Pedulum Swings Against Hollywood And The Left

Let me start by saying I have absolutely NO facts to back up this speculation, but when have I ever let that stop me from throwing out a theory. My only difference from the main stream press is that I tell you that up front and say its a theory not a fact. But anyway, here goes.

I’ve been aware of Hollywood’s troubles for a couple of years now. Their decline in box office revenues has been evident. Many of their supposed major pictures have flopped. Middle America has rejected what they have offered.

Now I read this: http://www.showbiz411.com/2017/10/21/hollywood-ending-big-studios-cutting-losses-this-weekend-pulling-flops-from-theaters-earlier-than-usual

Many of this years supposed blockbusters are again failing, and now they are even pulling them from the theaters early. 

So I ask myself, ‘what’s going on?’ 

And it comes to me that maybe this is the first full force evidence that the cultural worm has turned. 

Is it possible that the general public has become fed up with Hollywood and the old line press telling us what to think, feel and say and have said “We’ve had it and were not going to take it anymore!”? And thus they have chosen to hit back at the only place they know will get their attention. Their pocketbooks, because as much as they think we, you and me, should pay more taxes for their pet social experiments, they aren’t much for relinquishing any of their own money. 

This seems to be having an impact, at least at the TV level. If you look at the offerings this fall, you will see a lot more pro American, pro military types of shows and fewer of the “alternative” life style affirmation shows, with the exception of the reboot of Will and Grace. And one might even make the case that it is getting a reboot because it was a hit in the past and they are looking for anything that people will willingly watch even though it normalizes behavior that would be considered outside of the main stream.

As Andrew Breitbart used to say, “Politics is down stream from culture.” and I believe we are seeing signs of that now. As the old line politicians, both left and right, resist the draining of the swamp, they are finding it more and more difficult to raise money, while the alternative candidates are gaining traction, like Roy Moore. 

Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not a huge Roy Moore fan, but I’ll take him any day of the week over a status quo politician.

So heres hoping that Hollyweird’s problems are a leading indicator that the social pendulum is swinging back from the radical left and our efforts to restore sanity are reaping some rewards.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Senator Farm Boy

OK. So I’ve been whining about our current crop of ‘Republican’ representatives in Washington not doing their jobs. So what, you might ask, would a Senator Farm Boy do differently?

Well, first off, I wouldn’t move into a house. I would stay in a hotel on a six year contract. I would do this because I would only serve ONE term. Even if requested, I would not return to for a second term, this because I a headache just driving into that damn city. One term is enough of a sacrifice of my sanity.

By committing to only serving one six year term (or two years if I were a House member) I would negate any power that special interest groups or lobbyists might normally have with the normal House or Senate members. This would free me to do the things that I felt were right for the country without worrying if it would affect my chances for re-election.

I would vote against any tax bill that didn’t eliminate the current IRS and implement the Fair Tax. For those of you who don’t know about the Fair Tax, it eliminates all federal taxes and replaces them with a final consumer sales tax. According to the creators of the Fair Tax it would be revenue neutral for the government but would eliminate the burdensome IRS. For those of you who would like to know more about the Fair Tax you can go here: https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax-works

Before I would vote for any bill I would have to determine if the regulation would infringe on anyone’s life, liberty or property. If the bill did not infringe on these, I would then evaluate it for its constitutionality. Assuming it met constitutional muster, I would then need to be convinced that it would be better than not doing anything or that there were no better, simpler options that the free market couldn’t provide more efficiently and at a lower cost. If these conditions were met, I would then be able to support a bill. But my basic rule would be, the less government involvement the better.

I would be a strong supporter of our military and law enforcement but would not want to see us become entangled in foreign affairs that were not in our national interest. Regime change is not a legitimate activity for our government to be involved in. And while I don’t believe we should be involved with replacing governments, neither do I believe we should be bringing loads of refugees to our shores. Instead, I believe we should work with other countries in the conflict regions to create safe zones for the refugees so that they could easily be returned to their homelands as soon as the conflict scenarios have been resolved. This would keep scenarios where refugees refuse to assimilate like we see playing out in France, Sweden and Germany.

I would also support logical plans to secure the boarders, whether they be a physical wall or some other option. For a country to be a country it must have defined boarders and be aware of any and all persons entering and exiting the country. As far as illegals who are currently in the country are concerned, I would support the current efforts that are taking place. I would support offering the so called ‘Dreamers’ a path to citizenship that would require them to serve a term in the military and be honorably discharged. Otherwise, they would be subject to return to their countries of origin.

I would also oppose all regulations/bills that were designed for social engineering purposes. It is not the governments job to be charting the course of human development, nor should we be funding any agencies, such as universities, that are attempting to do so. Rather, we should be encouraging the open and free exchange of all ideas, not just those that are deemed appropriate by some self appointed social scolds.

