Posted on

PARKS AND RECREATION ON THE FRITZ

The following article appeared in The Oregonian on March 28, 2018:

 

“A man who describes himself as a “light-skinned Hispanic male” has filed a lawsuit against the city of Portland, claiming Parks and Recreation denied him job opportunities because his skin isn’t dark enough.

Frank Higuera says in the suit that he worked as a seasonal parks ranger for several years before the city eliminated his job during budget cuts. The suit claims he wasn’t rehired for several other parks jobs despite meeting the qualifications “because his skin color was too light.” Higuera claims “applicants of darker skin color were selected . . . because of the color of their skin and not because of their qualification.”

Parks managers told him they wanted to hire him but learned they couldn’t because he was the “wrong color,” according to the lawsuit, filed last Friday. A parks and Recreation manager also told him that he would need to get a suntan to land a full-time city job, the suit says.

Higuera filed a complaint with the city human resources office and was told it would be investigated, but he never heard back, he says in the lawsuit.

Human resources officials declined to confirm that Higuera worked for the city and his filing of a discrimination complaint. A spokesman for Amanda Fritz, the city commissioner in charge of Parks and Recreation, said Fritz doesn’t comment on personnel matters or pending lawsuits. Higuera plans to ask a jury to award him $530,000 for lost wages and emotional distress.

 

Sophisticated bureaucrats have discovered the Fitzpatrick Scale, described by Wikipedia, as follows:

 

Fitzpatrick scale:

The following list shows the six categories of the Fitzpatrick scale in relation to the 36 categories of the older von Luschan scale:[87][88]

Type Also called Sunburning Tanning behavior Von Luschan’s chromatic scale
I Light, pale white Always Never 0–6
II White, fair Usually Minimally 7–13
III Medium, white to light brown Sometimes Uniformly 14–20
IV Olive, moderate brown Rarely Easily 21–27
V Brown, dark brown Very rarely Very easily 28–34
VI Very dark brown to black Never Never 35–36

 

As might be expected, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Frank Higuera deserved better notice of the conditions of service when applying to Parks and Recreation. Conseratismbittersweet recommends that Portland job applicants be issued a color wheel at the time of time their applications are submitted. As an efficiency move, doing so reduces the cities paperwork and prevents both sides from wasting their time. The color wheel should come with instructions. For example:

 

“Place your color wheel against the back of your forearm and match your skin tone to that of the appropriate Fitzpatrick color. Your skin tone must match the designated Fitzpatrick tone as shown in the upper righthand corner of the application. If your skin tone does not match, you are not eligible for the job for which you are applying.” The color wheel should, of course, be reusable and recyclable, as any city proffered materials must be.

 

Of course, the root of these procedural requirements is the desire for City of Portland equity, and it is obvious that an efficiently operating government is a fair government. Although Mr. Higuera was applying for outdoor employment, similar operational efficiencies are achievable for office work. Conservatismbittersweet recommends that office cubicles be arranged from light to dark in order to facilitate manager confirmation of the accurate Fitzpatrick scale number.

 

Under the circumstances, it is recommended that the city take care of its employees responsibly and supply an appropriate quantity of sunscreen to prevent workers from putting themselves out of work unnecessarily. Clearly the compassionate city must support the people.

 

Had Mr Higuera been aware of the true requirements of the job, he would have saved the city money in his application and heartache for himself.

 

And here is one more suggestion. Every employment office window should have the following sign as appropriate to the job:

 

Applicants for Fitzpatrick skin tone number I-V need not apply.

Posted on

CRIME AND JUSTICE

One would think that a basic function of American government is to administer and enforce the laws of the United States. To that end, the head of the executive branch of this country, President Trump, has called for the National Guard of the respective states to help defend the border with Mexico.

 

Predictably, the leftist governor of Oregon, Kate Brown, has refused to contribute Oregon troops to the effort. Liberal Democrats (redundancy noted) believe that they have an acute sensitivity to moral and ethical decisions. This allows them to ignore laws erroneously passed by the American democracy that elected them. Ignoring anti-marijuana laws or retaining illegal aliens is no problem. The high moral standards they have designated for themselves allows them to ignore murderers who inhabit their communities, having figured out that a little collateral damage from the felons is acceptable, as long as it advances the notion that American standards of compassion have been upheld. Their high moral beliefs also allow them to advocate for peace and killing unborn human beings at the same time.

 

It is assumed at this point that you are still following their line of reasoning, but if you lack their moral acuity you may not. Therefore, if confused, simply trust them to guide you as they see fit, for they have sent the conundrums of modern life through their moral sifter and arrived at the truth.

 

Now consider the dilemma of George Washington. In order to support the government of the United States, it was necessary to levy taxes. Everyone hates taxes (except left-wing Democrats). Thinking of the Federalists of the day as the analogue to Republicans of today is a bit of a stretch, but the government was just starting out and the party in power determined that steps to support government decisions were necessary. Taxes are a necessary part of citizenship. Note: this is not the same as saying all taxes are justified or desirable. So, with the encouragement of Alexander Hamilton and others, a tax on distilled spirits was imposed in 1791.

 

The locus of the problem was in four counties in western Pennsylvania and two in western Virginia where opponents of the tax had gone so far as to create a flag with six stripes to symbolize the organized opposition in the six counties in question. A little context is required here. The French Revolution and its aftermath were in full swing, and what had the American revolution been about, but taxation without representation. It was somewhat lost on the tax opponents that this was an example of taxation with representation. The resistance, which became known as the Whiskey Rebellion, threatened to topple the fragile government. With French-like threats to form a committee of public safety and calls for the guillotine, a real threat existed to the future of the United States.

 

Stepping into the breach as usual, President Washington took control of the situation, and found legal support from Justice James Wilson for the formation of a militia to answer the violent faux French revolutionaries. Washington became the only president to personally lead soldiers into battle. Washington realized the importance of his mission, for in his words and reasoning, that if the laws were “trampled upon with impunity, and a minority . . . is to dictate to the majority, there is an end put at one stroke to republican government.”[1]

 

Forced to deal with the 13,000-man militia force, the rebel opposition was crushed. Some 150 prisoners were brought to account for their transgressions. Washington showed mercy in all cases by granting clemency to the rebels, including two who were convicted and sentenced to death, but pardoned by the president.

