Two Geniuses And An Idiot

There may have been more of both, but that's all who got to speak:



Short and simple, but you can see that the Frances Fox Pivens ideology is in control right now. And we can also see the results of their flawed thinking.

Calling John Galt...

Here is some food for thought on your Thursday.

I have always tried to teach my children that there is no greater freedom on this earth than to be self-reliant. This means being you must be one that you can count on the most. You, and you alone, are the one who can control your destiny the best---not your parents, not the government.

If you have ever read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, you well know the character named John Galt. And if you are intuitive, reflective, someone who reads deeper than the second dimension, you will also know that he is not just a character in a book. He is a symbol of self-sufficiency, creativity, and innovation who needs no one but his own drive, will, and intellect to survive in a cold and demanding world.

To know him in his real form, is to inherit some of his remarkable characteristics. This guy understands him:



He is not the only one, there are many others who know John Galt and have allowed him to inspire them to develop their own inner strengths, free from undue interference and corrupted influences:



Coming next month will be the premier of Atlas Shrugged: Part One. Don't look for John Galt in this part. Look for why we need him.



Some theaters may refuse to show this. Some may be turned off at the fact that Ayn Rand was an atheist. others will call it racist because it goes against everything our President stands for. I say we should ignore both critiques, and take the value of the substance from the material and use to to make ourselves better.

This is not about religion, for God wants people to work their way out of turmoil, finding their own solutions, if possible. Still... I firmly believe that He is not beyond helping us, when we cannot. But we must make every effort we can make, first.

This is not about race either. Had Hillary or Howard Dean been in the White House right now, we would be asking the same questions about a failed ideology. Race matters nothing in this. Race has been made a scapegoat for many who cannot find their own way, but I am telling you all right here and now that I know black men and women who have worked very hard to make themselves self-reliant, and can buy/sell all of us, several times over.

Tell Herman Cain and Robert Johnson that a black man cannot make it in America, and they will laugh you out of the room.

This is not about either of those things, this is about us. It's about we, the people. It's about whether we throw in the towel and allow the forces that want to DICTATE to the people, to prevail and implement their will over us.... or it's about finding individuals, who want to LEAD the people out of dependency and into the real freedom I described in the first paragraph.

The proper question that should be asked is not, "who is John Galt?" It's "where the hell is he?"

I suggest we all start calling our local theaters to ask when they plan to show this movie, and make sure we attend one of its showings. It will be demonized by those who have a vested interest in the failure of the principles it contains, but you can be an individual and freely make up your own mind, after you see all three parts of the trilogy.

Don't let them decide for you. Be unafraid, be willing to challenge yourself. Be John Galt.

Are you John Galt? If so, where are you and what are you going to do about this?

Restoration

Glenn Beck started this mess. Not that he did a bad thing, mind you. He just started it....that's all there is to it.

He had the audacity to call together a rally that drew what many people believe to be a half million people. He did it at the same place Ed Schultz drew a third of that, and today, where Colbert and Stewart drew half. He inspired the two weaker sequels not because he's angry or talented, but because he brought a simple message.

It was a message about true restoration. But before we think about that, let's look at the chronology a little.

Beck's rally was an action. But in another way, it was a reaction. He was reacting to the errant direction he thinks the world (and particularly this nation) is headed. He knew that many shared his same worldview.... and at the same time, he wanted to make sure that restoring honor was at the forefront of our motives, as we carefully and thoughtfully choose our destiny.

Schultz's rally was an angry reaction to Beck's action (as a reaction).

You see, Beck makes Ed mad. Ed likes to get mad because Beck says things that are verifiable. He also likes to get mad because he's a bully....and an an idiot too. So his motive was to bring in angry people (like himself) to make a weak and feeble attempt at shouting down Beck's peaceful message.

Colbert/Stewart was a show.

I know it it was supposed to be a production that was promoted as some weak and feeble attempt to restore sanity. But in the end, it was nothing more than a concert. It was a day of political comedy and music from those who carry a left wing perspective of the world like Schultz.... but they wanted it done in a party atmosphere.