At the conclusion of Senator Farm Boy’s term in office, I would happily pack my suit case and exit that cesspool of a city with as much haste as humanly possible.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Fair Warning Old School Republicans

Attention old school republicans! (That’s YOU Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, et. al.)

I’m giving you a little heads up here. 

The voters who put Donald J. Trump in office as the President of the United States did so because they wanted him to: 1) put a conservative judge on the SCOTUS and install conservative judges in the lower courts, 2) secure our boarders, 3) stop or slow the exodus of jobs to other countries, 4) simplify and cut the tax code, 5) repeal and replace Obamacare, 6) improve the business environment by reducing regulations, 7) retool and support the military, 8) make America be a trusted ally and a feared enemy, and 9) take the fight to radical islamic terrorists (or any other terrorist group that might threaten us, say MS13 or some similar group).

Now if we look at what has been accomplished to date, the things that have been accomplished in D.C. are things that POTUS has been able to do virtually without the help of the congress. (The exception being the approval of Justice Gorsuch and the installation of his cabinet.)

By merely turning off the OPEN light and picking up the welcome mat from the boarder, he has staunched the flow of illegal immigrants into the country, though we still want the wall where it makes sense. 

We have seen that he has been able to slow the exodus of jobs by working with companies and insuring that they understand that their products will face tariffs upon returning to the US. Carrier, Ford and others have already altered plans to move their operations to Mexico. 

He has issued directives that for each new regulation that is issued, 2 previous regulations must be eliminated. By undoing some limitations instituted by the previous administration, he has begun the revitalization of the coal industry with mines reopening that had been closed due to over burdensome regulations. This has helped in the reduction in unemployment as well as the decreased amount spent on welfare.

His trips over seas coupled with his meetings with foreign leaders here have re-established America as a trusted ally and his efforts against terrorism, coupled with those of our allies, seem to be paying dividends in the dismantling of ISIS.

So where are the shortfalls in what he was sent to Washington to do? Hummm???

Well, by golly, it sure looks like it’s you weak-kneed Republican senators and congressmen. The ones who seem to be more concerned with what the entrenched Washington Press Corps and the Media Elites think of you than what your constituents want.

I’m giving you a heads up right now. If you all don’t start making some serious headway on repeal and replace and on improving the tax code, many of us will be supporting those challengers who will be springing up like crabgrass to replace you. You had seven years to come up with a plan you could agree on to repeal and replace. It should have been a no brainer once DT took the oath of office in January, but here it is nearly August and you are still trying to come up with a plan. And don’t try and tell us about that weak tea the House offered up. Yes, its better than Obamacare…..but not a whole helluva lot.

And taxes…..jeez louise. What you’ve done there makes what you’ve done on health care look like you’ve actually done something, which we all know you haven’t.

Anyway, fair warning has been given. So don’t be surprised when you face serious challenges just to try and get your district’s nomination to try and return to your cushy positions.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Update: WaPo, Jared Kushner and the Russians

UPDATE: Once again the MSM has shown themselves to be political shills for the hard left. http://www.dailywire.com/news/16977/report-wapo-blows-it-again-kushner-did-not-request-john-nolte  

It may well be a classic case of "the boy who cried wolf". https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.510471cb7bf8

I don't know if this is a true story or not, but the radical left media has told me so many half truths and outright lies that I now question anything they say of a negative nature as it relates to Trump or republicans. If this is true as they are reporting, Jared Kushner ought to do jail time. If on the the other hand, it's another one of their bullshite hit pieces with only a passing acquaintance with the truth, the "reporter" who wrote it and the editor who approved it to run ought to both be fired, publicly shamed and be permanently banned from ever holding a position of public trust. (So I guess that would leave them to being ditch diggers, used car salesmen or politicians.)

But what are we, the American public, to do? When the major sources of information to the general public are biased and not honest brokers of information we are left to flounder. 

I personally have been turning to alternative sites such as "SOFREP", "Louder with Crowder", "The Daily Wire" and "The Drudge Report" to name a few, for my news and opinions. Especially so since the Murdock boys have decided they want to be invited to the "in crowd" events in Washington and New York and thus initiated the neutering of Fox News. But I realize my sources are probably as biased to the right as MSNBC, CNN, ABC, Washington Post, New York Times, etc., etc. are to the left. (But at least my sources don't piss me off and make me yell at the TV or the computer.)

I guess I don't really have any cogent points, I'm just frustrated that our media sources have so prostituted themselves to their chosen political positions that we the consumers are left woefully ill informed as we try to make decisions about our future. A cynical person might even think that this was being done by design so that the REAL powers could continue to operate in the shadows while we flailed about in our designed ignorance.

Or so it might seem to an old farm boy.

