Before you Hear This On The Street…

Some might say: Not again?

I have been quiet and it is not because we did not have things to say. As that old Chinese curse is reputed to say: May you live in exciting times!

But l did place my name in (again) for the Virginia Court of Appeals seat vacated by Judge Rossie Alston who was appointed a Federal District Court judge.

WHY?

I believe in the justice system and want to make it better. i am concerned about costs of litigation, access to legal services for the poor and constitutional rights.

But I think it is inappropriate to discuss politics while this process is going on. If a reader wants to help: Contact your delegate and senator. But I will not use the blog to campaign for this seat. I might blog on an event like BREXIT (YEA! One more day!) but not domestic or state politics.

Why I haven’t said anything about Holocaust Remembrance Day

Holocaust Remembrance Day has become a meaningless ritual that the Western world engages in to cover for its virulent and rising anti-Semitism.

I remember the Holocaust every day. It’s written into my DNA.

Every morning, when I put on my glasses or creak out of bed on my arthritic knees, I know that I would have been at the front of the line for the gas chambers.

Every day that I whine about this little thing or that little thing, I feel guilty because I was lucky enough to be born in America and to have been born after the Holocaust.

I am always aware of the dozens of family members who died in the camps, whether because they were Jewish or because (on the Christian side) they suffered from mental illness or were homosexuals.

For me, every day is Holocaust Remembrance Day.

As for the world, it’s like that line about the weather: Everybody talks about it but nobody does anything about it. The same is true for the Holocaust in 2020.

In too many parts of the Muslim world, for too many people, every day is Holocaust Rejoicing Day.

In Europe, the grim binding together of socialism and Islam is recreating that 1930s mindset of Hitler: a socialist country with a deep, passionate, and overwhelming Jew-hatred.

It feels as if, when many Europeans say “Never again,” they’re thinking, “If we play our cards right, never again will we have to live in a world with Jews, either in Europe or on land that the Palestinians should occupy, not the Jews.”

The fact that the Jews have had a continuous, provable connection to the land for 3,000 years, and the fact that the so-called Palestinians are carpetbaggers and squatters with a connection to the land going back 150 years or so is irrelevant to those steeped in anti-Semitism.

Here in America, our Democrat party is becoming a home for virulent anti-Semitism. The most celebrated women in Congress are open anti-Semites and open about their hatred for Israel. In the face of Ilhan Omar’s awful words, the most that the House could come up with was a weak statement that it hates hate. The scourge of anti-Semitism has moved from hard-left American campuses to Congress.

So no, I don’t want to write about Holocaust Remembrance Day. It’s becoming more farcical by the minute. Talk, talk, talk, while the hatred flows in like a relentless tide.

The post Why I haven’t said anything about Holocaust Remembrance Day appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Prohibition and the Great Society show that the government should not legislate vast social trends

Because the government is a lagging, not a leading, indicator, its giant pieces of legislation almost always lead to perpetual bureaucracy and corruption.

I was talking yesterday with a friend — a lifelong conservative — who said, “You know, if I’d been alive in the 1960s, I probably would have supported Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. It seemed like a good idea at the time and there was no way to see that it would destroy the African American family and lead to as many dysfunctions as it did, not to mention the ever-burgeoning bureaucracy.”

It occurred to me then that the Great Society plan suffered from exactly the same flaw as Prohibition: both of them created bureaucracies and overreaching laws after cultural change had already occurred. They didn’t lead to cultural change, they followed it, didn’t help it, and simply created all the problems that are always attendant on big government. Let me try to explain.

In the late 19th century, America had a really, really serious problem with alcoholism. Carrie Nation and the Women’s Temperance League and the “lips that touch liquor shall never touch mine” movement . . . they didn’t arise from American puritanism. They arose because America and Americans were drowning in alcohol:

 We have oftentimes been a nation of drunks, but by today’s standards, average alcohol consumption in large parts of the 19th century U.S.A. was almost beyond rational belief. You will likely find it hard to accept as a fact just how much booze the average American was consuming in the first half of the 1800’s.

*snip*

As [historian W.J. Rorabaugh wrote in his research on American alcohol consumption for The OAH Magazine of History] goes on to note: “By 1770, Americans consumed alcohol routinely with every meal. Many people began the day with an ‘eye opener’ and closed it with a nightcap. People of all ages drank, including toddlers, who finished off the heavily sugared portion at the bottom of a parent’s mug of rum toddy. Each person consumed about three and a half gallons of alcohol per year.”*snip*

When he writes “three and a half gallons of alcohol,” he’s talking about 3.5 gallons of pure ethanol, rather than gallons of a specific spirit. To convert that into a more graspable figure, that’s 8.75 gallons of standard, 80-proof liquor per year for the average person by the time of the American revolution. That’s already 45 percent higher than current consumption levels, but hold onto your seats, because the number gets much higher by the 1800s.

*snip*

As [Daniel Okrent, in his book Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition] describes . . . the number of distilleries in the nation increased fivefold, to 14,000 in between 1790 and 1810. He writes that “in cities it was widely understood that common workers would fail to come to work on Mondays, staying home to wrestle with the echoes and aftershocks of a weekend binge. By 1830, the tolling of a town bell at 11 a.m. and again at 4 p.m. marked ‘grog time.’”

That old-time song, “Father, dear Father, come home with me now,” which tells about little Mary trying to get her father to leave the saloon wasn’t just heart-tugging 19th-century schmaltz, it was the reality for vast numbers of American families. Fathers routinely drank their paycheck away and, just as routinely, physically abused their families when they were roaring drunk.