 

Today the United States is threatened by a metastasized rebellion fomented by public officials and leftist ideologues who believe that they are empowered by superior moral judgment to override the law as it stands. Clearly there is for many of them a design to further deny Americans their rights by facilitating a vote for aliens to which those aliens are not entitled. They are aided by well-meaning people who believe they are helping a downtrodden population of victims, when, in fact, they are perpetuating the same unsolved problems other countries do not fix, by providing a safety valve for dictators and political monopolists who exploit their people.

 

The rule of law in a democracy represents the power of justice in action.

[1] Washington A Life by Ron Chernow, Penguin Books2010

 

 

Posted on

ON COMPELLED COMPASSION

In 1984, former Oregon State University basketball star Lonnie Shelton was the victim of a robbery attempt. At 6-foot-8, 275 pounds, Shelton was a formidable figure. One day while emerging from a restaurant with his girlfriend, Cathy, he was faced with a would-be thief holding a 357-magnum and a demand for all his money. The thief might just as well have challenged him to a one-on-one basketball game as Shelton disarmed the villain and trapped him under his 275 lbs of body. As a born-again Christian, Shelton saw an opportunity to convert his attacker. But the thief was deaf to Shelton’s Christian testimony and began to squirm, so Shelton hit him on the head with a rock.

 

There is no evidence here that either a compelling argument or a physical incentive transduces the Holy Spirit or any other electrifying concept successfully unless the listener is receptive on his own. Well, there’s no harm in trying, except, that is, there is the risk of a bump on the head. That brings up several questions, the most immediate one being, what is compassion? The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as follows: “The deep feeling of sharing the suffering of another, together with the inclination to give aid or support to show mercy.” Acting compassionately entails a relationship between two or more people in the same situation.

 

For the devout Christian, the biblical story of the good Samaritan informs personal judgment. The victim, a Jew, is injured in a thief’s attack. Several Jews pass him by. A Samaritan, a religious outsider and unclean to the Jews, stops, dresses the victim’s wounds, and places the victim on his “own beast.” The Samaritan takes the no-name victim to an Inn where he tells the inn keeper to take care of him and spend what is necessary and he will reimburse the inn keeper later. The story teaches how we live with one another as members of the same species. Bad things happen to good people though the story does not pass judgment on the victim.

 

Compassion, therefore, is a person-to-person relationship. It is also possible to feel compassion for someone from afar, or within physical reach. Consider the people of Haiti after a deadly hurricane destroys lives and buildings. The experts on the Haitian experience certainly are the Haitians. The rest of us can feel compassion for the victims of a natural disaster, but the remoteness of the event dilutes the empathy. Besides, the news passes onto the next cat-in-the-tree story. Yes, the firemen saved Buffy again. Now do you feel better. Pictures at eleven.

 

Human personalities are so empathetic their imagination can take them to the island, and the other extreme is a sociopath who feels nothing. The human experience is, for sure, diverse. There are many reasons we feel compassion and many reasons the physically remote space, culture, or repetitive nature of human traumatic drama allow us to move on. The term in vogue is compassion fatigue. In the end, compassion, kind, loving, and empathetic people step in and help their neighbor. Christmas can’t come too soon for the destitute and the weak, but it doesn’t come often enough.

 

Who do we help first and the most? Usually it is family members. Next, we might find ourselves supporting our friends – maybe offering a room to someone we are close to until they can find a job. But it is only normal that as the emotional and geographic distance become greater, most (though not all) of us are relegated to a few dollars to the bank fund to help the poor and unfortunate. We help those we are closest to first. This is not an indictment of humanity, but a practical way of dispensing resources with the assurance they will be well used and benefit the intended target. Unfortunately, it works against those who lack resources. Most people realize this and place their trust in organizations that have expertise in helping the specific problem – rebuilding a city after a natural disaster, coaxing the addicted to sobriety, and treating the sick.

 

The history of the Judeo-Christian tradition teaches direct compassion towards the innocent and the guilty, as the dictionary definition implies. The obese who can’t stop excessive eating, the drug addled alcoholic who can’t stop drinking, the spendthrift who lives high only to lose a home or family (see the Prodigal Son), and societies who fail to improve materially despite great resources, are all objects of compassion, perhaps reluctant compassion, but, may earn our efforts at reform anyway.

 

Compassion is a human relationship built on judgment and rationality after we are moved by our emotions. It is above all a relationship. There is a donor as well as a receiver of the donation. Someone who donates an organ to a stranger (at some personal risk), or the donation of money, or filling sandbags to hold off the swelling river threatening someone else’s house, define giving. But, also, there is an exchange, for the old saying is, that it is better to give than to receive. As a relationship, compassion is a condition which benefits both the giver and the receiver. We live daily with a relationship with other people. Even the capital punishment condemned have a relationship to their executioner. Compassion is about the favorable exchange between two humans. It is an exchange of humanity.

 

There is, also, a kind of middle ground of compassion as projected by Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and bygone era foundation founders such as Carnegie, Rockefeller, and a host of lesser donors. These donors have lived lives of varying luxury, and the greatest luxury is to be so filthy rich that you can give it away (in some cases after death) and still maintain your elite lifestyle. One can hear Christ saying, give your wealth away and follow me. It would be unfair to totally castigate this group of donors. They have the choice to undertake compassionate relief or not. Not everyone does, and even those who may donate only for the (now disappearing) tax advantage, deserve credit for their actions as opposed to the possibility of inaction. Even here there is the satisfaction of accomplishing something. The end to poverty and disease would give us all fewer objectives to pursue. Don’t worry, it isn’t happening soon.