WaPo, Jared Kushner and the Russians

It may well be a classic case of "the boy who cried wolf". https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.510471cb7bf8

I don't know if this is a true story or not, but the radical left media has told me so many half truths and outright lies that I now question anything they say of a negative nature as it relates to Trump or republicans. If this is true as they are reporting, Jared Kushner ought to do jail time. If on the the other hand, it's another one of their bullshite hit pieces with only a passing acquaintance with the truth, the "reporter" who wrote it and the editor who approved it to run ought to both be fired, publicly shamed and be permanently banned from ever holding a position of public trust. (So I guess that would leave them to being ditch diggers, used car salesmen or politicians.)

But what are we, the American public, to do? When the major sources of information to the general public are biased and not honest brokers of information we are left to flounder. 

I personally have been turning to alternative sites such as "SOFREP", "Louder with Crowder", "The Daily Wire" and "The Drudge Report" to name a few, for my news and opinions. Especially so since the Murdock boys have decided they want to be invited to the "in crowd" events in Washington and New York and thus initiated the neutering of Fox News. But I realize my sources are probably as biased to the right as MSNBC, CNN, ABC, Washington Post, New York Times, etc., etc. are to the left. (But at least my sources don't piss me off and make me yell at the TV or the computer.)

I guess I don't really have any cogent points, I'm just frustrated that our media sources have so prostituted themselves to their chosen political positions that we the consumers are left woefully ill informed as we try to make decisions about our future. A cynical person might even think that this was being done by design so that the REAL powers could continue to operate in the shadows while we flailed about in our designed ignorance.

Or so it might seem to an old farm boy.

Classical American Rights vs Socialistic Grasping

What is a "RIGHT" in America? What are the characteristics of a "RIGHT"?

These seem like pretty straight forward questions until you start looking at some of the things people are claiming as rights today.

So let's start by considering things that are uncontroversial: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom from Illegal Search and Seizure, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, these are all well documented in America. 

What do these rights have in common?

Each of these rights are independent of anyone other than the individual. My freedom of speech, or religion or right to keep and bear arms or any other enumerated right places no requirement or demand upon anyone else's rights. So my freedom of speech does not require YOU to do or give up anything. Nor do any of the other rights as outlined in the constitution. So I suggest to you that RIGHTS are given to each of us in America in specific and the world in general (though in most of the world some if not all of these rights have been seized from the individuals by those who claim dominion over them) at birth and require nothing of anyone else other than respect.

Now let's take a look at the "rights" being claimed by leftists: the right to health care, the right to "affordable" housing, the right to a government funded abortion, a "living" wage (read as at least a $15 hr minimum wage).

What do these and the other "rights" claimed by the left have in common?

Each and every one of them puts a claim on someone else's time or treasure. Health care requires time and effort from the health care professionals. If you are claiming a right to free health care you are a claiming time and effort of the health professionals without your need to compensate them. That is tantamount to slavery, which I'm pretty sure we outlawed 150+ years ago. But now the "liberal" left wants to say it's ok if it's for health care.

Or how about a mandatory "living" wage? Isn't that placing the governments gun to the head of an employer and forcing them to pay more for someone's labor than the value of their effort/input might justify? 

Or government funded abortion? Isn't that having the government take money from your pocket at the point of a gun (don't believe me? try not giving it to them.) to then pay for someone depriving an unborn child of THEIR life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. (That winds up being a double dip into other people's rights.)

So I put it to you that these newly claimed "rights" the left are espousing are not rights at all, but rather they are merely a new tactic they are trying in an old struggle they've been waging. That is, it is another attempt to move the country away from its individualistic self-reliant heritage to their desired socialistic state. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" I believe is how they put it.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy. 

PS: I'd like to thank Neal Boortz for helping me clarify my thinking on this subject.

The Tyranny Of If

So, when was it that the word “if” became a statement of fact? Did I blink? Was there a memo that I deleted, thinking it was junk mail? Was there an announcement on television that I missed while watching AppleTV?

It seems that the word “if”, when included in any statement about a conservative by the mainstream media, liberals or left wingers of any stripe, constitutes a statement of fact and thus justification to run about wildly decrying the end of the nation. (As if they were really concerned about destroying the nation. They seem to only be concerned with the destruction of the nation if they aren’t the ones destroying it.)

I don’t seem to recall any democrat or leftist being concerned about “if” statements when they were aimed at Bill Clinton (“if” Paula Jones is telling the truth, for instance) or Barack Obama (“if” he was not a natural born citizen), or “if” the main stream media is colluding with the Democrat Party in an effort to defeat Republicans. 

It seems as though the word “if” when put into a statement about a liberal or leftist means “wholly unsubstantiated and of no credence” while being placed in a statement concerning a conservative means “wholly factual and beyond reproach”.

I guess this is yet another case of he who controls the conversation gets to define the reality. And once again, the left is in control. 

