My Photo
I am retired from government, law enforcement, politics and all other pointless endeavors. I eat when I am hungry and sleep when I am tired.

Saturday, June 27, 2015


Regarding the Same Sex marriage ruling, elevating our emotional preferences to the status of rights is a blow to the very concept of law. So called Human Rights are merely a subterfuge around coherent law.  Isn't it obvious that most if not all talk about Human Rights is an appeal to both emotion and a subversion of law? If so called Human Rights are a species of law, why are they not enacted? If they exist in a sort of ghostly hovering state above our actual law, what is to keep them from being called forth in the service of emotional tantrums. That is exactly what just happened. 

No right to marry someone of the same sex existed at the time of the founding. No one asserted such a right until the day before yesterday in historical terms. Yet these campaigners have the intellectual dishonesty to assert that the "right" they want is to be found in our Constitution. This is to treat our Constitution as a piƱata. An object that must be broken to access to it's goodies.

The campaigners for same sex marriage had an honest and lawful route open to them. They could have sought a constitutional amendment. They chose to get their way via a judicial ukase instead. What they have actually achieved is a further lessening of the seriousness of both marriage and law. It is now clear that the Supreme Court is merely another political branch. This shouldn't surprise us as the left in America, from the Communists to the Liberals, have always denied that it could be anything else. The left sees everything as political power working itself out through whatever institution is in play at the moment. And so Justice Kennedy, an old fashioned centrist/liberal see's nothing wrong with bending the supreme law of the land to the mores of the moment.

I've read that several Justices performed same sex "marriages." Two Justices are obvious lesbians. Yet they all voted. The appearance of objectivity it seems, is an antique concept.

This not to say that there is no such thing as natural law. "Natural" is the key word here. To see what is natural for man it is necessary to look to man's History. Has there ever been a successful culture with no normative understanding of family structure? Has there ever been a society that disestablished that natural order out of deference to their abnormal members? How did that work out? I suggest that the term decadence covers this area and it is synonymous with decline.

The same sex campaigners are not acting out of love for homosexuals so much as a disdain and a grudge against the normal order. They want what we cannot give.

Tuesday, June 23, 2015


For me, Rod Dreher's objection to a thing counts almost as a seal of approval.  As anyone could have guessed, he came out against flying the battle flag of the Confederacy over government buildings.  It's a marvel how he keeps adjusting his deeply held beliefs.  This time he decided that his respect for his ancestors had to give way due to the prospect of a black friend glimpsing a rebel flag in his neighborhood.  Not on his property, no, just somewhere in his vicinity.  He wants us to believe that his black friend, living in New Orleans, has never seen a confederate flag.  I suppose some of his fan base actually do.  

As I wrote elsewhere, the only proper response to a demand that you reject a part of your heritage is to say…"Screw you!"  One's history and heritage aren't preserved because they fit the taste of the day.  They're preserved because they constitute the past.  They bear on who one is.  Traditions are part of what make us human.  They are not subject to the veto of outsiders.  

It should not surprise us that poltroons like Dreher bend with the times.  We should encourage out Southern friends to hold to their traditions, even if they cause embarrassment to the opportunists in their midst. 

Wednesday, June 17, 2015



“To be sure, there undoubtedly exists a growing critical consensus that the terrorist threat is largely phony, having been inflated by both political parties for political reasons.”  Phillip Giraldi

Such terroristic threats that do exist are the result of federal policy. They allow massive immigration from Muslim countries. Then they insist that all the rest of us give up our liberties in order to control what the Muslims bring with them. In almost all of the recent cases of ISIS support, planned armed attacks, etc., recent Muslim immigrants are to blame.
This terrorism meme is employed in a thousand ways to control our ordinary behavior. I can’t drive anywhere these days without noticing all the surveillance cameras. I can’t enter the courthouse with a pen knife in my pocket. None off this makes the rest of us safer. It just establishes the habits of thoughtless compliance.
As you say, the National Guard should respond to civil unrest, formerly known as riots.
Giving the local cops MRAPs and such is just wasteful. I seem to remember that they were going to be left behind as a cost saving measure. I’d rather they rust out behind police headquarters than filled with Jihadi’s on their way to kill off some more Christians. I’m not particularly threatened by them. I will be if the local PD starts to arm up with heavy weapons. I don’t want the local donut boys in possession of mortars.
Your point about police militarization resonates with me. Cops and Soldiers had very different mindsets when I was a young Sheriffs Officer. We had many Vietnam vets in the departments in my vicinity. I don’t remember a lot of carry-over into how the law was enforced. However bloody Vietnam was, it was largely fought in the bush, against an alien population. I’m not as comfortable with being stopped at the side of the road by a cop/reservist just back from Iraq. Habits can be hard to break.
To be honest, to paraphrase Dr. Johnson, every man wishes he had been a soldier. This holds true for policemen as well. Given a choice between being/looking the cop on the beat, and looking (and perhaps) acting like a commando, the choice is clear. It’s only human nature. This is bad business.
Some of what you describe has a long history that only recently made itself felt. American policing began in cities and for a long time policemen were expected to enforce the norms and hierarchies of those cities. Policemen knew that they were to be restrained when dealing with “Citizens” while free to lay the stick about among unruly lesser orders. The old cops were not promoted solely on the basis of arrests. They were expected to keep order with a minimum of paperwork. In short police work and broad cultural norms were in tune. That’s how it was.
All that changed with the progressive era professionalization of police departments in places like California, and the so called Civil Rights Revolution. Both set the stage for police departments treating everyone the same. That is, impersonal and rule bound. Much of what people see as police rudeness and intrusiveness can be laid down to police procedure manuals written by lawyers and a desire to make arrests. Arrests end in convictions which are good for the lawyers.

