I got the overwhelming feeling that we are living in it.
What is most shocking, however, is that I am no longer shocked. This commentary is not an overwrought sermon about fire and brimstone, but a conversation about gradually warming water, and a frog. I am not a preacher. I am one of you.
(Note in the margin: Sodom and Gomorrah, for those who may not already know, were the two cities destroyed by God in the Book of Genesis for their immoral behaviors. From the city of Sodom, we get the word, sodomy.)
Today’s television shows are quite different from those of the 1950s. Instead of upholding moral values of family, hard work and personal responsibility, many of them glorify casual sex, including homosexual sodomy. My critics might validly tell me that I do not know what I am talking about, since for the past five years or so, I have rarely watched any television shows except news, documentaries, and science channels. My wife and I found that we could not comfortably watch, with our grandchildren, even shows on the Disney-type channels, shows intended for small children. The shows are infused with acceptance of immoral conduct. My wife and I have also walked out of the last three movies we attended, disgusted by the vulgarity and anti-Christian bigotry, among other failings of the movies. So if the entertainment industry has recently returned to promoting moral values, I guess I’m all wrong, and will be happy to find that out.
What distressed me in the recent social encounters with various people is the casual acceptance they have of the so-called new morality. Unmarried couples living together are so routine as to get no particular notice. Mark me, these are nice people, not sex-crazed barbarians. Some of them are in their third or fourth (or more) so-called, committed relationship. Divorce is more common than thirtieth anniversaries. If a small boy demands to dress as a girl, he is not only permitted, but encouraged to do so, even by the schools. Gender Identity Disorder is no longer considered a disorder. The response to it is not to research what went wrong in the brain, and fix that, but instead to surgically mutilate the body, disguising it as something that it is not (the opposite sex). I find that I myself (paragon of virtue that I had thought I was, LOL) have slouched so far into the dysfunction of Gomorrah that I am sometimes surprised that I no longer find flagrant sexual innuendo in advertising to be noteworthy. Even in women’s magazines, depictions of nudity, actual or implied, are not uncommon. The articles are saturated with casual acceptance of what, in the 1950s, would have been widely condemned.
We are all, it seems, frogs in warming water, unable to express outrage over the destruction of our culture. There are exceptions, of course. Many of the citizens of Murrieta, California, took to the streets to blockade busloads of illegal immigrants who were being illegally brought into the city, not by gangsters, but by the government itself. Would that this overdue sense of urgency had occurred in 1986, when President Reagan signed the amnesty bill, on the promise that Democrats would help to stop illegal immigration, instead of subsidizing it.
The demonstrators in Murrieta belatedly recognize that the immigration policy of the government is destroying our culture.
Would that millions of Americans take to the streets to protest same-sex marriage, filth in entertainment, and corruption at the Veterans Administration. Unfortunately, such urgency arises only when the government has forced its way into one’s own neighborhood, by which time it is too little, too late, to change the policy. The horses have escaped the barn, and those horses may be those of the apocalypse.
I would write more, but others have written more eloquently than ever I could, and I now introduce some of them. Here they are, beginning with an anonymous reviewer (not me).
The following is a brief review of Slouching Towards Gomorrah :
[Begin] In this New York Times bestselling book, [the late, Judge] Robert H. Bork, our country’s most distinguished conservative scholar, offers a prophetic and unprecedented view of a culture in decline, a nation in such serious moral trouble that its very foundation is crumbling: a nation that slouches not towards the Bethlehem envisioned by the poet Yeats in 1919, but towards Gomorrah.
Slouching Towards Gomorrah is a penetrating, devastatingly insightful exposé of a country in crisis at the end of the millennium, where the rise of modern liberalism, which stresses the dual forces of radical egalitarianism (the equality of outcomes rather than opportunities) and radical individualism (the drastic reduction of limits to personal gratification), has undermined our culture, our intellect, and our morality.
In a new Afterword, the author highlights recent disturbing trends in our laws and society, with special attention to matters of sex and censorship, race relations, and the relentless erosion of American moral values. The alarm he sounds is more sobering than ever: we can accept our fate and try to insulate ourselves from the effects of a degenerating culture, or we can choose to halt the beast, to oppose modern liberalism in every arena. The will to resist, he warns, remains our only hope. [End]
Here is the prescient, almost prophetic 1920 poem, The Second Coming, by William Butler Yeats, from which Bork adapted the title for his book:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in the sands of the desert.
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
A brief explanation of Spiritus Mundi is found at:
Spiritus Mundi, a “spirit world” of images and symbols that Yeats believed to have been traditionally available to the most perceptive people (like poets) throughout history. Although lots of smart-sounding people like to say that symbols always have to “mean” something specific, Yeats thought that the best symbols couldn’t ever be fully explained in words. They are “expressive” in a way that passes beyond ordinary speech. [End]
It is not any insight that makes me unable to express in words the eerie feeling I have, the feeling of living in Gomorrah—but once in awhile I get a strange sense that I am a time traveler, that I have stepped from a future century into today. As I walk among throngs of people, each scurrying about in his frantic activity of today, each failing to pause to reflect upon his eternity, I get the urge to tell them. I get the urge to warn them, today is not where your entire focus should be. You are already dead. This is the distant past.
This is history. Wake up. Reform your society. It is where your posterity shall live.
I cannot bring forth the words, for I, too, am a denizen of Gomorrah.
Robert Arvay is a Contributing Writer to The Patriot’s Notepad