Somehow or another, the conservatives gave up even trying to control the narrative. They relinquished all control of the lines of communication years ago. Leaving only talk radio, as exemplified by Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News to try and portray a different perspective. (And now it appears Rupert Murdoch’s sons are more interested in being part of the “in crowd” of media than in offering an alternative perspective.)

This coupled with conservatives leaving academia to the 1960’s hippies has created an all to powerful alliance between the mainstream media, academia, the political left and Hollywood. They have been left unopposed to shape the “impressionable minds of mush”, as Rush has been known to opine, and leave them without critical thinking skills. This then has lead to many young folks who have become like cats chasing the laser pointer light with the leftist coalition controlling the pointer. 

We need to wait until there are proven facts before we run about claiming the sky is falling like our Chicken Little friends on the left. 

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Update on Muslims On Receiving End

Update

Uh Oh!

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-politics-religion-idUSKBN17X17Q

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/05/muslim-man-dies-in-india-after-attack-by-hindu-cow-protectors

OK, I know I shouldn't think this is funny, but come on. Yah gotta kinda laugh a little when a member of the religious group that kills people for not following their beliefs gets killed by a different religious group for not honoring their beliefs.

Now I seriously doubt this truck driver in India was the fanatical type who would behead you for not being a Muslim and didn't deserve to die for trucking a cow, probably to slaughter. I'm sure he was just a working stiff trying to get by like most of the world. But the irony of it is rich.

This, however, is deadly serious. There is a long history of violent conflict between Hindus and muslims in India. In the early 1900s conflict broke out between the 2 groups and lead to the eventual partitioning of India in 1947 and the creation of Pakistan. This same conflict lead to the creation of Bangladesh. Many lives have been lost in this sectarian violence between Hindus and muslims. If this conflict were to reignite in the era of world wide radical Muslim extremism, the Asian subcontinent could burst into flames. An all out Muslim Hindu conflict could prove to be devastating. 

Who would the world call for tech support?

Who would Hollywood support? Which side would they demand we accept unvented refugees from? Would they back the muslims in order to wipe out the competition from Bollywood? Then again, if the muslims were to win, who would there be left to watch their schlock in that area of the world?

Liberals throughout the country will be put in a real quandary trying to decide which minority will receive their blessings. (They will most likely just wait to see which side the conservatives support and chose the opposite. This would probably mean they would back the group that would likely kill them if given the chance.)

All joking aside, this could prove to be an all out blood bath. With India having over a billion residents and nuclear weapons and being surrounded by Muslim nations including nuclear armed Pakistan, that area could become a no go zone for a long time. Especially with the Muslim cult being so death and end times focused.

But don't worry. You would likely not hear about this conflict until tech support went down. The press isn't prone to reporting things that don't fit their "Trump is evil" narrative. 

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy. 

Where Did The "United" States of America Go?

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/crime/article145234709.html

Let me say how my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and of the Fresno shootings and their families. The victims who's only "crime" was being white. I'd also like to say how I'm happy the perpetrator is in custody and not lose to continue with his "hate crimes" not his "random acts of violence" as officials are calling it. (Kinda funny how Dylan Roof's were deemed a hate crime immediately while this guys are random violence. Just sayin.)

But his clearly bigoted and racist acts are not what I want to talk about nor do I wish to discuss his radical Islamist ideology. What I'm concerned with is how we got to the divided country we find ourselves in. One where people think of themselves by their self identified group instead of as Americans. Where did the "United" States go and who/what sent it there, because I want it back.

I would dearly love to lay my hands on the SOB who started this loyalty to this grievance group or that over loyalty to America. That or those bastards have done more harm to America than any outside force in my lifetime.

I remember when peoples ethnicity was nothing more than casual banter to be discussed on St. Patrick's Day or Columbus Day or whatever. It wasn't people's driving force, because being American trumped all of the other qualifiers. It didn't mean anything of importance if you were born in another country or if your parents or grandparents were born in another country. We were all Americans first, last and always. 

Since 1776 we have been a nation made up of folks from all over the world. As Bill Murray put it in Stripes: "We're all very different people. We're not Watusi, we're not Spartans, we're Americans. With a capital "A", huh? And you know what that means? Do you? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We're the underdog. We're mutts." Our origins were and are inconsequential. It's where we are now. As long as we have people with more loyalty to some subset or grievance group than to our nation as a whole we will continue to slide into the abyss. The nation that became the envy of the world will slowly (or maybe rapidly) fall apart and the world will lose the one true beacon displaying what a nation can become when being more interested in what its citizenry can accomplish as individuals than what one group or another can get from the government.

I believe it is every true American's duty to promote OUR nation first and foremost over any grievance group claiming special status. This country didn't develop by catering to grievance groups but rather by offering equal opportunity to all those willing to take a chance and put the effort in. 

This nation offers you the opportunity to pursue your happiness. There are no guarantees of outcome. The Declaration of Independence says we are "created" equal, NOT we shall be "made" equal. We are offered opportunity not outcome as long as the country remains true to its founding ideals. 