I am not so sure the objective was met in this instance either. But I do know it wasn't really sane when you analyze it.... and the some of signage bears this out.

Have you got my point yet?

Action + reaction + reaction = Truth in communication + angry response + theatrical mockery.

I call Beck's rally "truth in communication" because I found nothing untrue about the words he spoke. He spoke of a restoration of the individual first and foremost. His message was not political, it was spiritual. It was not doctrinal or theological, it was personal. It was about transforming one's life back to the Almighty in a positive way, however we chose to do it, regardless of how each us believes in Him doctrinally.

He said that in order to transform the nation back to the way we strongly believed it should be, we must first make sure our own house was in order. We should know that real sanity, real peace, and real stability comes from a large amount of people, trying to do the right thing in their daily lives....on a daily basis. And if this was going to happen, we as a nation could make real and lasting change (based on truth and logic) happen.

The other two rallies were not based on the same foundation, nor were they as successful. Sure, they both drew a crowd and both had their own messages....but the aftermath is where we must draw our measurement.

The foundational principle of Beck's rally was firm enough for for individuals to come of their own free will and volition. It was announced. Then.... spontaneously, the people paid their own way and showed up. Schultz's foundation was based on "jealousy and envy". He thought he could pack more people in than Beck with his message of intolerance and hatred, so the unions helped him out by busing people in. In Colbert/Stewart, they wanted to promote their shows. Huffington and other groups bused people in in another effort to outdo beck's crowd.

The aftermath of the Beck gathering showed no trash left behind on the mall. Schultz's group, the ones that claim superiority on all things environmental, left much. I have yet to see the pictures of the mall after yesterday's gathering, but I bet it was not nearly as clean, as after Beck's.

More than anything at all, we must measure the outcome of all three groups. It cannot be seen in one day, one month, or maybe even in a year. But it will take a lifetime of evaluation and re-evaluation.

It will not come for the outside, nor will it come from election results. It will come from individuals and from the way they live their individual lives. It will be an ongoing process that will never end.... until the individual dies. Because this is how life is, it is an ever changing dynamic force that defines who we are, and what mark we leave on this world.

I know who I am, I knew it long before Beck had his rally. But others may not have started the process to learn who they are, before then. That is up to them to decide.

The mark I will leave on this earth has not been completed yet. I am still creating it. The hope is that those who can now find themselves can now restore themselves, to a sense of meaning and purpose they may have once had....or thought they had.

If we can do this on a large scale, we will need no more rallies to point us in that direction. As a result, there will be no need for counter rallies to subvert the cause(s) of the first.

New Post At PPTOG

It's nothing too heavy, no controversial doctrinal theories.

But nevertheless, I think it is something to think about as we brave the gusty winds of this thing called life.

Emotional Motives And The Decline Of Common Sense

I know that many have told me I am cynical. Tis true, I cannot argue.

But how can I help it when the overt incompetence surrounds us so tightly? Anyone that has the slightest bit of abstract reasoning abilities can plainly discern we are living in a very mad world right now. It is compounded by the fact that there is a culture of paradoxical value systems. Right has become wrong and wrong has become right, on one side of the coin. On the other side, we still have some people who are desperately trying to speak sensibly. But they are being shouted down and labeled offensive hatemongers.

There is no better illustration of reversal of values, than where Mustang gives us a short but poignant history lesson. I would highly recommend reading it.

To think that there are people who actually believe they are smart enough to charm their way into the hearts and minds of people who hate our guts. It wouldn't be so bad if there were a minute possibility it would work. In fact, I cannot think of a time when such hostility has ever been successfully resolved by appeasement, certainly not with any long-term positive outcomes. Bring this up at a dinner party where liberals are being seen in public and you will find yourself being demonized for not being on the right side of this argument, and fast.

Another example of pure idiocy is found here.