The temperance movement, in other words, was a real response to a very serious problem. It was also effective. Indeed, it was so effective that it changed the way American society thought about alcohol. By 1920, when Prohibition went into effect, it wasn’t the leading edge of temperance, it was the lagging edge. And once the federal government got involved, everything changed, because when the federal government is involved, there’s always money to be made. Suddenly, entirely new vices rose up because of a federal policy put in place after the problem had pretty much been solved at the local level.

The same was true with Johnson’s Great Society. American blacks were doing better and better beginning in the 1920s and through to the early 1960s — and the Great Society destroyed that:

Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the Civil Rights laws and “War on Poverty” programs of the 1960s, the cold fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. This was before any of those programs began.Over the next 20 years, the poverty rate among blacks fell another 18 percentage points, compared to the 40-point drop in the previous 20 years. This was the continuation of a previous economic trend, at a slower rate of progress, not the economic grand deliverance proclaimed by liberals and self-serving black “leaders.”Ending the Jim Crow laws was a landmark achievement. But, despite the great proliferation of black political and other “leaders” that resulted from the laws and policies of the 1960s, nothing comparable happened economically. And there were serious retrogressions socially.

Nearly a hundred years of the supposed “legacy of slavery” found most black children being raised in two-parent families in 1960. But thirty years after the liberal welfare state found the great majority of black children being raised by a single parent.

The murder rate among blacks in 1960 was one-half of what it became 20 years later, after a legacy of liberals’ law-enforcement policies. Public-housing projects in the first half of the 20th century were clean, safe places, where people slept outside on hot summer nights, when they were too poor to afford air conditioning. That was before admissions standards for public-housing projects were lowered or abandoned, in the euphoria of liberal non-judgmental notions. And it was before the toxic message of victimhood was spread by liberals. We all know what hell holes public housing has become in our times. The same toxic message produced similar social results among lower-income people in England, despite an absence of a “legacy of slavery” there.

There’s more data here, in an article by Sam Jacobs.

As with Prohibition, the government wasn’t taking the lead. Johnson was able to put his “Great Society” legislation into effect because society was already moving on from the worst effects of slavery, Jim Crow, and overt racism. And as with Prohibition, because government attached itself to the end rather than the beginning of the parade, the government managed to create a whole lot of what one normally finds at the end of the parade — horse doo-doo.

I’m not completely libertarian, because I believe there are more things that government than a pure libertarian thinks. However, as a general principle, I heartily endorse the sentiment expressed in 1837 in the United States Magazine and Democratic Review:

It is under the word government, that the subtle danger lurks. Understood as a central consolidated power, managing and directing the various general interests of the society, all government is evil, and the parent of evil.

A strong and active democratic government, in the common sense of the term, is an evil, differing only in degree and mode of operation, and not in nature, from a strong despotism. This difference is certainly vast, yet, inasmuch as these strong governmental powers must be wielded by human agents, even as the powers of the despotism, it is, after all, only a difference in degree; and the tendency to demoralization and tyranny is the same, though the development of the evil results is much more gradual and slow in the one case than in the other. Hence the demagogue – hence the faction – hence the mob – hence the violence, licentiousness, and instability – hence the ambitious struggles of parties and their leaders for power – hence the abuses of that power by majorities and their leaders – hence the indirect oppressions of the general by partial interests – hence (fearful symptom) the demoralization of the great men of the nation, and of the nation itself, proceeding, unless checked in time by the more healthy and patriotic portion of the mind of the nation rallying itself to reform the principles and sources of the evil) gradually to that point of maturity at which relief from the tumult of moral and physical confusion is to be found only under the shelter of an energetic armed despotism.

The best government is that which governs least. No human depositories can, with safety, be trusted with the power of legislation upon the general interests of society so as to operate directly or indirectly on the industry and property of the community. Such power must be perpetually liable to the most pernicious abuse, from the natural imperfection, both in wisdom of judgment and purity of purpose, of all human legislation, exposed constantly to the pressure of partial interests; interests which, at the same time that they are essentially selfish and tyrannical, are ever vigilant, persevering, and subtle in all the arts of deception and corruption.

In fact, the whole history of human society and government may be safely appealed to, in evidence that the abuse of such power a thousand fold more than overbalances its beneficial use. Legislation has been the fruitful parent of nine-tenths of all the evil, moral and physical, by which mankind has been afflicted since the creation of the world, and by which human nature has been self-degraded, fettered, and oppressed.

Government should have as little as possible to do with the general business and interests of the people. If it once undertake these functions as its rightful province of action, it is impossible to say to it ‘thus far shalt thou go, and no farther.’ It will be impossible to confine it to the public interests of the commonwealth. It will be perpetually tampering with private interests, and sending forth seeds of corruption which will result in the demoralization of the society.

Its domestic action should be confined to the administration of justice, for the protection of the natural equal rights of the citizen and the preservation of social order. In all other respects, the voluntary principle, the principle of freedom, suggested to us by the analogy of the divine government of the Creator, and already recognized by us with perfect success in the great social interest of Religion, affords the true ‘golden rule’ which is alone abundantly competent to work out the best possible general result of order and happiness from that chaos of characters, ideas, motives, and interests – human society.