Or so it seems to an old farm boy.

Is Muslim Hindu Violence About To Reignite?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/05/muslim-man-dies-in-india-after-attack-by-hindu-cow-protectors

OK, I know I shouldn't think this is funny, but come on. Yah gotta kinda laugh a little when a member of the religious group that kills people for not following their beliefs gets killed by a different religious group for not honoring their beliefs.

Now I seriously doubt this truck driver in India was the fanatical type who would behead you for not being a Muslim and didn't deserve to die for trucking a cow, probably to slaughter. I'm sure he was just a working stiff trying to get by like most of the world. But the irony of it is rich.

This, however, is deadly serious. There is a long history of violent conflict between Hindus and muslims in India. In the early 1900s conflict broke out between the 2 groups and lead to the eventual partitioning of India in 1947 and the creation of Pakistan. This same conflict lead to the creation of Bangladesh. Many lives have been lost in this sectarian violence between Hindus and muslims. If this conflict were to reignite in the era of world wide radical Muslim extremism, the Asian subcontinent could burst into flames. An all out Muslim Hindu conflict could prove to be devastating. 

Who would the world call for tech support?

Who would Hollywood support? Which side would they demand we accept unvented refugees from? Would they back the muslims in order to wipe out the competition from Bollywood? Then again, if the muslims were to win, who would there be left to watch their schlock in that area of the world?

Liberals throughout the country will be put in a real quandary trying to decide which minority will receive their blessings. (They will most likely just wait to see which side the conservatives support and chose the opposite. This would probably mean they would back the group that would likely kill them if given the chance.)

All joking aside, this could prove to be an all out blood bath. With India having over a billion residents and nuclear weapons and being surrounded by Muslim nations including nuclear armed Pakistan, that area could become a no go zone for a long time. Especially with the Muslim cult being so death and end times focused.

But don't worry. You would likely not hear about this conflict until tech support went down. The press isn't prone to reporting things that don't fit their "Trump is evil" narrative. 

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy. 

Is Putin Really Obama's Role Model?

This thought has been sliding around in the back of my brain since Inauguration Day. I know most folks will say that's crazy talk and that Putin and Obama didn't like each other, but I'm not so sure that's true. Remember Obama's hot mic incident when he got caught telling Dmitry Medvedev, the out going Russian President and Putin sock puppet, that Vladimir Putin should give him more "space" and that "after my election I have more flexibility." That sounds more like a comrade in arms than an enemy.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's start by looking at their beginnings.

Putin was raised in the communist system and trained in the old KGB and prospered in that system. Obama was raised by a socialist/communist mother and mentored by the likes of Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed socialist, as a child. He then trained in the Saul Alinsky inspired organization ACORN and prospered in the halls of academia, which everyone concedes is a hotbed of leftist thought.

Putin then rose to power and ruled Russia as a dictator not an elected leader. Obama was swept into office and he proceeded to rule as a dictator. (He mistakenly thought people loved his leftist policies when I believe most non-blacks who voted for him were trying to assuage their liberal education induced guilt about slavery which has been outlawed in America for over 150 years.) When he no longer had the majority in the house and senate and couldn't ram his policies down our throats through legislation, he did it through extra-constitutional executive orders. (Which the spineless old school Republicans loudly cried about but did nothing to stop.)

When Putin was forced to leave office due to Russian constitutional1 mandates against holding power any longer, he put a puppet in place and has ruled quite visibly from the sidelines ever since. Obama had to leave office due to our Constitution and attempted to put his fellow traveling puppet, Hillary, in place. When that failed, even though they pulled every dirty trick in the book, first to keep Bernie out (Obama and Hillary couldn't control him) and then to try and beat Donald, he has called upon his deep state allies. Even, in an unprecedented move during my lifetime, moving to Washington DC to remain highly visible to his sycophants in the press and to try and rule in absentia through the left leaning permanent bureaucrats in the federal government.

It is widely believed that Putin as killed many of his rivals in order to maintain his grip on power. Obama has figuratively killed those who oppose him. This can be seen from the likes of General Flynn to Bernie Sanders to his attempts on Jeff Sessions and even Donald Trump.

Now I suppose I could be mistaken that Alexandr Putin is Barack Obama's role model, but it sure looks that way to an old farm boy.

The Secret Hate Speech Of The Media

Adjectives and adverbs are the secret hate speech used by the media to prejudice your thinking on topics. They are the insidious means they use to bias you for or against all sorts of issues. They slip them into their sentences to worm their way into your thought processes without you even noticing its happening.

And both sides do it, it's just that the left controls so many more sources of "news" that they are the fire hose and the right is the garden hose.

You can pick nearly any article or report on any political or social topic from virtually any "news" source and find these little devils riddling the report as they attempt to sway your thinking to the reporters point of view.