There's a new bogeyman lurking in the closet, and this one isn't imaginary. Us. One out of three children aged 6 to 11 fears that Ma Earth won't exist when they grow up, while more than half—56 percent—worry that the planet will be a blasted heath (or at least a very unpleasant place to live), according to a new survey.

It's not idiocy for the results of the survey, but for the lack of proof from these claimants. I wonder if any of the posters at this site, think it would be helpful to publish a link to the actual survey, to review the samples, the methodology, and the usual things an intelligent person would use to decide whether the study was a good one, or not. But on the chance that it is a good study, how can we claim we are surprised when these masters of the error are advancing scare tactics, to promote their weak and faulty claims?

It's so difficult to imagine this is what the founding fathers had envisioned when they drew up the blueprints for this nation. Somehow I cannot fathom that this is what they had in mind. The men that sought to protect its citizenry from the overreaching control of government would be astounded to see how insidiously liberties have been stripped from Americans, for no other reason but for government control. Feelings have been elevated above common sense.

I tell you, and I am not exaggerating. We are a little less than a generation away from the biggest farce of a culture, we will ever see. This world may never recover completely if this madness is not stopped along with the liars, who are perpetuating these dangerous myths.

Orwell had it so right. Only his timing was just a little off in his prophetic metaphorical analysis.

A Thought For The Day

The other day, Mrs. Sunsett read something in her readings that stood out enough for her to want to mention it to me. It's not much and maybe you have heard it, already. But I still would like to pass it along, on the chance there is someone else that has not heard it.

As I searched online to see who I could attribute this too, I found many are laying claim to it. But until someone comes up with more than what I have been able to find in my searchings, let's just say the source is unknown:

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

In these tough times, there appears to be little hope despite what the government hacks are telling us. Since January 20, there has been no evidence that there is anything to look forward to, nothing to plan for, and no end in sight. The Dow keeps going down after every speech, every promotion, and every plea for patience. Confidence is tanking out, faster and faster daily. People are getting sick and tired of being told, they are sick and tired.

But although our pain is nothing strange to us, although we can always be assured of a certain measure at some point in our lives, we need not sit about and suffer. We need not feel sorry for ourselves. We need not make the situation worse by ruminating on it.

Whenever a certain path seems like it leads nowhere, we need to change paths. Whenever we are sad, whenever we are bored or sick of present circumstances, it is at that moment where we need to effect some kind of change in our lives. It may necessitate some work and planning. But I still believe that old adage that we control much of own destiny. Not all, but a lot.

Sunday Reflection: A Call For Political Introspection

Dr. James Dobson is resigning from the organization, Focus On The Family. He is the organization, always has been. He has been a lightening rod for secular progressives, but a standard bearer to those who buy his books, listen to him speak, and spiritually follow his ministry.

The overall mission of this group has been modified and altered through the years. Whereby it may have started out as a sincere Christian Fellowship to teach families about family issues, like any other large entity that gains a large enough following, it has branched out. It has expanded its sphere of influence into the political world, and has become a sizable force within conservative political circles.

In the early stages of 2008 presidential campaign, Dobson began to communicate his views on a certain candidate. He even threatened the Republican Party with staying home on election day, if this candidate was nominated. The only reason given for this withholding of support was the man's religion. He is a Mormon.

Mormons are not considered "mainstream" by fundamentalist evangelicals, despite the family values they seek to apply to their daily lives. They are still considered a heretical religion, with many preaching the likes of them into hellfire and damnation every Sunday. Many see the fringe polygamists as what Mormonism represents, and they unfairly assign that set of values to the bulk of Mormons everywhere. So with all of this negative input, it only stands to reason that many fundamentalists are never going to support a candidate like Mitt Romney.

I had problems with him at first, but not because he was a Mormon. My reservations were on the foreign policy front, whether or not he had the experience on the international level to deal with the threats we face. I really believed that he would have made a better running mate for McCain than Palin. As a VP he could have learned more about international issues, while being the chief architect of getting the economy back into swing, the right way. And looking backward, had he been nominated for President, he certainly would have been a much better candidate than McCain. He would have been a better President than Obama.

