And Yet I'm Still Saved- LaShun Pace & Tri City Singers

Praise Is What I Do - William Murphy

Is Shariah the Same as Jewish Law?

The Racist Bill Maher

Alleged Comedian and Racist Bill Maher 

Alleged comedian Bill Maher has topped his own hatred and racism for everything not Statist and atheist.

Maher: "Isn't Obama's big problem is that he does everything half-assed? Maybe it's because he's only half black. You know? It's that, if he was a, if this, if he was fully black, I'm telling you, he would be a better president. There's a white man in him holding him back because everything is half-assed. The stimulus was half-assed, healthcare is half-assed, let's talk about Afghanistan."

This was from his HBO show "Real Time" yesterday, which maybe a hand full of committed communists and some bored people watch.

His racism has leaked through before. This past May: "I thought when we elected a black president, we were going to get a black president. You know, this [BP oil spill] is where I want a real black president. I want him in a meeting with the BP CEOs, you know, where he lifts up his shirt where you can see the gun in his pants. That's - (in black man voice) we've got a ‘motherfu**ing problem here?' Shoot somebody in the foot." 

This is the knucklehead that CNN hired as a political analyst. Here he makes racist statements, advocates violence, spews hatred, and all that's okay. Conservatives do none of that, have polite protests with no violence, nothing racist has been said or done except by leftist plants that get interviewed by the Jurassic Press, yet they are the horrible ones. Plus, if you ever look at the after pictures of Leftist and TEA Party rallies/protests, the TEA partiers leave their trash in and around the trash cans, and the Leftists leave a hot filthy mess behind. Plus, you don't hear this kind of trash talk from real political commentators that are on the Right.  

I would say double standard here, but I no longer think it is. The Left advocates racism, intolerance, fascism and hatred, and the Jurassic Press are the willing purveyors. Can you imagine if Maher had reversed his stupid statement?  

Have we reached such a sorry point in our culture that this passes for humor and insight; that this guy has a platform at all? In other times he would be dismissed because of what he is and stands for, and perhaps even shunned. 

You Don't Need No Stinkin' Free Speech

This Kagan character with no judicial or practical legal experience gets appointed to the Supreme Court, thinks the 1st Amendment allows the government to limit free speech, so she doesn't know what's in the Constitution either. Kagan: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

That’s pretty much in line with what Leftists think, and a great example of that are the trustees of Andover Township.

Some TEA Party movement members applied for a permit to read the Constitution on Constitution Day in the town square. The Statist trustees responded: “Due to your group’s political affiliation, in our opinion as a case by case option we are denying your request to use Andover Township Park.”

Let’s see. Reading the Constitution in public is not to be allowed because of political beliefs that differ from those that think they have power, and the people don’t.

And some of us are silly enough to think that the part of the Constitution that covers free speech means that people can exercise free speech. Silly us.

Fortunately these knuckleheads were overturned. Then again, if this had gone to the Supreme Court, Kagan would have sided with the trustees. I’ve got to wonder, after this, why were these trustees trusted with anything in the first place?

Sometimes Words Are Meaningless

The clichéd phrase is "words mean something". I'm beginning to think that sometimes words don't mean anything.  Sometimes people losing an argument, or trying to bend you to seeing their exclusive reality as the true reality, just put words together that are meaningless.

I saw two such events these past few days. John Holdren, Obama's science adviser, said a couple days ago during a speech in Oslo that the term "global warming" has lost its shine, and we're now supposed to use the term "climate disruption". What could that possibly mean? This is 'newspeak' gone mad, as mad as Obama's language police replacing the word “terrorism" with "man caused disasters".  Orwell was too brilliant to come up with something so stupid.

The other venture into post Orwellian newspeak evolves out of the current debate among Democrats about the "Bush tax cuts"; whether to extend them or not. If the tax cuts are extended, then they become "Obama's tax cuts". Say what? Here's the quote from Pelosi: "What I believe the American people deserve is a tax cut for the middle class." "And without getting into procedure and timing and process, what we're going to do is to say at the end of the day, the extension of the Obama middle-income tax cuts will take place, and that's what I have to say on the subject."

Let’s see, extend someone else’s legislation so things remain the same, the stick your name to it and call it a change, and take credit for the change that isn’t a change.

Orwell and I say, “What?”