 

In our more primitive lives, there was nothing but personal intercourse. As humanity became more mobile, geography played a part in our relationship. There is no doubt that it is easier to start a war remotely with the robotic arms of hidden drones than to throw a rock at your neighbor as he chops down a tree that lands over your property line onto your roof. It is more blessed to give than to receive or the dark side wins. The dark side, though, has more tricks up the sleeve than a successful magician.

 

Among the fraudulent representations of compassion is government compassion. The idea of a fulfilled taxpayer as a cheerful donor of funds via a compassionate government intermediary who professionally administers generosity to the tired, the poor, the huddled masses makes about as much sense as your average carcinogenic FEMA trailer (which you can have in any color as long as it is white). Or, consider the Veteran whose foot is about to fall off and is told there will be an appointment opening 365 days from today.

 

Many Americans have come to view taxation with representation as nearly as bad as taxation without representation. Bureaucracies take on a life of their own and metastasize into ineffectual behemoths that consider self-perpetuation as their prime directive. Unfortunately, the relationship between taxpayer and government is about as close as any two stars you care to mention. This isn’t to say that government as an organizing force has nothing to offer, but it underlines the lack of humanity in the process of taxation with representation. The need for government to undertake welfare support ought to occasion deep reflection about the nature of one’s society. It should not be the reason for increased spending, which, just by the way, might gain the political advocate of such a policy a few votes. The remoteness of the donor to the receiver, in both the geographical sense as well as underlying emotional attachment, dilutes the good to a faint trace.

 

Nearly all utility companies offer some sort of charitable opportunity designed to pay for electricity to indigent users in need—usually during the frigid winter months. Utilities which mandate “Low Income Assistance” are no better than the government regulators who allow utilizes to offer such opportunities. If either of these approving entities wanted, they could provide the assistance themselves. Some governments mandate it as a part of the bill the paying users receive. At that point it becomes involuntary. It’s interesting that the utilities, in order to entice the voluntary contribution to the low-income assistance cause often show a picture of a child as an example of the beneficiary who might receive the donation. In doing so, they spend money on the printing of the advertising involuntarily donated by the paying public. In other words, they humanize their computerized appeals in order to achieve a calculated result. Again, the geographical distance and emotional distance require utilities to boost their appeals by pulling at the strings of guilt. The difference between guilt and conscience might be a topic for another day.A tax by any other name is still a tax. Lonnie Shelton can tell you, a rock or good intentions are not enough.

Posted on

THE FLAG AS SYMBOL

Flag of the U.S.S.Constitution

The NFL (Not For Long, Not Funny League) has modified its rules on political demonstrations to tacitly condone the protests against the flag of the United States. This, despite banning a tribute to 911 victims by the NFL in earlier years. Some have suggested, that by kneeling in protest in front of the flag, NFL players are not really protesting the flag. Really, it must be the Nazi, White Supremacist in Section 12, Row 8.

 

No, it actually was the flag that they protested. What courage is that? You soften your protest if you come back and say, it really wasn’t an attack on the flag as some have said. Suppose an opponent of abortion protested in the same manner and pointed to the crowd and said, “I was aiming for that right-to-do-with-your-body-whatever-you-want woman in Section 66, Row versus Wade, not the flag.” Yes, it is actually the flag.

 

The irony in this is that the flag covers even the flag protestors (if they are United States citizens). So, in a sense they are protesting themselves. Perhaps that is not wrong, but intellectually it means nothing; protesting the flag is a cry for (publicity) help. Protestors do such things to draw attention to their narcissistic selves as if they are above the flag. But the flag represents everyone and stands above them, and should represent a deeper solemnity for the pain and sacrifice of those who have suffered and died for the flag and what it represents.

 

Angry Iranians, as well as others, burn the American flag. It is not their flag. Americans have not taken to burning foreign flags, just their own. Such is the freedom in this country. When women and slaves lacked the vote, there might be an argument that they could protest by burning the flag to demonstrate their plight. But, again, American citizens with the vote protesting their own flag, protest themselves.

 

That it is offensive to many of their fellow Americans does not bother them. Offending foreign people of color insensitively is tantamount to a crime against humanity. Offending patriotic Americans – no big deal.

 

A fair person must honestly say, protest is honorable, and if a grievance is heartfelt, a thoughtful person must also say, go for it. But that is not a license for any action the imagination can summon. Physical harm is not allowed, and other societal proscriptions may apply. Dishonoring the flag is one of them.

 

But here is the heart of the matter: the American flag is a broad brush. Attacking the flag is an attack on Jew and Gentile, Black and White, Old and Young, Gay and Straight, and all the combinations and possibilities that come under the banner of Citizen of the United States.

 

The flag that the NFLers protested is the symbol that has draped the coffins of its soldiers of all kinds and colors. Those who have died and given up everything that comes with a long life, should remain the most honored citizens – revered and respected, and not a cause for diminishing the American flag. Let us remember, the first man to die in the Revolutionary War was the likely runaway slave, Crispus Attucks, who was half Black and half Native American. Since then many have suffered and died for their country – a country that honors protest, but not desecration or disrespect.

Posted on

JIHAD

The United States is headed towards a crisis. Democrats, well versed in the art of treachery, have launched their own Jihad (holy war) against the duly and legally elected president of the United States. There Jihad is not much different from that of ISIS.

For they believe they have superior moral values and greater intellectual breadth than anyone else outside their elite bounds. They have determined that anything – no lie, no deception, no illegality – is unreasonable in their attempt to unseat the legally elected president. It has led the left-wing press (an unavoidable redundancy) to turn the truth upside down. It has led the lefty columnist Eugene Robinson to persecute the president and accuse him of having a persecution complex. It has, more recently [The Oregonian, 8/6/17], caused Ruth Marcus, another of the lefty press to accuse the president of “. . . a one-man assault on the rule of law.”

The topsy-turvy world of Ruth Marcus believes that, “Trump’s campaign and now his presidency have been an unceasing effort to demean the Constitution. From “fake news” to “so-called” judges, from his ill-considered travel ban to encouraging police officers’ roughing up of suspects, Trump is a one-man assault on the rule of law.”