Afford but the single nucleus of a system of administration of justice between man and man, and, under the sure operation of this principle, the floating atoms will distribute and combine themselves, as we see in the beautiful natural process of crystallization, into a far more perfect and harmonious result than if the government, with its ‘fostering hand,’ undertake to disturb, under the plea of directing, the process. The natural laws which will establish themselves and find their own level are the best laws. The same hand was the Author of the moral, as of the physical world; and we feel clear and strong in the assurance that we cannot err in trusting, in the former, to the same fundamental principles of spontaneous action and self-regulation which produce the beautiful order of the latter.

Both Johnson’s Great Society and the American prohibition experiment affirm the principles expressed above. Change can and should happen with the people, not with the government. Government is invariably responsive to, not responsible for, change and, once it gets involved, corruption and bureaucratic deadweight follow. It’s the latter that is especially pernicious for, as Reagan famously said:

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!

The post Prohibition and the Great Society show that the government should not legislate vast social trends appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

My problem with rape accusations against famous men

The Kobe Bryant tragedy is a reminder that rape accusations against famous men would never happen if both men and women were more careful.

Immediately following the tragic death of Kobe Bryant and eight others, including three young girls, a Washington Post reporter earned her two minutes of hate by tweeting out a three-year-old article regarding the rape case against Kobe. I’m not going to write about that nor am I going to write about Kobe. I’ve never been a basketball fan so, while I know the names of the big players (anyone who reads the internet has to), I don’t know anything about who they are or what they’ve done. Likewise, I pretty much ignored the rape allegations against Kobe, although I was aware of them, and he obviously walked away without a conviction.

What that mean-spirited, graceless tweet did remind me of was the way the #MeToo movement has spurred charges of rape against famous men. My problem is that I view all of them, both accused and accusers, with deep suspicion.

I have no problem with believing that some men, having become famous and powerful, believe that they are entitled to sex on demand from any woman. It’s been that way since time immemorial. In the same way, I can readily believe that famous and powerful men (and women) believe that pedophilia isn’t a crime if they do it. Again, power makes them feel that the rules that apply to “ordinary, little” people don’t apply to them. Of course, that doesn’t mean that all rich, powerful men commit rape and engage in pedophilia, but I find it more reasonable to believe it of them than I do of my neighbor, my dentist, or my accountant.

I also have no problem with believing that women will use sex to get ahead and then later use rape accusations to get ahead. I believe that women will not have sex but will nevertheless lie about it to destroy someone or to enrich themselves. And I believe that women will engage in, or try to engage in, stupid, drunken sex and then lie about it to assuage their feelings of guilt and worthlessness.

This is why, when I hear a #MeToo story about some woman claiming that a famous man behaved in an unpleasantly sexual way in front of her, everything from crude language to actual rape, I’m disinterested. I suspect both accused and accuser of engaging in stupid or wrongful conduct. Being famous doesn’t give men license to rape but it also doesn’t give women license to be stupid, greedy, or vindictive.

The whole Leftist world laughed at Vice President Mike Pence for his rule never to be alone with a woman but it is the famous man’s most intelligent rule. Likewise, no woman should ever be alone with a man, any man, unless she’s willing to recognize the possibility that he will behave badly towards her. (That’s not to say, ever, that women “deserve” it. It’s merely restating a basic premise, which is that your house is less likely to get robbed if you lock the door. An unlocked door is not permission to rob, it just increases the probability that robbery will happen.) Most women don’t cry rape and most men don’t commit rape, but why get yourself into a compromising or dangerous position if you don’t have to?

The late-Georgians and the Victorians were often accused of having minds like kitchen sinks because they always suspected humankind of yearning towards base behavior.  (The early and mid-Georgian eras confirmed that, left unchecked, debauchery would reign supreme.) Their uprightness was therefore built upon a very low regard for man in his savage state. That’s why they liked chaperones. In retrospect, that was a sound idea.

Regarding the helicopter crash, I’ll say here what I didn’t say at the top of this post: My sincere condolences go to all the family and close friends of those who perished. It is always sad when lives that should go on for a long time, especially young lives (there were three young girls onboard), are severed so abruptly. I can’t even imagine the pain those left behind are going through. I hope that the rapacious media, which traffics in lies, conjecture, and intrusion, gives them space to grieve.

The post My problem with rape accusations against famous men appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Bookworm Beat 1/24/20 — busy week illustrated edition (2nd Amendment, March For Life, & impeachment)

What a busy week: a Second Amendment rally in Richmond, a huge March for Life in D.C., and the impeachment farce, plus Dem candidates, stupid leftists, etc.

We’ll start just as the week started, with uplifting, patriotic, and often very clever images from the Second Amendment rally in Richmond:

















And now we take you to videos and pictures from today’s inspiring March for Life in Washington, D.C.

#MarchForLife https://t.co/5Yg09dOoJd

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 24, 2020


Live view of the #MarchForLife making their way from the National Mall to the Supreme Court
pic.twitter.com/yi2eH1I4F2

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 24, 2020


Fox News & Fox Business broadcasting Trump’s remarks to #MarchForLife. CNN & MSNBC….are not. pic.twitter.com/DqA7X7DDxM

— Sarah Dolan Schneider (@sarahedolan) January 24, 2020










The pro-life movement is optimistic, inspiring, decent, and based on one fundamental truth: LIFE is an inalienable right.

And it is our job to protect it.#MarchForLife pic.twitter.com/KgvL16fK7g

— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) January 24, 2020

We can’t forget the lunacy of the Trump impeachment, something that will go down in history as one of America’s great political farces:










And here’s all the other stuff, from Democrat presidential candidates to the usual antics of the Left:






















Header image: Life Action.