The Pope and the Queen

The Pope goes to Britain, and not too many have much to say about it, missing what is noteworthy. The Jurassic Press has the predictable response; more about that later.

What’s noteworthy is the Queen of England, who came of age during the WWII era, and Pope Benedict XVI, rooted in that time, meet in Scotland. The last Papal visit, not an official one, happened thirty years ago. The last official visit was about 500 years ago. There’s been a bit of dissention between the Catholic and Anglican churches, and it’s lasted a while. Things are on the mend now.

Both of these extraordinary people come from an age with values and beliefs that have been turned upside down. When Joseph Ratzinger was a teenager, the Nazi’s took his disabled cousin and killed him as part of their eugenics campaign. Ratzinger was conscripted by the Nazi’s to serve in the Hitler Youth. When it disbanded he fled and was captured by Americans and put in prison.

Queen Elizabeth served in the Auxiliary Territorial Service as a driver and mechanic in WWII. The real deal, on the front.

These two bring together a wisdom brought on by the horrible experience of war and its aftermath. They know first hand the face of evil, the terrible things that war brings on, especially one founded in race hatred and religious hatred. They come together with this great knowledge and wisdom; a return and coming together after 500 years. We see the reaching out to each other of the Church of England and the Catholic Church at this time in history. Queen Elizabeth II is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and is meeting the Vicar of Christ, the descendant of Peter. To me, the historical and religious import of this visit is profound.

What the Jurassic Press sees is a chance to attack the Catholic Church with its usual dribble of pedophilia and the rest of that mess, as if Pope Benedict was there and egged the perverts on, and more dribble about how out of touch the Pope and Catholic Church is with modernity, and of course saying Ratzinger was a Nazi without telling the true story. As if heterosexual marriage, the sanctity of life, loving one another, charity and the accomplishments of Christianity and the Church is of no merit.

Of course, coming from a mindset that there are many truths or no truth, there is no God, morality is situational and selective, this is expected. Being rude and boorish is expected also. The Pope is a great man deserving of respect, and these sad sacs are incapable of honoring these extraordinary people and their history of truth and honor.

Novelist Günter Grass (at the time proud Nazi and later a Communist) met Ratzinger in a prison camp in WWII. In his memoirs, Grass wrote of a conversation with Ratzinger: “I said, there are many truths.” “He said, there is only one.”

This visit, to one of the most secular of nations, brings that one truth. Let’s pray that some hear it.

      

The Bellamy Brothers - Jalapenos

funny, political, satirical,

A Tale of Two Leaders

Their Fearless Leader of Non Free World

Our Fearless Leader Of Free World

Hat tip to The Patriot Post

Geert Wilders Speech at New York's Ground Zero Mosque (11-09-2010)

This should be required viewing for every Elitist, Democrat, Statist, Liberal that just doesn't get why the people know this mosque isn't the right thing to do.

Libera - Tallis's Canon 2009

Do You Know Your Doctor's Religious Beliefs?

It may be, according to a study recently published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, that if you are terminally ill, the religious beliefs of your doctor influences whether your care may cause your life to be shortened or prolonged.

According to the study, doctors without religious convictions, or are atheists, are twice as likely as religious doctors to make decisions that will shorten the life of their patient. 

Barts and the London school of medicine and dentistry, Professor Clive Seale: "If I were a patient facing end of life care, I would want to know what my doctor's views were on religious matters – whether they are non-religious or religious and whether the doctor felt that would influence them in the kinds of decisions they were looking at." 

Science isn't so neutral, and neither are doctors when making decisions. 

Full article here. 

Star Spangled Prince Poppycock

OH MY! Prince Poppycock rocks! God Bless America Indeed! He sings opera, rock and now this.
Prince Poppycock sings Queen here.

Okay to be Anti Christian, Anti Semite; Islam Wants International Law to Make Criticism of Islam a Criminal Act

There has been a campaign, at least for the past ten years, to have the UN vote to make any offense against religion an international criminal act. The campaign, reigniting itself with the behavior of the anti-pastor knucklehead that wants to burn the Koran, is lead by a intolerant jihadist hate organization, the Islamic Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (ISESCO). 

Apparently they don't see the irony (at least) of their desire to make the whole world submit to Islam and Sharia Law, beheading Christians and Jews and really any infidel, burning down synagogues and churches, stoning to death anyone that violates their violent oppressive religious\State laws even if they aren't a member of that violent State religion. Not to mention the call for the complete genocide of all Jews on the planet. 