Let us put aside the idea that Ms. Marcus looks past the obliteration of 33,000 subpoenaed emails by Hillary Clinton and the use of a private server, contrary to U. S. law, as well as many other questionable practices. Let us look past the support for illegal aliens, including criminals. (We don’t have enough already in this country). Let us look at the idea that President Trump, defending himself against the contrived, false charges of a Russian conspiracy is not allowed to voice his views because, why? Oh, he is not allowed to defend himself by exposing the methods of left-wing propaganda or the efforts of the deep state to undermine his presidency and by the “resistance” movement, which includes a left-wing establishment of judicial extremists who believe that they are the law, not the interpreters of the law.

For sure, President Trump does not play by the rules of understatement and pretense typical of all the players in Washington D. C. He has attracted the support of equally blunt and unpretentious thinkers among the working class as well as many fellow Republicans. He is not always right. But here is the difference, he is not undermining the process of selecting a president by political legerdemain and savage hatred by pretense. What is the proof of this? Before even his inauguration, his enemies called for his impeachment. There has been an unrelenting scream of hate speech built into nearly all the commentary about President Trump. The news operations of the establishment press have been non-stop in their unkind interpretations of Trump policy.

They did not pause to think about how President Obama’s policies “evolved” over time. In fact, before he accomplished anything, President Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize. The expectations of the press and the deep state were set from the beginning of both presidencies, and they became self-fulfilling.

The current president has been the victim of illegal acts, not the perpetrator of them. A conversation of General Michael Flynn was illegally leaked to the press, which was dutifully printed by the bearers of stolen words. Conversations with foreign leaders and President trump have also been leaked. More leaks have occurred from the current administrations than any others and some, if caught, will go to jail. The unrelenting sympathy for a Democrat congressperson shot by an imbalanced gunman compares to the disappearing coverage of Steve Scalise and a group of Republican congresspersons who were near victims of an assassination attempt. Let us hope that Steve Scalise and the other targets don’t have a persecution complex.

It is stating the obvious, that Ruth Marcus and a host of insiders have, to varying degrees, launched a political attack against the sitting President of the United States. This is politics. Politics can be rough, and that is not the complaint. The complaint is that the hypocrisy of the left has come to the point of stealing the election by the appointment of a special prosecutor by one of the witnesses involved in the complaint. The special prosecutor, a friend of the discredited former James Comey, has appointed a list of Democrat attorneys to aid him in his investigations. To President Trump, this is a set-up. They will find something illegal to accuse the president of doing. Ms. Marcus who reveres the Constitution, will drop her pretense of innocent until proven guilty, and announce an I-told-you-so victory, along with other deep state backers, and hound the president until he has been impeached. The people who did not see perjury in Bill Clinton as a high crime or misdemeanor will have the opportunity to remove the duly elected president for advocating for his people. If this scenario should enfold, the crisis will begin. The left may see a President Pense as a victory, but democracy will have failed. We shall not go beyond this point. But if this scenario is not chilling to citizens of the United States, then you are living in the Ruth Marcus fantasy world, that actions have no consequences, and the Newtonian rule that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Posted on

PATRIOT DAYS – JULY 4, 2017

Thundering overhead, the F15s liven the quiet sounds of the distant blue skies and impose themselves on the living creatures of the earth below. They are, like the fireworks of celebration, a reminder of American history.

Flag of the U.S.S.Constitution

The founding of the United States has been defined as a moment in human history as well as the history of a people of a particular geography. For it was the founding of the Republic of the United States of America that established the principal of a broadly elected form of government, “. . .of the people, by the people and for the people. . . .” These words by Abraham Lincoln were not spoken until well after the establishment of the United States, but they sum up the powerful motive of those who carried out the revolution necessary to attain its fortune. They were spoken at a moment in time when the nation was at the point of disintegration, yet like a phoenix, resurrected itself into a new state capable of rejecting the economic and social addiction to oppression and slave labor.

The hard road was bitter. Many times the country has reinvented itself in small ways and large. But the founding revolution has been vindicated at each step of the way. Sometimes the words, “God bless America” have been heard in song and prayer, evoking the emotional punch of heartfelt experience and hope. The history of America has suggested that divine intervention was, indeed, required to pass the Civil War test, tests in WW I and WWII. There have been more subtle moments as well in the great struggle during the cold war against communist powers. The Soviet Union no longer occupies numerous conquered peoples surrounding its true borders. In fact, the Soviet Union does not exist. We hope and pray that so much divine support becomes less necessary and the people, often virtuous in generosity to a fault, unify and find the solution to problems both foreign and domestic that plague its continuance.

Alternatively, the worst offense is to waste the love of our Creator and the lives of those lost defending America, and fall victim to hatred and malignant recrimination. America is no longer a juvenile country, but the leader of the world, and by extension, all of humanity. The cruelty of ISIS and the threat of nuclear war with North Korea rival the internal disseThention within America as existential threats. Then there are the traditional enemies of miserable poverty, starvation, and disease. The United States is our hope and our base for action, but civilizations fail and there are no guarantees of success, or even improvement on human ignorance and ill will. On second thought, God bless America.

Posted on

MEMORIAL DAY

Bravery is not a skill so much as it is a temperament. On this Memorial Day, the most honored Americans are recognized for the ultimate sacrifice to their country – their own life. Ironically, a key value of bravery is fear, for if there is no fear, how can there be bravery. The issue became prominent when President Trump said of John McCain:

“He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured. Perhaps he’s a war hero, but right now he’s said some very bad things about a lot of people.”

The president, who has been given to fits of pique now and then, was raising an issue obliquely that has philosophical angles and questions that exposes the anatomy of the human heart and mind to examination.

During the course of a rough campaign Human bravery can make different appearances in different circumstances. Certainly, facing a hostile audience is an act of bravery, and in a remote way, it can be viewed as a sacrifice. But sacrifice and bravery are two different, unrelated things.