Let's take a look at a paragraph from the New York Times this morning:

An executive order gave the right-wing agitator Stephen K. Bannon a full seat on the principals committee of the National Security Council, a startling elevation of a political adviser.

If this were an article written to inform you of the news rather than to turn you against the action they were reporting on it would have been more on the order of this:

An executive order gave Stephen K. Bannon, a political adviser, a full seat on the principals committee of the National Security Council.

Everything else in that paragraph was propaganda intended to sway your opinion to a negative position about this occurrence.

I'm not saying the NYT can't have these opinions or publish them. It's just that they ought to be on the Op-Ed page under opinions. While the kernel of the story was fact, all of the surrounding verbiage, the adjectives and adverbs if you will, were placed there in order to subtly adjust your opinion of what they are telling you to a negative one.

This is NOT reporting, but is instead a subtle form of propaganda.

Once I started paying attention, I've noticed it even down to our local TV news. And now I realize that it's been happening for years. Even venerable old Walter Cronkite regularly did it with the help of Dan Rather, Morley Saffer, et. al. But we weren't sophisticated enough to notice.

The "News" outlet's have been playing us like fiddles for decades. From the way they reported on Vietnam, to Bill Clinton's philandering, to Donald Trump, they've been leading the majority of the undiscerning consumers around by the nose. Influencing them on just what to think about the various topics they chose to report on or not to report on. For example, "The Tea Party is dangerous", while choosing NOT to report on the whole pay to play aspect of the Clinton Foundation and the Hillary Clinton tenure as Sec. of State. If the military were doing this to an enemy, it would be called psy-ops, but since it's the "press" we are supposed to swallow it whole.

Well, I'm sorry, but I'm not related to Linda Lovelace and this is to much for me to swallow. I'm calling for an end to the tyranny of the modifiers being wielded by the press! No more secret adjective based hate speech by the press!

I challenge you to listen for these sneaky attempts to influence you and point them out to your friends and loved ones. Let's shine the light of actual unbiasedness on this insidiousness and try to stamp out this hate speech and banish it back to the opinion pages where it belongs.

Or so it seems to an old farm boy.

Shia LaBeouf Could Use A Dictionary

I’m so confused! I can’t seem to listen to the Hollywood leftists without getting turned around as I try to follow their logic. For it to make sense I have to take everything I know to be factual and reverse it. Up must become down. Cold must become hot. Increasing must become decreasing.

Lets take the so called actor Shai LaBeouf. Some place called the Museum of Moving Images in New York City (of course its in NYC, no place but liberal bastions like there or La La Land would give him the time of day) has allowed him to create (? not sure that is the proper word here, regurgitate maybe?) what he calls an art project. It is titled “He Will Not Divide Us”. By “He” I can only assume he means President Trump, since he was just arrested for assaulting a Trump supporting passerby.

According to what I’ve read, he has placed a live streaming camera on the side of the Museum of Moving Images and people are to stop in front of the camera and utter something anti Trump, or anti conservative, or just say “He will not divide us” and it will be streamed to the internet. This is supposed to run live until the next inauguration. (I guess he is assuming that President Trump will only be a one term president, because no right thinking person could possibly want the country to have defined and defended borders or be allowed to make their own decisions concerning their health care, or want better jobs, etc. etc.) I can’t think of a bigger waste of band width.

Now Mr. LaBeouf has launched a 4 year project (I’ll bet you money it won’t actually run that long.) to try and stop the lawfully elected President from following through with his stated goals of making America a better place for all Americans to live. Mr. LaBeouf has titled this effort “He Will Not Divide Us”.

Now either Mr. LaBeouf has a different definition of “divide” than I do, or his “us” is not the American people as a whole, as his entire project seems to be aimed at doing just that. Dividing the American people even further than they already are.

But then again, that appears to be the entire strategy of the left. To get the populace to not think of us as “One People” but rather to create as many sub groups as they possibly can and have each sub group obsess on their personal grievances. Blacks, Women, Gays, Latinos, Asian, Jews, Trans, Lesbians, Environmentalists, Pro thisists, Anti thatists, you name it and they can find a group with a grievance for it.

I feel fairly certain that if JFK were alive today and made his “Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You” speech, he would be summarily drummed out of the Democratic party and vilified as some sort of right wing John Bircher. The left seems to have moved 180 degrees from this position. They want to have themselves viewed as Santa Claus bring gifts to the aggrieved and Shia LaBeouf is one more wack job pushing the leftist agenda. If he hadn’t gained a modicum of fame for acting in a series of movies based on a kid’s toy, nobody would even give this kook the time of day.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Progressive

You would think I'd learn....

Yet again I was taken aback by the level of hypocrisy displayed by the "Progressives" this past weekend.