These ISESCO characters are only one organization of intolerant bigots of the umbrella group, Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Their jihadist tentacles reach into fifty six nations. 

ISESCO press release:  “It is a blot on humanity that such discriminatory attacks against Islam and Islamic holy sites is continuing in the absence of deterrent legal measures, local and international.” They are demanding the UN “to issue an international law criminalizing all forms of offense against religions under any circumstances.”

Just wondering if they got this law passed, if persecution of all “infidels” in Islamic countries would be tried in international criminal courts. How about some churches and synagogues in Mecca? Protest against those and you get tried, convicted and imprisoned.   

Of course the OIC is using the “Islamophobia” charge against America, which is another not so subtle ploy to turn the US into an Islamic State. We aren’t’ surprised that Liberals, Statists, most Democrats and neo-atheists agree with this Islamophobia charge.

Columnist Diana West: “With this in mind, it should become clear that the extraordinary global campaign against this stunt [Koran burning] is yet another concerted effort, aided by an army’s worth of useful fools, to bring our constitutional republic into conformance with Islamic law.” 

Koran Burning Not Okay, Bible Burning Okay

All the Jurassic Media and Leftists and Islamists are just outraged about some knucklehead anti-pastor with a tiny bigoted church will burn the Koran.

Bibles get burned all the time by lots of folks, and nary a word is said. It's the national policy of Saudi Arabia, the number one financier of terrorism, to burn Bibles, and it's done on a regular basis. They also destroy all symbols of Christianity on a regular basis. Not to mention all the murders, stonings, beheadings, and beatings visited upon Christians and Jews worldwide.

Christians in Gaza live in fear for their lives and their thug government burns their Bibles at every opportunity. Not a word from the Jurassic Press, Leftists, or the Islamists that are so outraged that the Koran may be set on fire. It's only Christians and maybe some Jews that may get ticked off, so no big deal.

Churches in Pakistan constantly get raided, desecrated and Bibles burned.

There's been many Bible burnings here in the US too, but you don't see the Jurassic Media flocking to cover them.

Anti Christian bigotry is not only alive and well worldwide, but even embraced and endorsed by the Jurassic Press, Leftists, neo-atheists, and Islamists.

Budweiser 9/11 Tribute Commercial

This was shown one time.

Remembrance 9/11

Dr. Hal Scherz Talks to Doctors About the Threat of ObamaCare to Them and Their Patients

We're glad to see the medical profession take a stand for their patients and against the government that wants to control your health and your body. I like my doctor, and I don't want some non medical Washington bureaucrat say what kind of treatment and meds I can have, instead of him.

Three Presidents on Vacation

Reagan Going for a Ride

Bush Enjoying Some Time Off

Obama Going for a Ride

America's Hateful Islamophobic Rage and the Resulting Increase in Hate Crimes Against Muslims

The Jurassic Press reported that the Muslim cab driver in New York had his throat slit by a Muslim hating right wingnut, except it turn out to be a Leftist peacenik. Oops. The NY City Times Square bomber, before he was caught, was identified by Mayor Bloomberg as probably a right winger of some sort, probably a TEA Partier, and the sycophantic Jurassic Press, said yep, probably so. Nope, it turn out to be an Islamofacist jihadist. Oops.

With opposition to the NY Mosque of Triumph at ground zero, the NY city cab incident, the press is reporting that hate crimes against Muslims is up, even skyrocketing. I'm reminded of huge increase of church burnings in the 1990's and how they were skyrocketing. Even Bill Clinton said he remembered churches getting burned down when he was a kid. Of course there were no churches burned down in Arkansas when Clinton was a kid. Writer Jim Glassman actually looked up and tabulated the record of church burnings, I forget how many years he went back, but several years, and the instances had been trending down. The particular year in question, the one that the Jurassic Press was reporting as a "skyrocketing" year, was the lowest year for the number church burnings.

So it is for Muslim hate crimes. Want to guess what group suffers the most hate crimes in America? I'll spare you. Jews. Amazing. Here's some numbers, the latest are from 2008. One would think that with $billions and thousands of employees the Federal government could have a little more up to date states, but we'll have to go with these.

1,606 religious hate crimes.  4.7% of those were against Catholics,  3.7% against Protestants, and a hard number of 105 hate crimes committed against Muslim. 105 out of 1,606.  65.7% of religious hate crimes were against Jews.