Here is a thought experiment: Two soldiers are in two different foxholes during a battle. The battle has heated up. Bullets are flying inches over the top of the foxhole, bombs are exploding and lighting the night sky, the soldiers are held back until the order to charge is given. Then the order comes. The two hypothetical soldiers, both fearful and praying, leap out of their bunkers at exactly the same moment, bayonets fixed, rifles loaded. Soldier one steps on the battle terrain and is immediately annihilated by a shell fired by the other side. Nothing is left to inter into a gravesite. Soldier two charges the opposition and miraculously is untouched by shell or shrapnel, and takes the enemy position after dispatching five enemy soldiers and saving the life of three of his comrades. One could argue that the soldier who took the enemy position was braver than the fellow soldier who died. He leapt from the foxhole as did his now deceased fellow soldier, and, also, faced the enemy five times and won. But one sacrificed his life and the other did not.

Equal bravery was required to jump out of a place of shelter and face the possibility of personal doom. But suppose the shell that killed soldier one had been aimed differently and had killed soldier two. War is unfair. Perhaps, soldier one would have been the survivor and the one alive to wear the medals. The results do not necessarily reflect bravery, but more the randomness of life. Nothing is certain and nothing is inevitable outside of divine intervention.

The movie Hacksaw Ridge depicts the heroism of Desmond T. Daws a conscientious objector who refused to take up weapons against the enemy and performed as a medic in WW II. He was the first to win the Medal of Honor without firing a shot. During the Battle of Okinawa, he saved seventy-five lives on the Maeda escarpment and was wounded four times. He, too, survived the war. It is anti-climactic to say that he had already won a Bronze star medal in a previous campaign in the Philippines and numerous other commendations.

Where does such bravery come from?

American history is replete with acts of heroism. George Washington did not hang from a tree because he was not caught. He spent frigid days in winter holding together a part-time army together while his well-to-do lifestyle was on hold.

Hundreds of thousands died to keep the union together and free the slaves. Abraham Lincoln, the commander in chief was shot dead after he had ended the terrible conflict.

John Kennedy survived the destruction of his PT boat and saved his crew. A future president survived. His brother, Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., who John and the Kennedy family believed was the best hope to be a future president of the United States, was lost on a mission. His body was never recovered.

Human sacrifice for the greater good is a part of human DNA and arrives sometimes at unexpected places and conditions. On Memorial Day, we honor bravery and sacrifice in defense of our country. They aren’t the same, but they go together, and we honor those whose lives were stopped short of all their hopes and remember that freedom for the three hundred ten million Americans living today was bought by the bravery and sacrifice of those we don’t know, yet honor.

God bless America.

Flag of the U.S.S.Constitution
Posted on

ERATA

 

Your foot is your enemy in politics. Remember this: your foot should not be deployed. Politicians, do not “shoot yourself in the foot,” or put your “foot in your mouth.” Lefties go beyond mere talk and deploy their collective feet in deed as well as word. Indeed, it can be hard to keep up with their foot deployment. Here is an actual secret dialogue obtained by Conservatism Bittersweet from previously unpublished accounts* of an interview by Secretary Clinton’s and the sycophantic press to which she has been accustomed:

SP: If you were a color, what color would you be?

HC: I think It would be the color purple, after the manner of that wonderful African American movie of the same name. You know how I value African Americans. They still suffer at the hands of the American Enterprise Institute inspired racism and by deplorable people who want to work at jobs with choking carbon dioxide emissions. That’s why we needed . . .

SP: Thank you for that amazing answer. Let me ask you another question. You have been criticized for your use of equipment which every Secretary of State has had for years. Do you think the opposition misunderstands your professional needs?

HC: We all need equipment in our jobs. The Secretary of State’s job is thankless enough without having to use outdated government equipment. I was generous enough to save the taxpayer the cost of the equipment I used. And I might add, until the snoops perverted my intentions, I was not going to mention my generous donation to our beloved United States Treasury.

SP: That was a wonderful exposition on the value of having your own server. But weren’t you worried that the idea of your own server might be used against you?

HC: [Hillary chortles] Oh, no, no, no. Who would suspect that the Russians would violate American law so blatantly.

SP: You were Secretary of . . .

HC: Oh, look, it’s my friend Donna Brazile. Come on in Donna and sit down next to me.

SP: Welcome, Donna.

HC: Did you get the shot of us holding hands. A white woman and a black woman.

SP: Definitely, yes. And what is that piece of paper you are handing Secretary Clinton?

DB: Oh, merely an affirmation. Secretary Clinton, just as anyone would after a stolen election, needs support with positive trigger words.

SP: Well, let’s get to our next question. What are your feelings . . .

HC: What are my feelings about Russian intervention in the elections?

SP: How did you know that was my question?

HC: Modesty forbids an answer to that question. But let me answer the one about the Russians. It was clearly a defining point in the election. We had Donald Trump right where we wanted him. And remember, we won the popular vote. But the Russians spied on us and hacked our emails. That was unfair. On top of that, the Republicans had to be behind the whole thing. That was proven by the result, if nothing else.

SP: You must have other reasons for the loss. Surely, you . . .

HC: Thank you, Donna. You are going to ask me about the woman factor. Let’s not mince words. The word is misogyny! Donald Trump hates women as well as everyone else, except white males. They played the bigot card and won. I won’t condescend to that level, myself. That’s not what America stands for and that’s not what I am about.

SP: Truly, you are a brave woman. But what happened? More than fifty percent of the population is women. Perhaps a recount is in order.

HC: Ah, you have hit on one of the paradoxes of this election. And the answer is that right-wing mancave, Fox News. Yes, Fox News! They intimidate women as extensive research has shown. If the FCC had done its job and stopped their hate speech in its tracks as they should have, the election would not have been stolen. I don’t understand why the capitals of our national conscience . . .

SP: Colleges and universities?

HC: Yes, very good. If the values of our universities where enforced against the all-important Fourth Estate, our constitution would have remained intact. Unfortunately, higher learning has got to do a better job of controlling the hurtful speech of some of these rogue elements that materialize as capitalist tools.

SP: But you have done . . .

HC: Thank you, Donna. I have done all I can to remove the intimidating influence of men. Having run for president twice makes me an expert on the techniques of male dominance used in campaigns.