The post Bookworm Beat 1/24/20 — busy week illustrated edition (2nd Amendment, March For Life, & impeachment) appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Manchester rape gangs, the Church of England, and marriage

It matters that the Church of England came out in favor of heterosexual marriage, for marriage is a bulwark protecting girls from Islamic sex trafficking.

A few days ago, news broke that Manchester had joined the list of British cities in which gangs of Muslim men (mostly from Pakistan) systematically raped and trafficked little girls and teenage girls, as well as a few young boys. Moreover, to their eternal disgrace, the British authorities Manchester turned a blind eye to this known abuse for fear that they would be accused of racism. This story is an indictment, not just of the effect political correctness has had on Britain’s political and police classes, but of something much bigger . . . but more on that in a moment.

Daniel Greenfield has written a searing piece describing what was taking place in Manchester (although it’s almost redundant because it’s exactly what was taking place in Rotherham, Huddersfield, Bradford, Oxford, and innumerable other British cities). I strongly recommend that you read Greenfield’s entire article, but here are a few of the many deeply depressing, but still important, points he makes:

The report chronicles how Operation Augusta was launched and then scuttled after her death in 2003, despite identifying 97 suspects and 57 victims. The victims were, “mostly white girls aged between 12 and 16”, and the perpetrators were, “mostly men of ‘Asian heritage’”. By ‘Asian’, the report means “predominantly Pakistani men” though at least one of the perpetrators was apparently Tunisian.

Constable B, the anonymous cop responsible for some of the most revealing quotes in the report, said, “What had a massive input was the offending target group were predominantly Asian males and we were told to try and get other ethnicities.”

Mohammed Yaqoob, the pedophile who had forcibly injected Victoria with heroin and was cleared of manslaughter charges, was not the sort of pedophile the Manchester cops were supposed to find.

A meeting at Greater Manchester Police headquarters “acknowledged that the enquiry was sensitive due to the involvement of Asian men” and worried over “the incitement of racial hatred.” There were concerns about “the damaged relations following Operation Zoological.” Those were the police raids targeting Iraqi refugees involved in an alleged Al Qaeda plot to bomb a soccer stadium in Manchester.

Some in the GMP didn’t see the point to stopping the rape of young girls because of cultural differences.

“There was an educational issue. Asian males didn’t understand that it was wrong, and the girls were not quite there. They were difficult groups to deal with. We can’t enforce our way out of the problem,” Constable B said.

What the euphemistically named “Asians” (i.e., Muslims) were doing is utterly immoral, totally vile, and completely in sync with their faith. Islams is clear that non-Muslim girls and women are, by definition, whores and that it is completely within the rights of every Muslim man to treat them as such. If he can make a profit out of doing so, all the better.

What the Manchester political class (including the policemen) did is utterly immoral, totally vile, and completely in sync with the craven Dhimmitude that now characterizes much of Britain’s bureaucracy, politicians, and police departments. Between Leftist political correctness and Islamic sharia-style threats, the same people who should be looking out for British citizens, especially the most vulnerable, have instead lost any desire to make waves and fight back.

But about the families of these poor girls? Where were they? How could so many girls throughout England just vanish into the maw of this pedophile and sex trafficking culture? That’s where things get interesting:

England has a problem. According to a British site called “Gingerbread : Single Parents, Equal Families,” which has as its mission getting equal rights for single-parent homes (citations omitted):

In the UK:

  • There are around 1.8 million single parents – they make up nearly a quarter of families with dependent children
  • Less than one per cent of single parents are teenagers
  • Around 90 per cent of single parents are women
  • The average age of a single parent is 39 years

Then and now

  • The proportion of families with children headed by single parents has remained at around 25 per cent for over a decade. The current figure is 22.7 per cent
  • The proportion of single parents who are fathers has stayed at around 10 per cent for over ten years

The site also informs us that this cohort of single-parent homes accounts for “just under 3 million children.” These three million children, in turn, account for slightly more than a fifth of the total population of British children. Looking at these numbers, it appears that, on average, something close to 1.5 million English girls are being raised without biological fathers in their lives.

Study after study shows what happens when girls are raised in homes without their biological fathers: They become more promiscuous and more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior:

The hallmark characteristic of a fatherless daughter is fear of abandonment. Because they never got the direction needed from a father figure, they learn to make up their own survival playbook. This can lead to negative coping skills such as sexual promiscuity, total avoidance of intimacy, isolation, substance abuse, anxiety and depression.

Fatherless daughters report having difficulty in relationships and in the workplace interacting with men because they were never taught how to feel comfortable with a man in their father’s absence. They can also carry into adulthood conflicting issues with their mothers from becoming her caretaker for a time or witnessing so much chaos in the home. Financial distress or poverty often follows father loss, and this can have a significant impact in every area of a girl’s upbringing.

It’s even worse for girls who have a rotating cast of Mom’s boyfriends coming through the house. Too many of these men prey on the girls in their charge.

Separate from the unique risks girls experience growing up in a home without a father, England, in common with all other Western nations, has mostly abandoned traditional Judeo-Christian morality. Premarital sex, partner hopping, and the non-traditional sexual practices of the LGBTQ spectrum are all there. Girls who feel pressured into hook-ups, especially at a young age, suffer badly with low-esteem, which tends to drive them into even greater promiscuity. And of course, the UK is the substance abuse capital of Europe, another thing that destroys families and makes children vulnerable.