Race, anti-Black hate crimes were up, 8% of race crimes, 1 of 10 for a total of 2,876.

Blacks: 2,876 hate crimes

Gays: 1,297

Jews: 1,055

Muslims: 105

American citizens are Islamophobic, hating Muslims, and perpetuating crimes against them. Well, maybe not.

We do have this though. Who's advocating what? This last week on Sept. 3

 Antisemitism is on the rise world wide, at levels seen before in the Middle East and Germany during the 1930's. It seems to be getting a pass in the Jurassic Media and other Leftists.

More Sonia Dada "Temple"

Sonia Dada "The Edge of the Night"

Just I group I used to listen to a few years ago, and they've dropped back into my consciousness...

Conquistadors and Christians

Like the Crusades, much of what we were taught about the Spanish invasion and conquering of the Aztecs and Incas was incorrect. I would suspect that due to political correctness that now it’s even more incorrect. Like the Crusades, what’s taught is Europeans invaded and just killed lots of people. With the Spanish conquest of the Americas, it was with the support of Christians and the Catholic Church.

The conquest was purely about gold. To accomplish that involved genocide and slavery, neither of which was supported by Christians. Friar Bartolome de Las Casas in his journal at the time:

“The reason the Christians have murdered on such a vast scale and killed anyone and everyone in their way is purely and simply greed. They have set out to line their pockets with gold and to amass private fortunes as quickly as possible so that they can assume a status quite at odds with that into which they were born. Their insatiable greed and overweening ambition knows no bounds.”

Just before Christmas in 1511, Dominican friar Antonio de Montesinos announced he had an important sermon, and the church was packed. What they expected to hear was an endorsement from the Church about their massive rape, murder, theft and enslavement. What they heard instead:

“In order to make your sin against the Indians known to you I have come up on this pulpit, I who am the voice of Christ crying in the wilderness of this island, and therefore it behooves you to listen, not with carless attention, but with all your heart and senses, so that you may hear it; for this is going to be the strangest voice that ever you heard, the harshest and the hardest and most awful and most dangerous that you ever expected to hear...

 This voice says that you are in mortal sin, that you live and die in it, for the cruelty and tyranny you use in dealing with these innocent people. Tell me, by what right or justice do you keep these Indians in such a cruel and horrible servitude? On what authority have you waged a detestable war against these people, who dwelt quietly and peaceful on their own land?...

 Why do you keep them so oppressed and weary, not giving them enough to eat nor taking care of them in their illness? For with the excessive work you demand of them they fall ill and die, or rather you kill them with your desire to extract and acquire gold every day.

 Are these Indians not men? Do they not have rational souls? Are you not obliged to love them as you love yourselves?”

In this last the most important Christian rule is pronounced, ‘love your neighbor as yourself’. The next Sunday he returned to the pulpit and repeated his message. He was endangering his life doing so. Conquistadors were not soldiers of Spain, but mercenaries, and convicts working for their freedom from prison. They were threatened with excommunication if they didn’t stop, yet still ignored the Church. The Church had no power beyond this to enforce its will.

Montesinos went to Spain and lobbied the King, telling him of the atrocities. The result was the “Laws of Burgos” making the genocide and enslavements illegal, which had no effect. They were unenforceable. The King didn’t have the military power or money.

Back to Las Casas. He was at one time a slaveholder himself. Here’s the thinking that changed his mind:

“Unclean is the offering sacrificed by an oppressor. [Such] mockeries of the unjust are not pleasing to God. The Lord is pleased only by those who keep to the way of truth and justice. The Most High does not accept the gifts of unjust people. He does not look well upon their offerings. Their sins will not be expiated by repeat sacrifices.

 The one whose sacrifice comes from the good of the poor is like one who kills his neighbor. The one who sheds blood and the one who defrauds the laborer are kin and kind.”

The conquistadores threatened the clergy in the Americas with beatings and death. There was an armed revolt in Peru that kicked the King’s Viceroy out. King Charles was fed up at this point and ordered all Spanish conquests stopped until things were worked out. There’s much more to the story, but I wanted to give a sense that the Church, Christians applying the rule of love your neighbor as yourself and speaking out against slavery, did a lot to stop the genocide and enslavement of a free people. It was people that turned their back on Christianity that caused these horrible things to happen.