Of course a great deal can also be attributed to the war on drugs, That became the war on drunks and is now the war on drivers in general.



The Southern Poverty Law Center is famous for rooting out bigotry and hate speech, except that is, when it comes to their fawning article commenters. The comment thread below was typical of what passes as fair comment on the $PLC’s site. It is among the reactions to a story about a rather unsavory $PLC former target who tuned up dead of gunshot wounds in 2013.
The story itself is a self-promoting, gloating report of what happens to people the $PLC designate as “haters.” It’s carried under the banner of HATEWATCH.
The story itself is insignificant except for insight it provides into the mind of the $PLC’s fan base. To their minds, a police blotter account of a dead ignoramus in Louisville, leads directly into an attack on the Catholic Church, and Christianity. This is all on a site purportedly dedicated to attacking bigotry.
Judging the $PLC by the same criteria they apply to others, this is a clear case of providing a platform for religious bigotry of the vilest kind. While hammering everything traditional and Western it would seem that the $PLC is quite at home with a lot of hate speech among its own admirers and on its own site.
Here is the segment that caught my attention. Note also how these sophisticates murder the English language in their expression of right-think.
If I offer you salvation and cookies, will you give me all your money? ;D
That’s funny…but didn’t the Catholic church get in trouble many millennium’s ago by selling salvation. They might have gotten away with it if they included cookies.
They do! They’re called ‘communion wafers.’
if i remember correctly the selling of indulences as it was called was one of the primary motivating factors of the Protestant Reformation.
That would be correct.
Skip Patterson replying to zelduh • a year ago
Hey, hustling G-d is big business.
Here’s some context for you:
  • Catholics regard the Blessed Sacrament—the Communion Host, which these bigots mock—as extremely sacred.
  • The SPLC is a critic of religious bigotry…against Muslims, by people like terror target Pam Geller (“revolting insults of Muslims” ) and Protestant Pastor Terry Jones (Burn a Koran Day’ Pastor Plans New Desecration of Islamic Holy Book,)
  • The SPLC claims to ban commenters from creating content that “victimizes, degrades, defiles or disparages any person or group based on race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, citizenship status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, medical condition, or veteran status or otherwise engage in what we deem to be racism, sexism, ageism, religious intolerance, bigotry, ethnic slurs, or homophobia.”
  • This anti-Catholic stuff has been on their website, unmoderated, for two years.
What’s the difference between the commenters’ attitudes and that of Terry Jones or Pam Geller? Well, it can be summed up in the title of a article: “Christophobia”—The Prejudice That Barely Has A Name.

Friday, May 8, 2015


This is the text of a comment I left on a friends local newspaper blog.  It's the best distillation of the "Free Speech" Geller episode I have come up with yet.

What we call free speech is so incompatible with multiculturalism, it's odd that so many can't see it.
Our Western post-Christian culture espouses free speech. It can afford to as it is primarily a culture without ideals to offend. Unfortunately it also embraces Multiculturalism and openly invites people from diverse cultures and races to live within this post Christian polity. Stupidly, our post-Christian multicultural elite didn't foresee that those other cultures take their ideals and beliefs seriously.
So we now have large numbers of ungrateful foreign interlopers living among us. They view both our freedoms and the remnant elements of American culture with distain. We brought this on ourselves.
As to Pamela Geller and her kind, remember that Geller is a Zionist who will profit from the Muslim violence she provokes. It's all about "let's you and him fight." When American heartland Christians get killed by Muslims, the neoconservative party line of endless wars fought for the benefit of Israel is reenforced. It's all a deadly agitprop game.
Imagine what Geller and her ilk would say about a Muslim event mocking Judaism. Would she be a free speech heroine then?
Islam has no place in our history or traditional culture. But until we decide to live by that culture we will be subject to manipulation and worse by both Muslim interlopers and Zionist manipulators.