Once upon a time, the modern West had cultural systems in place to protect girls from predators, such as engaged, protective fathers, brothers, and uncles, as well as a traditional morality that they could fall back upon to justify avoiding sex. That’s gone in large parts of England, especially urban England. Again, the same holds true in America. What’s different is that Britain has a greater percentage of Muslims compared to America (5.0% compared to 1.1%) and political correctness has had a more corrosive effect in the United Kingdom as well.

Something interesting happened today, though, and it wasn’t just Brexit becoming official as of January 31. Instead, the Church of England did something completely bizarre by modern standards: It took a stand on the moral culture that is so damaging to young British girls, leaving them vulnerable to the worst kinds of predators. Thus, Church of England Bishops issued a new pastoral guidance that says sex should be confined to heterosexual marriages:

The statement from the House of Bishops says the church’s teaching on marriage “remains unchanged”, claiming sex outside of marriage is “falling short of God’s purpose for human beings”.

It adds: “For Christians, marriage – that is the lifelong union between a man and a woman, contracted with the making of vows – remains the proper context for sexual activity.”

However the church seeks to “uphold that standard” in its approach to civil partnerships and to “affirm the value of committed, sexually abstinent friendships”.

Those in mixed- or same-sex civil partnerships can still be ordained – but only if they abstain from sex, the bishops added.

But members of the clergy are also instructed not to provide a blessing for couples registering a civil partnership.

In modern England, which has been in the forefront of gay marriage and, as I said, the breakdown of traditional heterosexual marriages, this is a big deal.

Leftists are predictably outraged. What’s really funny, in a sad way, is that leftists think there’s something wrong with a church having standards. For them, church is a feel-good place where you go, are told God loves you, and then you get on with doing whatever the heck you please.

If you were looking for any proof that the Church of England @churchofengland is completely out of touch with the lives of, well, basically everyone in England… look no further. https://t.co/SRo507mt6q

— David Mac Dougall (@davidmacdougall) January 23, 2020

You do know that people will have sex regardless of your policy right? https://t.co/7IWolb4aHl

— Philip Normal (@philipnormal) January 23, 2020

Dear Church of England, and Churches everywhere (99% of which are run by men):

Evolve. That’s all. Just stop fighting evolution. Stop judging others and focus on…

Evolving. Thanks. pic.twitter.com/DZXJCDafyy

— Carol Johnson AKA Cleo Everest (@CleoEverest) January 23, 2020

Even clergy in the Church of England are upset. This gal’s response reminds me of the female Episcopalian rector I knew back in the 1980s who liked cocaine and sleeping around. Whatever their reason these hard-left men and women have for becoming ministers, it has little to do with accepting that there are burdens that go along with the benefits of giving your life to God:

I, along with, I imagine, lots of other clergy in the Church of England, would really appreciate your prayers today. Can’t bring myself to wear a collar, but otherwise trying to push through as normal.

— Alice Jolley (@mthr_alice) January 23, 2020

There were also several people who showed off their erudition by pointing out that Henry VIII lived a debauched life. There are two problems with this. The first is the failure to recognize that standards shouldn’t be ditched just because people don’t follow them. Religion is supposed to elevate us, not to join us in the gutter. More significantly, Henry’s choices were driven by debauchery. He believed it was absolutely imperative that a son. There was no way he could look into the future and see his daughter Elizabeth’s splendid reign. All he could do was look into the past, going back almost to William the Conqueror, and see the disasters that resulted when a king died with a strong, adult male to inherit his throne. That’s why he jettisoned the Catholic Church and that’s why he so brutally worked his way through wives.

Anyway, here’s just one example of that foolish, uninformed trend in tweets:

Married couples also say ‘until death do us part’.

The guy who invented the Church of England married 6 wives, divorced 2 and beheaded another 2 https://t.co/iRKVlWGFfy pic.twitter.com/x9CDazoZGj

— Jim Caddick (@Caddicarus) January 23, 2020

A few people did remember that the point of religion is to create a moral framework to allow individuals and societies to achieve optimal functioning:

Breaking news from Mount Sinai circa 1312 BCE https://t.co/iaEINmJxgz

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) January 23, 2020

The Church of England says sex is for married heterosexual couples only. This is only shocking to people who think that churches have to cave to what they want. This rule has been in place for centuries. https://t.co/q5NOpFlr2m

— Carmine Sabia (@CarmineSabia) January 23, 2020

I’m not a fan of the modern Church of England, which is generally leftist in its social and political orientation. Nevertheless, I think the Bishops did something important when they reaffirmed traditional teachings about sex and marriage. First, they have reminded people that religion can be a harsh taskmaster, but its demands come with the promise that both this life and the afterlife will be better for complying with those moral demands.

Second — and this is where I get back to my starting point in this post when I said that the sex trafficking scandal has more important ramifications than lazy and frightened police and politicians  — the Bishops are saying that strong heterosexual families have a purpose in society. One of those purposes is to protect children, especially girls. Intact heterosexual marriages protect girls from the psychological damage that comes from absent fathers. Moreover, those same marriages promise that a father, who is usually a person who truly and altruistically loves a young girl, will protect her from predators bent on using and abusing her.

The post Manchester rape gangs, the Church of England, and marriage appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

It’s time to confess: I am sometimes racist and homophilic

I try not to use race or sexuality as a filter for viewing people, but I have inordinate respect for blacks and LGBT people who come out as conservatives.