SP: But that includes . . .

HC: It includes Barack Obama, but I found him particularly enlightened – an exception to the rule – otherwise I wouldn’t have served in his cabinet. As Secretary of State, I was in an ideal position to view the way men intimidate women, which is why we must be unified in the future. I didn’t let that old desert rat, Gaddafi, intimidate me. So why did I let Vlad the Impaler Putin push my reset button? It was my way of signaling to American women the very fact that he was pushing all our buttons. He doesn’t like strong women.

SP: That was very clever symbolism.

HC: Thank you. I knew you would see it my way.

SP: That’s why I am here. Since you brought up men, let’s talk about John Podesta.

HC: That would be a violation of his privacy. He still has that right, even if I’m not employing him anymore.

SP: Very well, but he did say some things that were – shall we say – controversial.

HC: Are you quoting from that stolen material, which has not been proven to be true.

SP: You mean the Wiki . . .

HC: I don’t comment on alleged transcripts of Russian hacked materials.

SP: I understand completely. I only wanted to give you the chance to express your rage.

HC: I am outraged!

SP: Speaking of that, let’s move on to James Comey. He seemed to be playing some sort of a game with you. Yet, the presidency was at stake.

HC: Well, there you go again. The man problem. I think you can see the misogyny connection pop up once more. It seems so obvious to have all these charges Trumped up, so to speak, and then nothing comes from it.

SP: Aren’t you in a protected class?

HC: Uh, what. Oh, yes well, that is true, but let’s stay in the real world, because we aren’t always protected in the real world. You’ve mentioned one more reason for me to have been president. We are constantly challenged by injustice and the lack of equity for women and minorities, not to mention presidential glass ceilings. If we could only break through the presidential glass ceiling, we could make a new start and provide women with all that they need in life to be like me, not that they have to be exactly like me, but so that women can have successful careers with publicly supplied birth control in all forms.

SP: It was only logical that you should do for American woman what Barack Obama did for people of color.

HC: You have a good point. Alas, it is a cruel irony to be beaten by the Russians.

SP: Anyway, we were talking about James Comey. He came up with those fake stories about you. Do you regret not taking other actions – legal actions, of course – to equalize the playing field with the Russians and Trump?

HC: Absolutely! I knew Bill should have had a more stern talk with Loretta on that tarmac. Mmmmm, Donna, what’s got into you – putting your hand on my mouth like that.

SP: Ms. Brazile, that is a big piece of paper.

HC: Say, would you mind redacting that last comment I just made from the record. Sometimes we just say something that isn’t quite what we mean.

SP: Sure, no problem.

 

⃰ Contentious rumors initiated by left-wing character assassins accusing the author of a Russian connection are hereby denied.

Posted on

ALL-OUT ATTACK – THE COLD WAR ON CONSERVATIVES HEATS UP

Over the preceding weeks, the revenge Democrats have expanded their front against the Trump Administration as widely as they possibly can. No half-truth has gone unnoticed or unused in this war. The politics of personal destruction have appeared once again to create distractions from the Democrats stall tactics in the Senate. The latest victim is Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. He is accused of lying to Congress after stating that he had not contacted the Russians about campaign matters from the joke of a senator from Minnesota, Al Franken. Never mind, that Sessions answered accurately the rambling question that was asked. If you can twist the truth to suit your needs, you too can be a Senate Democrat.

In a Washington Post article by Ron Charles – a book reviewer for the newspaper – the author tripped over the words of Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway’s who described “alternative facts” that she would issue in the defense of President Trump’s assertion that he drew the largest audience ever to his inauguration. In elaborating on his point, Charles compared the use of the words, “alternative facts,” to the world created by George Orwell in his elegantly satirical book “1984.” In Charles’ view, “Big Brother’s pronouncements are treated as absolute truth by his acolytes, even when they defy rational thought – so Black is White, 2+2=5, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.”

A rational reading on this point would suggest that Conway’s views might equate to the debate on global climate change. Where a Leftist might state that sea levels are rising, the other side might express the alternative fact that the earth has been warming since the last ice age. The defense of a point of view can be stated correctly, but in the aggregate remain wrong. But Charles’ comments were not really about inelegant language and a book. His views were part of a larger effort by the Left in this country to discredit, by any means, the policies of the Trump administration.

Conway is a lightning rod for criticism. More recently she was the target of a crude joke by Rep. Cedric Richardson. During a session in the Whitehouse Oval Office, Conway was sitting on her heals on a sofa in a room and pictured with 60 African American Presidents of historically black universities and President Trump. Richardson commented “ . . . she really looked familiar to me in that position . . . . He later apologized for the derogatory comment. Yet, it is a tribute to her effectiveness as a senior Whitehouse advisor that she continues to draw criticism for even her posture on a couch.

Very simply, there is an all-out attack by the American Left on the government of the United States. They are attacking on every front available. They have already begun to use obstructionist tactics in Congress. Angry women protested against . . . well, they protested against something – can’t figure out what it was. Cities all over America have declared that they are “Sanctuary Cities,” thus harboring criminals. Rioters have damaged property and violated the rights of commuters to travel in their own communities. Madonna has expressed thoughts of blowing up the Whitehouse. A bust of Martin Luther King was falsely reportedly removed from the Whitehouse as a way of substantiating the left-wing narrative that Trump is racist.

The overwhelming number of criticisms come from the same people who have engaged in their own version of Orwellian fascism. It is a form of bullying to attempt to intimidate the countries legally elected officials with verbal threats, civil disobedience – some sanctioned by local inaction – and thinly veiled propaganda from self-important news organizations.

The breadth of control or attempted control by the left stretches over nearly all the educational, social, political, cultural, and some religious institutions of America.

There is no limit to the efforts the left will make in pursuing its objectives. The violence and threats leveled at Milo Yiannopoulos, who had to be escorted by police from the University of California at Berkley, illustrates the lengths to which the left will protect its speech against alternative facts when they threaten to come home to the La La Land of the left coast. There is so much irony here that it deserves a few words.