It was greed that did this. Christians that saw it was wrong and spoke out were beaten and killed, but still got the government to do the moral thing. The problem was, as the ruling council of the Americas, The Council of the Indies, concluded:

“We feel certain that these laws have not been obeyed…. The greed of those who undertake conquest and the timidity and humility of the Indians is such that we are not certain whether any instruction will be obeyed.”

Later in 1573 King Philip II enforced new laws regarding all new Spanish discoveries, that all peoples in these lands were to be treated fairly and enslaving them illegal. The law had teeth, though I’m sure there where plenty of violations, like there is of nearly any law. This was a far cry from what went on initially.

Las Casas:

“…if we want to be sons of Christ and followers of the truth of the gospel, we should consider that, even though these peoples may be completely barbaric, they are nevertheless created in God’s image….They are our brothers, redeemed by Christ’s most precious blood, no less than the wisest and most learned men in the whole world. “

The Paucity of Good Movies Has Left Me a Cinematic Pauper

I checked out the movie listings for the weekend, really wanting to see a movie, and there’s nothing out there of any interest, let alone merit.

There’s George Clooney’s “The American” with the oft used hunter becomes hunted. Clooney, like Tom Cruise, are “B” movie actors that have parlayed movie technical wizardry into a handsome income. It’s like a singer with a middling voice becoming a pop star because of all the sound filters and reverbs and whatever. I stay away from Clooney vehicles too because he sounds off on political issues, with the standard useful idiot statements of America bad, leftist dictators and neo-fascists good. He wouldn't get my money even if he accidently made a good movie.

So far this weekend, “The American” is the number one movie. Second is the vile racist anti-American “Machete”. I liked “Grindhouse”, a fun and funny send up/parody of that movie genre. This is a spinoff, and is nothing more than a hate filled racist rant against white Americans and US immigration policy. Really, the assassination of a senator just because he believes immigration law should be enforced is a good plot? I saw an early trailer with Danny Trejo saying nasty things about Arizona’s SB1070 immigration legislation. The Jessica Alba character states that if an American only believes in legal immigration, they “should be cut down”. This movie advocates for a revolution against America and the overthrow of our government. A group like the Minute Men is portrayed as cold blooded killers that hunt down Mexicans and murder them. In one scene they shoot a pregnant Mexican woman and comment, “Welcome to America”. Really. This is good cinematic fun?

“Takers” that’s supposed to have an all star cast about a detective going against some idealized robbers. Saw the trailer; that’s about the whole movie. Ever get the sense that the trailer is the movie, and feel duped when you get out of the movie itself? Everything worth seeing in the movie was in the trailer. Well, I’m not a taker on this movie either.

Then “The Last Exorcism” yet another plot done to death. I think horror movies are horrible by definition, stupid and time wasting. Last one I saw was “The Exorcism” with Linda Blair. It was possibly the last innovative horror flick.

Romantic comedies Hollywood just needs to stop trying to make. They aren’t funny, and are just vehicles for bad writers to make juvenile sexual innuendos. Even the trailer for this last attempt, “Going the Distance” I couldn’t wait to end. Drew Barrymore could be a good if not great actress, but has decided to bank on bad romantic comedies.

I actually read “Eat, Pray, Love” which was supposed to be a story of self growth and revelation, turned out to be nothing more than self obsessed navel gazing. She went though all those experiences and still was a selfish, intolerant Leftist. Julia Roberts, who portrayed the character, now claims to be a Hindu. That’ll pass, she’s an empty vessel, and something else that takes no effort will come along and she'll think that's fulfilling and meaningful too .

So I’ll stay home and read some good books and articles on line; and do some blogging. Time better spent. There are great plots and stories to be told. I wish Hollywood would bother to tell them, and find good actors to portray them. 

     

Sanctify - Come Holy Spirit - Annie Karto

Atheism Explained

Magnificent ~ God's Creation

What Dems Really Think About Freedom and American Citizens

"I wish it weren't, but it's a free country and we've got to respect that."


"Let me remind you this has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people."


"The Federal Government can do most anything in this country."


Democrats don't want a free people, and think we should be subject to them.