My confession today has to start with the fact that I’m a coward. I was raised by parents who were deeply scarred by World War II. The message they gave me was always to keep your head low, don’t make waves, stay out of trouble, don’t stand up and be controversial.

That kind of thinking helped save their lives during the war. What it did for me was create a kind of crazy split personality. By nature, I’m an assertive person. By upbringing, I’m a shrinking violet.

The net result is that I like to fight from behind cover. It’s a good tactic if you’re at El Alamein, as my father was, and the Nazis are shooting at you, or in a concentration camp, as my mother was, when it’s best not to catch the guards’ attention, or in Afghanistan or Iraq fighting a shooting war. But it’s not a very honorable tactic when the only battle is in the American free market of ideas.

My cowardice allowed me to raise my children in a deep Blue suburban enclave without my neighbors ever knowing who I really am. Sure, they knew some of my truth: I’m a loving mother, a good homemaker, a decent lawyer, a supportive neighbor, and a fun (I hope) companion. But I’m also someone who believes deeply in the Constitution and in traditional Western values because I think those two ideologies work well for all people, regardless of race, color, creed, gender, sexual orientation, or country of national origin. I’d give friends hints about my beliefs but, because I’m a coward, that was all they got.

My cowardice has led me into a kind of weird racism. When it comes to conservative black Americans, I respect them above and beyond conservative white Americans. This is because I think it’s much more difficult to come out as a black conservative than it is to come out as a white conservative. Because black conservative’s race matters to me, I guess that makes me a racist.

In the same way, my cowardice has led me into a kind of homophilia. While I generally do not care to whom people are sexually attracted (although I do care a great deal when I’m told I must agree that people can magically change their sex), I have a deep admiration for people whose sexuality is on the LGBTQ spectrum, but who are nevertheless capable of viewing American politics through a freedom filter, not a sex filter.

So let me introduce you to two men whom I greatly admire, men who coincidentally share the same first name. The first is Brandon Tatum, a former police officer, who has unkind things to say about the whole notion of white privilege. I would always admire what Tatum has to say, but I’m not blind to his race, which increases my admiration for him. He’s not just wise, he’s courageous.

The second person is Brandon Straka, who started the #WalkAway movement. Straka’s interview struck me particularly strongly because his childhood was like mine insofar as he had a mother who said, “Whatever you do, don’t make waves.” Unlike me, though, Straka ignored her, made waves, lost 90% of his friends, and along the way started a powerful, inspiring political movement. Again, for me, the fact that he’s gay matters. It took tremendous courage for Straka to abandon his former life for his principles.

The wages of cowardice are meaninglessness. People in liberal enclaves who have the courage in the battle of ideas to put their heads above the parapet make a difference. Watch these videos and see ideological courage in action:

The post It’s time to confess: I am sometimes racist and homophilic appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

What the double endorsement at the New York Times tells us

Faced with a field of highly defective Democrat candidates, the New York Times hides behind identity politics to endorse two seriously flawed women.

Yesterday, the New York Times came in for a good deal of both criticism and laughter when it endorsed not one but two candidates: Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. The mere fact that it’s trying to move two candidates forward simultaneously shows a certain desperation.

And then there was the bizarre illustration that the Times used, one that turned the candidates blue in order to avoid revealing that both women are snowy white. The Times tried to disguise its obvious intent by giving the picture the look of an old-fashioned photo negative (something today’s young people have never seen):

New York Times Warren Klobuchar

When I saw the picture, I had to laugh, because it ties in perfectly with a story about my sister. This was in the late 1950s, when she was very little, maybe three. Dad came home with a developed film roll which, in those days, included the negatives as well as the photographs.

My sister was less interested in the photos than she was in the negatives, with all their upside-down colors. Later that day, when Mom took my sister shopping, they saw a black person at the store and, for the first time, my sister had a name for people whose skin color was the opposite of hers.

“Look, Mommy,” she hollered at the top of her voice. “It’s a negative!”

I can’t help but think that one of the editors at the New York Times was present in the store that day and took inspiration from a toddler’s wonderment.

So please remember, dear Democrats: The New York Times isn’t endorsing two white women, it’s endorsing two negatives.

The double endorsement reveals how desperately frightened Dems are about their own party’s weaknesses. Neither Klobuchar nor Warren is a frontrunner. Indeed, according to today’s running averages poll at Real Clear Politics, Klobuchar only occasionally makes it into the top five or six, while Warren is scrambling to stay in third place:

So what’s going on? Why can’t the New York Times just go with the current leader, Joe Biden, a mainstay of Democrat party politics for decades?

The Times is grappling with the fact that it’s been burnt before. In 2016, we were all promised that Hillary was inevitable because she was a Clinton, a woman and, after that first failed run against Obama, it was her turn. Biden’s that same thing all over. He may be a man, but he’s got some of the Obama cachet and, after several failed presidential runs, it’s his turn.

The problem is that Biden has the same flaws as Hillary: He has a tin ear and he’s corrupt, something that’s going to become very obvious if Democrats insist on a full impeachment, complete with witnesses. Add to that the creepy factor of Biden’s constantly groping and snuggling up to little girls, and you can see where the establishment worries he’s a time bomb.

There’s also the problem of Joe’s chronic foot-in-mouth disease, exacerbated by something that may be incipient senile dementia. Once Biden is facing off against Trump in a debate, even black voters’ loyalty to him because of his Obama ties may not be enough to get him to the finish line.