The University was the home of the famous free speech movement of the sixties. What no one realized at the time was the free speech part only applied to those who agreed with the left. This takes us back to the Orwellian view that 2 + 2 = 5. Also, Mr. Yiannopoulos is gay. It must be disconcerting to the doctrinaire left that a “homophobic” conservative is, well, homo.  The violent attention directed towards Mr. Yiannopoulos reminds the observant conservative of the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas in which, now, Justice Thomas, was vilified with ad homonym attacks on his personal character. Normally deferential to African Americans, Congressional liberals went after him as if he were the reincarnation of Hitler. Why was this? It wasn’t just that he was conservative, but as with Mr. Yiannopoulos, it upset the narrative contained in identity politics, that we are our race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. So, Black is White.

As If the widespread indoctrination of college students were not enough, the following paragraph concerning what is taught in America’s public high schools appeared in National Review in 2014:

“The College Board, the private company that develops the SAT and Advanced Placement (AP) exams, recently ignited a firestorm by releasing, with little public notice, a lengthy, highly directive, and radically revisionist “framework” for teaching AP U.S. history. The new framework replaces brief guidelines that once allowed states school districts, and teachers to present U.S. history as they saw fit.”

To the left, history has become a weapon. To control the minds of the young is to control the future. The NR review also specifies the black listing of the truth, as follows: “In a report for Boston’s Pioneer Institute, American historian Ralph Ketcham, author of a classic biography of James Madison, condemned the College Board’s new history guidelines for “deliberately minimizing or distorting” the story of America’s founding. The redesigned framework’s treatment of more recent developments is no freer of bias than is its handling of early American history. The revised guidelines present New Deal and Great Society liberalism in a positive light, while portraying conservatives as reactive and fearful. Leftist movements of the 1960s are sympathetically featured, while large tracts of modern political and economic history are omitted. Ronald Reagan is called “bellicose,” and his achievements are attributed to a belated willingness to make friends with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev rather than to his determination to hold fast on issues such as the deployment of nuclear missiles in Europe.” As they delete the truth, it is clear that ignorance is strength (for the left).

The control of the youthful mind is only a part of a greater picture of propaganda and thought control. Wherever there is publicity, the left will be found. Movie stars and their affiliated hangers-on – movie moguls, agents, publicists – blacklisted Trump supporters who might have performed at the Trump Inaugural balls. Thef left applauds the pure political correctness of their members, and pounds down the nails that dare to stand up. The movie, “Avatar,” is nothing but one long metaphor painting the evil corporations and their greedy controllers against the simple purity of the nature-bound, local inhabitants of the planet. The blue natives (read Native Americans) and their few enlightened white (read liberal) supporters rewrite history as the natives triumph over their machine driven enemies.

Likewise, in the Lord of the Rings movies we see the local natives as naïve, yet pure, people living simple lives in thatched huts. The message is that the reduced circumstances of the masses can be ennobling. The leftist narrative fits the view that our best days do not involve material success produced by the exploitation of natural resources, but derive from our high moral principles in a quest for a perfect world. If the economic, medical, and scientific advancements of America have rested on the foundation of a strong economic base, it is only coincidence that coal, oil, and iron ore were there at the same time.

Economic development has supported the very home base of the left. That is, the power of the political left as it lies with American colleges and universities where the roots of thought control run deep rests on Capitalist dollars. At college campuses all over America, enforcers of political correctness create Bias Response Teams (BRTs). The job of the BRT is to intimidate students who speak politically incorrect words as defined by the BRTs after the fact. At least at one school – Rutgers – it is not considered acceptable to use the words “illegal aliens.” The job of the BRT is to intimidate students who speak politically incorrect words as defined by the BRTs after the fact. Thus, a word like “fat” cannot be used as it is unprotected speech in referring to a person, unless the word is used derogatorily towards demonized classes of right-thinking opponents such as “fat cats” of the corporate world. The corrective is reminiscent of the “reeducation” camps run by communists in post-war Vietnam designed to punish and propagandize those who opposed the communist side before their totalitarian victory. But there is positive view to this. So far, torture has been ruled out.

The identity politics mantra does not only affect the presentation of Leftist to the outside world, it predictably affects the internal rationing of truth within its own borders. For example, the following appear on the blacklivesmatter.com website. The unknown author writes:

“Rooted in the experiences of Black people in this country who actively resist our dehumanization, #BlackLivesMatter is a call to action and a response to the virulent anti-Black racism that permeates our society. Black Lives Matter is a unique contribution that goes beyond extrajudicial killings of Black people by police and vigilantes.”

Many comments could be made about these two sentences, but the first thing that is necessary to do is decode the language. Four ideas need to be noted here:

dehumanization = slavery

extrajudicial killings = lynching

police = sheriff’s posse

vigilantes = Ku Klux Klan

It is as if the author is living in an alternative universe that reverts to the past whenever there is a need to prove victimhood. There is no perfect world, and these complaints, whether valid in the days of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman or not, evoke a sci-fi vision that sustains the negative belligerence of Black Lives Matters true believers still in denial.

A rational view of the world would weight far more heavily the accomplishments of a Black two-term president, billionaire businesspersons, at least one world-famous doctor who is becoming a member of the current presidential cabinet and following previous similar successful representatives of the same community appointed by previous president s of both parties, many soldiers who have died for their country, and countless others of distinction, large and small, who have added to the welfare of their country. But for the delusion suffering Black Lives Matter folks, the only reality is represented by scattered incidents that ratify the false narrative that nothing has really changed for African Americans. Thus, once again the Orwellian dogma is spelled out by these fantasizing victims in the words, “Freedom is Slavery.”