We are continually told that Progressives are the compassionate ones who are concerned about feelings and caring for everyone. They are the ones who came up with the concepts of micro-aggressions and safe spaces. They say they are for freedom of expression. They preach that "Love Trumps Hate" and loudly decry course and unflattering language.

Yet what are the behaviors they proudly display?

They physically attack those who are willing to espouse an opinion they disagree with. They burn limousines, throw rocks at police and break store windows. I guess I never realized these were compassionate actions that showed how concerned they were about everyone.

They carry signs saying Love Trumps Hate while cheering on speakers who talk about their desire to blow up the White House and carry signs that depict the duly elected POTUS as a poop emoji or as Hitler.

They intrude into other people's property and disrupt other people's lives while chanting "keep your rules off MY body".

They demand "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" so they won't have to hear or see things that might offend their sensibilities while marching around with hats and signs depicting vaginas and verbally abusing anyone who might hold an opposing opinion. (Friday night in Seattle at a protest against a conservative speaker, one person was shot because another protester mistook his anti NAZI tattoo as a pro fascist symbol. At the same protest, a cameraman for the conservative speaker was assaulted while trying to interact with the protestors.)

Micro-aggressions are loudly and vigorously called out if someone questions man's effect on climate change or holds a door for a woman. But Progressives find it fully acceptable to demean and defame any and all conservatives because they don't hold to their politically correct dogma. It is apparently not a micro aggression of you do it to someone who isn't politically correct. I guess it falls into the same bucket of logic that says only whites can be racists.

It appears to me that the Progressives are guilty of EVERY sin they claim Conservatives are guilty of and are totally (and quite blissfully) unaware of the hypocrisy of their actions. All the while being supported in their hypocrisy by a willfully supportive media.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Don't Start Nothin' Won't Be Nothin'

All right, I'm watching the news and reading articles and all I'm seeing and hearing are liberals freaking out about Pres Elect Trump "attacking" John Lewis, a "hero" of integration.(Though the use of the word 'attack' implies that the person the word is attached to is the initiator.) That Trump has "crossed the rubicon" according to one of them. The main stream outlets are in lock step condemning Trump for this dastardly deed. How could he possibly attack such a man who was beaten during the civil rights movement of the '60s? This is clearly proof of Trump's racist bonafides!

Accept.....didn't Trump attack Rosie O'Donnel? Pretty sure she's not black, oh wait a minute. Using the Sean King definition of black I guess she could be. And didn't he attack Penn Jillette? I'm pretty sure he's not black. As a matter of fact, a quick google search brought up a New York Times article that lists 289 people and groups that Donald Trump has "attacked". In perusing the list, it would appear that Donald Trump is an equal opportunity offender. Whites, blacks, men, women, indeterminate, it doesn't seem to matter.

Although, there does seem to be one common characteristic that all of these folks have in common.

They all seem to have made the first move!

In every case that I looked into, Donald Trump was responding to comments that were made concerning him. To characterize his responses as an attacks is disingenuous. They would be much better characterized as COUNTER attacks, but that doesn't feed the narrative the mainstream media is trying to build in the public perception. They would much prefer to gloss over the attack that precipitated the event and portray Trump as the initiator of hostilities. Because if they fairly report the facts, folks could plainly see that he is merely responding in kind. But it's hard to get folks to hate him if he's seen as defending himself.

Now a case could certainly be made that Trump should not descend into the depths and get in mud fights with every two bit yahoo who insults him. That it is not worthy of him to do so. But then again, GW Bush never responded to his denigrators and it let them totally control the narrative.

So as I hear all the winey leftists acting as if they are SOOOO offended I'm left with two possibilities to consider.

One, they aren't offended at all, but rather, they are following a plan. That plan is, offend Trump because they know he will respond and then play the victim and portray Trump as this evil person who attacks them for no reason (remember, the media is on their side and will downplay the real instigation). Thus continuing to build their psyops case to turn public opinion against him.

Or two, they really are the participation award snowflakes we've thought them to be and thus one can truly see why they would be supporters of the "toxic masculinity" craze that seems to be drowning liberal bastions at the moment. True believers of the post-truth era.

Position one is cynical and position two is depressing. Unfortunately, I believe this whole thing is being led by group one and supported by group two.

Listening to the left rant and rave brings to mind the famous Will Smith line from Men In Black as he is distracting the giant cockroach. "Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'!"

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

True Confessions Of An Elitist In Remission

As a little background, I grew up on a farm in the Midwest. As a farm kid, my parents taught me it wasn't who you were but what you did that counted. You didn't have to be from a "good" family to be a good person, nor did coming from a "good" family make you a good person.

Needless to say, hard work on a daily basis was the staple of life. There were morning and evening chores before and after school everyday that I can remember and fixing fence was an ongoing activity.