And Sanders? The base may love this open socialist, but across America, away from the Blue coasts (plus a few dots in the Midwest, Southeast, and Pacific Ocean), people don’t like the idea of electing a man who wants to grow government. They also wonder about the moral principles (or lack of same) that allow a man to have unswerving loyalty to socialism even though he was alive during the decades in which socialism stacked up a hundred million dead bodies and billions of ruined lives. They can tell that his plans promise the worst for America. (I’ve detailed the problems here, here, here, and here.) It takes a modern college education, one heavy on Marxist indoctrination and light on knowledge and wisdom, to support Bernie.

Warren is the next most popular candidate in most polls, although she’s battling a bit with Buttigieg and Bloomberg. If numbers were all that mattered, the Times could as easily have endorsed Buttigieg and Bloomberg. Except that it couldn’t. Not really.

As I’ve written before, while Buttigieg is bright, intellectually agile, and served his country, he’s also someone who’s only real political asset is that he’s gay. Take away the gay and you’re left with a white, two-term mayor of a mid-sized American city that has an outsized crime rate and a local black community that’s extremely hostile to him. This hostility has spread to blacks across America. Buttigieg’s neither a statesman nor an executive. He’s the high school class valedictorian who thinks he’s special because he’s the teachers’ pet. Americans will not think he’s special.

Some Democrats are looking to Mike Bloomberg as their savior because he sounds sane. He’s also willing to invest billions and billions in the race so that, even if he doesn’t win, Trump doesn’t either. Those Democrats who haven’t gone entirely to the socialized dark side like to point out that Bloomberg has been a fiscal conservative in the past. Except that now that he’s in the race, Bloomberg has already begun pandering. Last night, he promised to create a program giving blacks $70 billion in reparations — all to be managed out of the White House, of course.

Aside from the fiscal conservativism and his stop-and-frisk policies, for which he’s already apologized, Bloomberg is an across-the-board Leftist. He supports unlimited abortion, birth control for teenagers, open borders, amnesty, socialized medicine, and the end of the coal industry to satisfy the climate change gods. In addition, he promises to micromanage our diets and even the way in which Jews can circumcise their babies.

Here’s another way of looking at Bloomberg’s politics: Bernie’s socialism leads him to want to control everything. Bloomberg’s desire to control everything leads him to socialism. It’s not a big difference, but it’s a significant one nevertheless.

At the end of the day, Bloomberg’s flop-sweat neediness to win, his off-putting personality, the shameless pandering leading him away from his one decent principle (fiscal conservativism), and the stratospheric disconnection his wealth creates (promising to put coal miners out of work even as he owns more than ten houses, fleets of cars, and at least one plane) will not win over voters. Even investing billions cannot disguise that he’s an awful, charmless, arrogant, little man.

Of course, the big handicapped for Biden, Bernie, Bloomberg, and Buttigieg, aside from the crazy coincidence that the names with which they’re associated all start with “B,” is the fact that they’re white men. That’s a big no-no in today’s Democrat party. Andrew Yang is biologically not a white man, but he’s still a man and the Left keeps thinking that Asians are white because they do well in school and achieve economic success in life. So, no Yang.

The Times is therefore left with two blue women, one of whom is openly hard-Left and a liar, while the other tries to appear moderate but is, in fact, 90% Leftist. Klobuchar’s pose on the debate stage is to be the calm, principled realist, the one who’s not giving the farm away to the socialist comrades. Her policies, to the extent anyone can pin them down, however, hew Left and Lefter. Regarding trying to pin her down, though, it’s painfully clear that Klobuchar is not a leader; she’s a follower who has long been content to be a go-along-to-get-along Senator who does little other than sign group letters.

Still, Wikipedia gives us a little insight into what Klobuchar would stand for if she weren’t constantly hiding behind shrubbery. She’s for greater government surveillance, says America’s past “free society” just oppressed women, doesn’t want the census to record illegal aliens, opposes the death penalty, wants to raise teacher pay, opposed the Surge, supported Obama’s bombing Libya, supports the Iran Deal, supported Obamacare, she raised her hand for health care for illegal aliens. Klobuchar also supports abortion and her stance is a perfect example of her refusal to state her positions. Instead of saying, I support abortion, she’s one of those who says abortion is between a woman and her doctor. This ignores that there’s a larger principle involved, and turns abortion into just another item on the endless checklist of little ideas Klobuchar has.

And that’s the real problem with Klobuchar. She has no big principles. She inches along, mostly hewing Left, but having occasional moments of common sense, such as opposing free four-year college for all or trying to get Obama to attack China’s trade violations.

Klobuchar ends up reminding me of two people, one real, one fictional. When it comes to that lack of any principles and that urge to micromanage, she reminds me of Jimmy Carter. Bloomberg likes to micromanage too, but that’s because he’s a born despot. That’s not Klobuchar. Let me explain.

When Carter was president, a family friend, an engineer, told us that Carter’s problem was that, because he had no big principles, all he could do was follow the data. And whenever the data changed, his direction changed. That’s an excellent quality in an engineer, but a lousy quality in a leader. A good leader sees the forest and knows it has trees in it. A great leader sees both forest and trees. A lousy leader gets lost in the trees or just wanders around them in state of mild discomfort.

If you didn’t like Carter, you won’t like Klobuchar.