Yet another blow to the “black legend” of the Crusades

~ “LETTERS FROM EUROPE” - by Rob (Wind Rose Hotel) ~

Recruiting for the Crusade, Oil on canvas (1621)

Palazzo Ducale, Venice

Every now and then I feel like paying tribute to the Crusades, one of the most controversial and misinterpreted issues—mostly because of the shadow cast on them by the Enlightenment circles to use them as a weapon in their anti-religious campaigns—in Western intellectual, religious, and political history. So here is yet another blow to the “black legend” of the Crusades, worshipped by almost every sworn enemy of the West and its Judeo-Christian values and heritage. This time it is G. K. Chesterton’s turn to be the Advocate of the Christian Cause. Here is an excerpt from his 1920 The New Jerusalem (CHAPTER XI, THE MEANING OF THE CRUSADE) :

The critic of the Crusade talks as if it had sought out some inoffensive tribe or temple in the interior of Thibet, which was never discovered until it was invaded. They seem entirely to forget that long before the Crusaders had dreamed of riding to Jerusalem, the Moslems had almost ridden into Paris. They seem to forget that if the Crusaders nearly conquered Palestine, it was but a return upon the Moslems who had nearly conquered Europe. There was no need for them to argue by an appeal to reason, as I have argued above, that a religious division must make a difference; it had already made a difference. The difference stared them in the face in the startling transformation of Roman Barbary and of Roman Spain. In short it was something which must happen in theory and which did happen in practice; all expectation suggested that it would be so and all experience said it was so. Having thought it out theoretically and experienced it practically, they proceeded to deal with it equally practically. The first division involved every principle of the science of thought; and the last developments followed out every principle of the science of war. The Crusade was the counter-attack. It was the defensive army taking the offensive in its turn, and driving back the enemy to his base. And it is this process, reasonable from its first axiom to its last act, that Mr. Pound actually selects as a sort of automatic wandering of an animal. But a man so intelligent would not have made a mistake so extraordinary but for another error which it is here very essential to consider. To suggest that men engaged, rightly or wrongly, in so logical a military and political operation were only migrating like birds or swarming like bees is as ridiculous as to say that the Prohibition campaign in America was only an animal reversion towards lapping as the dog lappeth, or Rowland Hill's introduction of postage stamps an animal taste for licking as the cat licks. Why should we provide other people with a remote reason for their own actions, when they themselves are ready to tell us the reason, and it is a perfectly reasonable reason?
I have compared this pompous imposture of scientific history to the pompous and clumsy building of the scientific Germans on the Mount of Olives, because it substitutes in the same way a modern stupidity for the medieval simplicity. But just as the German Hospice after all stands on a fine site, and might have been a fine building, so there is after all another truth, somewhat analogous, which the German historians of the Folk-Wanderings might possibly have meant, as distinct from all that they have actually said. There is indeed one respect in which the case of the Crusade does differ very much from modern political cases like prohibition or the penny post. I do not refer to such incidental peculiarities as the fact that Prohibition could only have succeeded through the enormous power of modern plutocracy, or that even the convenience of the postage goes along with an extreme coercion by the police. It is a somewhat deeper difference that I mean; and it may possibly be what these critics mean. But the difference is not in the evolutionary, but rather the revolutionary spirit.
The First Crusade was not a racial migration; it was something much more intellectual and dignified; a riot. In order to understand this religious war we must class it, not so much with the wars of history as with the revolutions of history. As I shall try to show briefly on a later page, it not only had all the peculiar good and the peculiar evil of things like the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution, but it was a more purely popular revolution than either of them. The truly modern mind will of course regard the contention that it was popular as tantamount to a confession that it was animal. In these days when papers and speeches are full of words like democracy and self-determination, anything really resembling the movement of a mass of angry men is regarded as no better than a stampede of bulls or a scurry of rats. The new sociologists call it the herd instinct, just as the old reactionaries called it the many-headed beast. But both agree in implying that it is hardly worth while to count how many head there are of such cattle. In face of such fashionable comparisons it will seem comparatively mild to talk of migration as it occurs among birds or insects. Nevertheless we may venture to state with some confidence that both the sociologists and the reactionaries are wrong. It does not follow that human beings become less than human because their ideas appeal to more and more of humanity. Nor can we deduce that men are mindless solely from the fact that they are all of one mind. In plain fact the virtues of a mob cannot be found in a herd of bulls or a pack of wolves, any more than the crimes of a mob can be committed by a flock of sheep or a shoal of herrings. Birds have never been known to besiege and capture an empty cage of an aviary, on a point of principle, merely because it had kept a few other birds in captivity, as the mob besieged and captured the almost empty Bastille, merely because it was the fortress of a historic tyranny. And rats have never been known to die by thousands merely in order to visit a particular trap in which a particular rat had perished, as the poor peasants of the First Crusade died in thousands for a far-off sight of the Sepulchre or a fragment of the true cross. In this sense indeed the Crusade was not rationalistic, if the rat is the only rationalist. But it will seem more truly rational to point out that the inspiration of such a crowd is not in such instincts as we share with the animals, but precisely in such ideas as the animals never (with all their virtues) understand.