Then I got a chance to go to college on an athletic scholarship. This was in the late '60s and early '70s. While there, I learned that we were going to reach "peak" oil by the '80s and have a dwindling oil supply after that point. I learned that DDT was causing predator birds' egg shells to be soft and they would soon become extinct and 7 types of hell would follow because of it. I learned that the earth was cooling and nuclear winter was just around the corner, and I learned that we were about to reach the worlds max food production level and that food would be able to be used as a weapon of war. Those with the means of production would be able to hold the rest of the world hostage, especially as the population continued to grow unabated.

I came out of college knowing so much and I could see how the majority of the country, to say nothing of the world, just wasn't as smart as I was and that everybody would be so much better off if they would just let us folks with all this knowledge run things.

I was an elitist, and proud of it, because I was one of the cool kids, if only the world would just recognize us and get out of our way. We would get this old world straightened out in no time. There would be no more war, all the countries of the world would cease to exist and we would all be brothers in the world of man.

Then reality smacked me up side the head.

We kept finding more oil, the predator birds didn't die out, we kept finding ways to increase food production, the nuclear winter never arrived, etc. etc. etc.

Not only did all the things I was told were facts turn out to be false, but I realized those spinning the yarns were getting rich off of those of us buying their fairy tales.

Next I noticed how this dream of an egalitarian world was a crock of something coming from the south end of a north bound horse. An egalitarian world would never take place because of many factors, not the least of which is that animal behavior says that there will always be a pecking order. Somebody is always trying to get a better station compared to the next guy. To say nothing of the fact that not all cultures are equal, I don't care what the cultural relativists tell you. As it relates to the human condition, western culture is far superior to that of some other barbaric cultures that want to subjugate various people's for various reasons. Their pigmentation isn't correct, they can't write their name in the snow (my Midwest readers will get that one), they worship differently, or any number of other idiotic reasons.

So you're probably saying, "why is the farm boy telling this tale?"

Well, the answer is, to say that I do understand the elitist mentality in the 20 something crowd. But I am totally baffled by the George Soros, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry's of the world. They have seen the same things I've seen. Can they possibly truly believe in the borderless society, or in the tales being told by the current crop of elitists? Or......and I think this much more likely.....are they the hucksters selling this latest pipe dream or apocalypse to enhance their own power or pocket? You choose your own answer and whether we should listen to them or treat them as the charlatans I believe them to be.

Yes, occasionally I still think "why don't they just listen to me?" Then I look back at some of my beliefs from the '70s and go, yep. I'm probably not the best soothsayer on the block. Age has at least taught me that my delusions of knowing all the answers belong in that crock I mentioned earlier.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

The Entitlement Generation Demands Free Tampons

Ok, college students demanding "free" this and "free" that has officially jumped the shark! I'm not kidding here. Students (female) are demanding "free" tampons! http://college.usatoday.com/2017/01/04/college-students-are-demanding-free-tampons-on-campus/

That's right, these little snowflakes were able to figure out how to pay tuition and fees for the 2016–2017 school year. According to the College Board, tuition on average was $33,480 at private colleges, $9,650 for state residents at public colleges, and $24,930 for out-of-state residents attending public universities, but these snowflakes are unable to afford tampons!?!

Additionally, they are displaying an appalling lack of understanding about how businesses work. These principals hold for colleges as well as businesses. And that is, for a business to continue to operate, its income must equal or surpass its outgo. Sooo, little snowflakes, if the cost of doing business goes up, it must charge more to cover the increased cost or go out of business.

A quick amazon search told me that tampons can be purchased at a cost of $0.13 to $0.24 per tampon. Now I'm sure the college will be able to recognize a considerable saving due to economy of scale, buttttt, that doesn't cover the cost of the purchasing officer who is paid to make the purchase, or the warehouse personnel who will unload, store and later dispense them to the university employee who will spend a significant portion of their salaried time filling the "free" dispensers. This also doesn't consider the cost of the warehouse space that must be used to store this large cache, nor does it account for the accountants who must keep track of these purchases and insure that finance pays for them, or the people who actually process the payment and send it to the supplier.

All of these hidden costs must be recouped in order for the college to break even and thus continue to provide the valuable service of teaching the snowflakes about gender studies or whatever other useless programs are being offered. All in order to provide employment for the overpaid dweebs teaching them. And these new costs will be recouped by raising tuition (which will be protested by the very snowflakes who demanded the "free" service that forces the increase).

Some one needs to tell the participation trophy generation to stop being disappointed with the results they aren't achieving through the efforts they aren't making! They need to understand that results are the outcome of input/effort. NOTHING is free! And NOBODY is or should have to pay for things they will not benefit from. The "free" tampons will raise the tuition for ALL students; male, post menopausal women, women who have undergone hysterectomies, transgendered former males, etc. etc. None of whom will have a need to avail themselves of this "free" benefit.

I can't help but to believe that these entitled women demanding this free benefit would be appalled if they were forced to pay for free viagra dispensers.

Or so it would appear to an old farm boy.