Probably the most famous area of contention in American politics lately has been the symbiotic relationship of the press and President Trump. Not since Richard Nixon accused Dan Rather of running for political office, has there been such a level of tension between political pundits and the office of President of the United States. Whenever Trump wants to juice his supporters, he merely has to call a press conference. Americas fifth estate, which famously supported Hillary Clinton well into the 90-percentile range, not only slanted the news in her favor, but also sent her campaign donations. Trump wins these confrontations by not losing. His supports see him as their defender. But the press is also winning by broadcasting their antagonism to the like-minded leftists who view the press as a support group. The cold war between these two factions oddly benefits both sides, so it is possible to say that “War is Peace.” The peace that comes from one’s supporters makes the existence of the antagonists possible. Fear increases as one side or the other demonizes the other.

While the press is an expected ally of the left, another player has emerged – the bureaucrat. Since they operate in a sphere of anonymity and concealment, these partisans have emerged as major players in the war against truth. During the Obama administration there were many examples of this. The left advanced its control of government by acts both legal and illegal. The assault included attacks on democracy as well as individuals and culminated in one Obama soldier at the Internal Revenue Service taking the fifth amendment to avoid disclosure, and possibly prosecution, for targeting conservative organizations. The worst in the Obama legacy occurred in the Justice Department where Eric Holder advanced policy decisions contrary to accepted legal practice and justice. His lawyers within the Justice Department were chastised by judges (see Senator Ted Stevens R-Alaska) for their blatantly unprofessional behavior in pursuit of the greater leftist cause of destroying the Senator from Alaska. An excellent book on this topic is Obama’s Enforcer, by John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky. More recently, left-supporting intelligence officers antagonistic to the president, released information that General Flynn had been in contact with the Russian Ambassador. The sin of lying to the vice-president was probably the reason for Flynn’s fall, but the point is the root cause was the active effort of an element, probably in the FBI, that was out to embarrass the administration, even at the risk of violating the Logan Act.

In looking at the comprehensive phalanx of attacking leftist troops, there must be a reason for the viewpoints that motivate their hypocrisy. Among the studies such as Black Studies, Native American Studies, Women’s Studies, etc., another concept should be admitted to the list – Left-Wing Studies. But beware, the left would attempt cooptation of this area of inquiry should it be opened to the rigors of academic scrutiny.

The war on truth has and will be a long-lasting one. The focus of the left is on the Trump administration now and into the future. Orwellian methodologies of propaganda through institutions of government, the press, education, media, bureaucracy, and law enforcement undermine democracy to achieve the ends of dubious control of the American mind and body. The use of violence to achieve political ends continues even as the Trump administration redirects America’s energy toward American achievement and growth. The true Orwellian guides the blue left hand of America as democracy cannot rest or relax.

Posted on

Setting the Scene

As America haltingly formed, first organized under the Articles of Confederation and then with that great achievement the Constitution, there arose the worst nightmare of those founding fathers-“faction.” Very early on, the scene was set. The faction known as the Republicans as led by Thomas Jefferson squared off against the Federalists whose standard bearer was Alexander Hamilton. From the time the former was named Secretary of State and the latter was named Secretary of the Treasury under George Washington, the scene was set for American history’s most vituperative confrontation, between factions and philosophies represented by two of the great men in history.

The conflict, which traces its beginning from the time that these two brilliant fighters took opposing offices under Washington, famously led to the death of Hamilton at the hands of the Republican Aaron Burr. During the time between the two secretaries took office and Hamilton’s death the printing presses of the day were filled with personal enmity that set a high standard for America’s politicians for the next two hundred hears and beyond. As Hamilton told Rufus King, “The political putrefaction of Pennsylvania is greater than I had any idea of.”

The passionate anger of those days could not have been more damaging to the development of the American government without causing an irreparable split between the states along a north/south axis based on the apparently opposing views of the partisans. Jefferson’s view of an agrarian society based on his vision of a farm economy clashed with the urban Hamiltonian view which set a hegemonic view of urban growth through commerce and industry.

There were numerous fault lines between these two groups. Hamilton was accused of monarchist views he did not hold. He viewed an economically strong central government as decisive to American growth, power, and safety. Keep in mind that at the beginning of their conflict America had no foreign reserves and was deeply in debt. Hamilton hit the ground running before Jefferson was able to return from France, and through a lifelong work ethic that had no equal in his day, was able to establish policies that set the new countries economy humming and made Hamilton popular.

Another fissure formed when Jefferson returned from France. His advocacy on behalf of French Hegemony clashed with the views of Hamilton who believed that, England, as the greatest economic power of the day, should continue its relationship with the United States, minus the odious taxes and unrepresentative control occurring during the colonial days. In Hamilton’s view, the most logical trading relationship should be with the country that was previously the dominant trading partner. The sentimental views derived from the support the French had given the colonies in their struggle against the British.

Early America was not only beset by north/south divisions, but also suffered an east/west fracture that split the young country. To some extent, this represented an urban/rural divide. Hamilton’s Whiskey Tax further alienated these factions and culminated in the Whiskey Rebellion which was put down by George Washington with a minimum of casualties.

Hamilton also took many hits, both personal and public. As the illegitimate son of a woman of dubious character, he battled demons his entire life. Affable in person, he was sensitive to slights and was quick to challenge an opponent who questioned his integrity and honor. Before his final dueling death he had several near misses with opponents who reconciled with him, perhaps realizing that Hamilton was not running a bluff.

The divisions in the American body politic ran deep and hard and did not abate after Hamilton’s death. The Constitution’s provisions did not deal with the issue of slavery. Hamilton was, perhaps, the leading abolitionist of his day, Jefferson a holder of over one hundred slaves. As is known today, the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans during the civil war seemed to have inevitability about it.

As America seeks to come to grips with the candidacy of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, there is a sense here that the level of personal conflict and policy have been seen somewhere before. It does not matter that the current candidates are as small as Lilliputians tying down a great country with their vanity and failings. Nor is it a comfort that the country survived the split between greater men, Hamilton and Jefferson, as well as a crushing civil war. There is no guarantee that civilization will proceed over any bump. Anthropologists believe a South American Indian culture collapsed after it ran out of lime to make the structures they built. An economy is not inevitable, either. Sometimes it doesn’t take much. The apocalyptic view has been wrong in the past, but past performance is not an indicator of future results.

More on this later . . .

Flag of the U.S.S.Constitution