Because Dr. Dobson carries a lot of influence in a large sector of conservatives, Mitt pulled out for lack of support, McCain did not consider Mitt as a running mate for fear that he would have lost the Christian Right support, and now we have Barack Obama screwing up the country so badly, we may not recognize it in four years. Wonderful, isn't it?

So, while many of my readers may be sorry to see Dobson step down, I am actually happy to see him go. And while I am not trying to point fingers toward my evangelical friends, I would hope that during the next four years (while watching Obama wreck this nation worse than you could ever imagine), you think about what I am saying here. Not every conservative is going to belong to a church you deem to be mainstream enough and for a leader to picked on the basis of whether or not he/she is "Christian" enough is absolutely ludicrous, as we can now see.

I am not a Mormon, never will be. I, too, have some issues with the Mormon doctrine. But many of them live better lives than me, many of them are probably in closer favor to God than I am, and I am not going to sit in judgment of them. Certainly many of them are better suited to serve in elected office than me.

When I vote, I am not looking for a pastor. I am looking for a President that will not spend this country into oblivion and open this country to a new influx of people that will seek to destroy it. I want someone that will protect my freedom, not curb it because I do not jive with mainstream thought processes.

Dobson and his followers did a good job of alienating people solely based on their personal views of theology. They flexed their political muscles, despite the fact that Christ spoke of the separation of church and state. Now, instead of Willard Mitt Romney, we have Barack Hussein Obama. And while there is no guarantee Romney would have won had be been the nominee (or on the ticket), he would have debated Obama better, ran a better campaign, and would have articulated better economic solutions on the campaign trail. He would have been a hundred times better, than this clown we have now.

So my friends, you can shout from the housetops or mutter under your breaths how I am going to hell, if that makes you feel good. I am at peace with myself and God, right now. While I am far from perfect (as Mustang will readily tell you at the drop of a hat), I must suffer under the leadership of this wretched bunch in power now (like all of us). But even at this, I am at peace knowing that I didn't cut my nose off to spite my face in this last election.



UPDATE:

Romney Wins Straw Poll.

Sunday Reflection: The Pleasing Of The Eye

When I was a mere private in the U.S. Army (once upon a time long ago), 50% of our inspections were based on "eye wash".

Sarge didn't always have time to dig everyday, because the training schedule was often too loaded for him to spend too much time on one thing. The time spent in the morning doing PT, taking showers, eating chow, and squaring the areas away before work formation went fast and other things needed to be done, in order to properly to get ready for the day ahead.

He understood that looks are only important, in that, it gives an initial positive first impression. He knew that underneath it all, there were minds that needed knowledge and job skills that needed more improvement. But every now and then, when Sarge was aware of a possible hold-up for some reason or another, he'd take a little more time to dig. The deeper he'd search, the more flaws he'd find. The deeper one must search to find flaws gives a strong indication of how thorough of a job has been done.

Once, in one of my units not long after I had arrived, we had a new First Sergeant who wanted to hold an inspection of the barracks. It was billed as a room inspection, which meant it was to be closed locker. Lockers were to be secured and the troops were to be waiting in their rooms by their bunks. My stuff was thrown in the locker, in an effort to keep clutter out the sight of his eye. The locker was secured, the room was clean, and the bunk was tight.

When he arrived to my area, he ordered me to open my locker and the mess was plainly visible to anyone that was in the room. He left my area unhappy, and later the entire unit was informed that we would be reinspected that evening. (As it turned out, I was not the only one that had their locker in gross disarray. Remember, the entire unit had been informed this was to be a "closed" locker inspection.)

This particular first sergeant was soon to become known as First Sergeant HB (House Beautiful). His concentration on the barracks being as clean as a surgery suite was a good thing for when the Annual General Inspection (AGI) came around. No one in the entire battalion had better looking billets, than we did. And it was noted as such, by the inspection team.