What is peculiar about the First Crusade is that it was in quite a new and abnormal sense a popular movement. I might almost say it was the only popular movement there ever was in the world. For it was not a thing which the populace followed; it was actually a thing which the populace led. It was not only essentially a revolution, but it was the only revolution I know of in which the masses began by acting alone, and practically without any support from any of the classes. When they had acted, the classes came in; and it is perfectly true, and indeed only natural, that the masses alone failed where the two together succeeded. But it was the uneducated who educated the educated. The case of the Crusade is emphatically not a case in which certain ideas were first suggested by a few philosophers, and then preached by demagogues to the democracy. This was to a great extent true of the French Revolution; it was probably yet more true of the Russian Revolution; and we need not here pause upon the fine shade of difference that Rousseau was right and Karl Marx was wrong. In the First Crusade it was the ordinary man who was right or wrong. He came out in a fury at the insult to his own little images or private prayers, as if he had come out to fight with his own domestic poker or private carving-knife. He was not armed with new weapons of wit and logic served round from the arsenal of an academy. There was any amount of wit and logic in the academies of the Middle Ages; but the typical leader of the Crusade was not Abelard or Aquinas but Peter the Hermit, who can hardly be called even a popular leader, but rather a popular flag. And it was his army, or rather his enormous rabble, that first marched across the world to die for the deliverance of Jerusalem.

This Is Why There Are No Jobs in America

I''d like to make you a business offer.

Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can''t turn me down, as
you''ll come to understand in a moment...

Here''s the deal. You''re going to start a business or expand the one you''ve
got now. It doesn''t really matter what you do or what you''re going to do.
I''ll partner with you no matter what business you''re in - as long as it''s
legal.

But I can''t give you any capital - you have to come up with that on your
own. I won''t give you any labor - that''s definitely up to you. What I will
do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and
services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and
where and when you''re allowed to operate your business. That''s my role in
the affair: to tell you what to do.

Now in return for my rules, I''m going to take roughly half of whatever you
make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn''t it? I think so. Of
course, that''s half of your profits.

You''re also going to have to pay me about 12% of whatever you decide to pay
your employees because you''ve got to cover my expenses for promulgating all
of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on, you''re
my partner. It''s only "fair."

Now... after you''ve put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this
business, and after you''ve worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my
50% or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you''d like to
cash out - to finally live the good life.

Whether or not this is "fair" - some people never can afford to retire - is
a different argument. As your partner, I''m happy for you to sell whenever
you''d like... because our agreement says, if you sell, you have to pay me an
additional 20% of whatever the capitalized value of the business is at that
time.

I know... I know... you put up all the original capital. You took all the
risks. You put in all of the labor. That''s all true. But I''ve done my part,
too. I''ve collected 50% of the profits each year. And I''ve always come up
with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another,
final 20% slice of the business.

Oh... and one more thing...

Even after you''ve sold the business and paid all of my fees... I''d recommend
buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you''ve been retired for
years, when you die, you''ll have to pay me 50% of whatever your estate is
worth.

After all, I''ve got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful
as you and your family. We don''t think it''s "fair" for your kids to have
such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance
this expense for your children.

All in all, if you''re a very successful entrepreneur... if you''re one of the
rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company, employ
lots of people, and satisfy the public... you''ll end up paying me more than
75% of your income over your life. Thanks so much.

I''m sure you''ll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me...
but it doesn''t really matter how you feel about it because if you ever try
to stiff me - or cheat me on any of my fees or rules - I''ll break down your
door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy,
automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.

That''s how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is America, isn''t
it?

That''s the offer America gives its entrepreneurs. And the idiots inWashington wonder why there are no new jobs...

 By Porter Stansberry

Saturday, August 21, 2010