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.