However, this is not the only job an AGI team has when they visit. There are many other areas which must be examined to determine how ready a unit is, should they find themselves in combat. The serviceability of unit equipment, the preciseness of military paperwork which ensures accountability of the equipment, and a soldier's knowledge of their job and basic military affairs are just as, if not more important, than having eyewash in the barracks.

But because this First Sergeant was fixated on eyewash, this particular unit ended up failing the overall inspection. In his mind, the superficial far outweighed the underneath. By focusing on cleanliness almost exclusively, he was not properly prioritizing. He thought the pleasing of the eye (and not the soundness of the heart) was what determined how many people will end up alive, if the balloon ever went up

What am I getting at here? Let me first throw one more analogy out, before I come to the main point of this post.

A few months back when i visited my friend Mustang, we were chatting and half glancing at TV. I don't remember the movie's title, but it was based on something written by Evelyn Waugh. We didn't watch the entire film, but there was one scene that stood out and made an impression on me.

Dan Ackroyd's character was that of a powerful man who had something one of the younger characters wanted (a job, maybe?). As the young man sat in front of an ornate desk in a large office, Ackroyd's character read him some portions of the riot act, but this particular part stood out. He asked the young man what kind of insect he wanted to be. Did he want to be a butterfly, something very majestic, beautiful to look at, but produced nothing? Or did he want to be a bee, not very sightly, but hard working and very productive?

As I think back to that movie scene and that First Sergeant's desire to be the butterfly, it causes me realize that looks are superficial and not always an indication of how squared away an individual actually is, on the inside. Please understand that I am not saying appearances and cleanliness are not important, but some of the most intelligent people I have ever met in this world did not look like they were. They were not formally educated and many times worked with their hands. Their fulfillment came when they produced something of value, something they would not have been ashamed to sign their name to.

Ackroyd's character may have seen through the young man and made a determination that he only wanted a job, for status purposes. Looking and acting important seems to be fashionable, in the younger generation today. But I wonder, what will happen someday when the worker bees with stringent work ethics retire or pass away, leaving the world to these youthful butterflies?

So today in your reflections, ask yourself some things. Are you a butterfly or a bee? Do you want a car that looks good, or runs well? Do you value appearances or depth of spirit? The eyes are but one of the senses, there are four others to consider.

The Functional Identity Crisis Of America?

If you haven't guessed by now, my favorite essayist on the internet today is Victor Davis Hanson. It's not because his essays help me post something on days that otherwise would be slow or days that I am extra busy.

Believe me, he does make it easy for me when those things happen. But the real reason I like him, he makes so much damned sense.

His latest hits the nail right on the head again. It should cause our elected leaders, as well as those the vote for them, to think about the direction America has taken and appears to be headed again in this election cycle. Granted, not many will read his wisdom and if they do, they will not heed his advice. But know this, their lack of interest in what he has to say does not mean his words are any less true.

Are You Tough Enough?

To some, the word tough casts a misconception. Some see it as a chest-thumping trait that is brash, arrogant, and intimidating. But when we stop and think about it, we find that it is anything but.

Toughness is not barbaric, cruel, or sadistic. It is a quiet and subtle, yet strong inner resolve that often gets mistaken for weakness by those that view tough in a negative light. Toughness is not an overt trait easily seen, at first glance. It is something that is hidden until it is needed.

Mustang at Social Sense has an essay that looks at the toughness of people throughout history and laments the lack of it, in western society today.

Give it a read, when you get a chance.

Has The World Gone Mad?

Here is the article.

At least two Buddhist monks were injured Friday in a street clash in Cambodia's capital between two opposing groups of monks during a protest against Vietnam, which some monks accuse of suppressing religious freedom.

Historically, Buddhists have taught peace, love, serenity, etc. But as we can see from this, human nature has its limitations. In all religions and cultures, there are those that allow their anger to fuel rage and the rage, violence. This isn't just an American thing, although we bear our share. It's a global thing.

It's a mankind thing.



Addendum: You can see the pics here.