Also, Klobuchar’s staffer revealed that she’s a really vicious person behind that moderate demeanor. In that way, she reminds me of Dolores Umbridge, in the Harry Potter books: A soft, smiling mien hiding the soul of a bureaucrat completely wedded to the system that supports her power:

Then there’s Warren. I don’t like her personally, I don’t like her Leftists politics, and I don’t like the endless, very big, very substantive lies she constantly tells to advance her career and her political goals.

I don’t want to hear anyone say, “Well, Trump lies too.” Trump puffs. Crowds aren’t big; they’re huge. His policies are good; they’re the best policies ever. He constantly boasts and wiggles around the margins, but he’s true at his core. He says what he believes. He also says what he intends to do and then he does it.

Warren, however, lies about core things. She lies about who she is, what she’s done, and what she will do. Or, as the Times politely phrases it, “Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller.” She’s not a storyteller. She’s a stone-cold, sociopathic liar. Warren is Hillary, only with even less charm and more flop-sweat desperation to win, if either of those things is possible.

And so we get back to the main point, which is that, faced with an unelectable field, the Times decided to bunt and, as a last-ditch effort to save face in its world of identity politics, to split its endorsement between the two white women on the ticket. It’s a cowardly act, but one expects as much from the dinosaur media.

If you’ve ever seen Fantasia, this is what’s become of the New York Times, once one of the world’s mightiest newspapers in the grand old days of the dinosaur media:

Image credit: Screen grab; The New York Times.

The post What the double endorsement at the New York Times tells us appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Less Than Two Weeks (Finally!) Until BREXIT!

Friday at 7 pm our time on January 31 the UK will LEAVE the EU!

I am right now (1052 PM Friday night January 17) listening to the wonderful, albeit not exciting in form, BBC coverage of the June 23, 2016 Brexit Referendum coverage.

I am gearing up for two weeks from tonight. I am considering a live blog at a location where others can come see me.

My first idea was the nice British-themed Penny Lane Pub in downtown Richmond. Sit with laptop and see if anybody comes by and say hello. Bring a small UK flag.

But I might be at a legal seminar from 1:30 to 3:30PM at the Hanover courthouse and thus maybe a better place to celebrate liberty than the Hanover Tavern!

If I do the live blog, I’ll let you know. Anyone want to suggest a better place in Richmond area?

But finally, FINALLY, we will have Brexit! If the Fourth Turning people are right – maybe the next 80 years will be pro-sovereignty, pro-liberty and a shift to the right. One thing’s for sure: Jesus will come again!

Blogger Sandy is Rooting For the Documentary Produced by the Obamas to Win an Oscar – WAT?

This may be conclusive evidence: God has a sense of humor!

There is no reason why the Lord can’t have a sense of humor. Humans are created in the image of God and we can laugh at holy humor. And this little story ranks right up there with a hearty LOL!

American Factory is a feature documentary about when a Chinese company takes over a factory in Moraine, OH (not far from where Sandy the Blogger went to college over 40 years ago and stirred up trouble – protesting Jane Fonda and opposing the ERA – some things never change it seems!) and it is indeed the first production by a company, Higher Ground, that can be seen on Netflix.

Here is a small highlight:

Barack and Michelle Obama’s production company, Higher Ground, in partnership with Netflix, acquired “American Factory” in April 2019.

The Tweet reads: 

“Glad to see American Factory’s Oscar nod for Best Documentary. It’s the kind of story we don’t see often enough and it’s exactly what Michelle and I hope to achieve with Higher Ground. Congrats to the incredible filmmakers and entire team!”

So why are the 44th President and his wife and Sandy Sanders all rooting for the same film to win an Oscar? Are we all crazy?

Because the directors Steven Bognar and Julia Reichert are respectively an alum and a professor emeritus at Wright State University – where Blogger Sanders went to college! And recall last year when there was excitement in the Sanders home when the first WSU alum to win the statuette, Hannah Beachler, won an Oscar for Best Production Design category. The blogger took an old WSU pennant and cheered like crazy; he actually broke his rule: No Oscar watching (partly due to too much left-wing politics and no recognition of the only actor and Screen Actors Guild president to be elected President of the United States: Ronald Wilson Reagan) so Sandy tried to time it closely and only had to watch about 30 minutes before Beachler’s historic win.

Well the rule will have to be broken again! (There also is some faith-based Oscar excitement – in the Best Song category – “I’m Standing With You” from the movie Breakthrough. But recall that a few years ago a similar song from a faith-based movie was kicked out of the contention for alleged illegal campaigning. So we’ll wait and see!)

And, besides the Obama connection, American Factory has won some preliminary awards, including two Cinema Eye Honors Award, the Critic’s Choice Documentary Award for Best Political Documentary (Oh no!) and the Gotham Award.

So let’s dig out and sing the WSU fight song (here it is!) and get out that old pennant again!

We are tough,
We are great,
We are Wright State.
We will defeat every foe,
They will know, We are here,
When we all stand up and cheer…Victory
With our green and our gold,
Raiders onward,
We will fight right and be true,
So let’s go, fight, win.
Let the action begin,
We’re from W-S-U!

More irony:

“American Factory” received another feather in its cap this week when Washington Post movie critic Ann Hornaday named it the best movie of 2019 in her list of favorites. 

That splashing sound is the blogger dunking himself in battery acid! 🙂 I think the existence of God – with sense of humor – has been proven!

Sunday February 9 at 8 pm are the Oscars. I’ll sing the fight song as I do the victory lap if Bognar and Reichert win.