Say there is a man. This man prays for the salvation of his wife, or sister, brother, or friend every day. His heart feels a constant desire for it; his mind, constantly prodding him with the thought. Sadly, the object of this burden gets taken in some sudden accident, and during the burial he asks the priest for the absolution for this loved one. The reply is that they died in their sin, never accepting of salvation offered.

Is that the end of it? Should we disbelieve in the efficaciousness of prayer from a story like this? Should we accept on authority of clergy that their judgements are always correct? No. The authority was never given to any rank, class, or brood of scholars to determine scripture; that authority rests with God and whomever God approves and anoints to shepherd his flock. The approval of man is only important for a few things, a reputation for righteousness is a powerful thing, but it is not determined by credentials given by other men; it is determined in knowing your God. And that is a thing open to all who care to be called, and work diligent to be chosen. Discipleship is not one man learning from another, unless it’s gleaned from that man’s whispers to his Master.

Reexamine, then, the previous account. Can we bear the burden of someone else’s salvation, and fulfill the requirement of faith for those we pray for? Absolutely. Saint Peter wrote “love covers a multitude of sins.” (1 Pet 4:8) unbelief is a sin like any other, even those who attend church regularly and once accepted salvation are guilty, from time to time, of the same unbelieving heart. Saint Paul also wrote to “bear one another’s burdens, so fulfilling the law of Christ,” (Gal 6:2) and again, “love is the fulfilling of the law,” (Rom 13:10). If one has faith then the law is already fulfilled in them for personal effect, and Paul was writing to faithful believers in Galatia and Rome, so what is our dear brother Paul talking about here? Who is left for the law to be fulfilled or completed in? The word used in Greek for burden could be taken to mean a descent, a weight pressing down. It doesn’t give any measure of distance, so the descent could be take to mean anything from simple stumbling through a walk to falling into Hell itself. As far as a weight is concerned it’s clearly used as a figure here meaning anything from guilt to glory (glory is more burdensome in Hebrew). I’m sure the answer is obvious and clear; this not only is to bear one another among the sheep, all of their doings, but all the unrighteous and wicked they are connected to in life. Prayer alone can save anyone who dies in unrighteousness, and love by itself can cover their sins. Those garments will be given to them in the resurrection of the dead, to the awe of many, and the shock of all, and surely not the least of which to those who receive them; and with good hearts they can be healed of past wrongs and finally enter into the peace of eternal life.

Some teachers are quick to condemn, others are quick to condemn the judgemental. Both should ask themselves, which one accomplishes mercy in accordance with the law of Christ. Many will come from highways and hedges to fill up the Father’s house, and there will be wicked men allowed, not for the sake of their wickedness, but for the love and faith of others bearing them, and the hope in God’s grace.

I’m going to try to be more deferential than I really am in the observation of the Tea Party.  Ostensibly the goal of the grassroots movement is one of fiscal issues, and this is said to be a wise place to start, or is it?  The fiscal issues do give the appearance of capability to deliver on the promise of less intrusive/authoritarian government, but there is a chance that this train could get derailed on those tracks.  It may seem trite to say, but one need go no further for a big tent philosophy than one of strict originalist Constitutional republican government.  What does that mean, you ask?

First and foremost, it means that with any issue the objective is NOT to determine if government can afford to pay for this or that; those are all strictly pragmatic fiscal choices with no rudder to guide the applications–save what we’ve always heard.  It does absolutely nothing to solve the tax & spend, or borrow & spend policies.

The chief object in mind is neither money, nor morality, not what can be done, nor what should be done, nor any other argument except one of “is this power specifically given to the United States Central Government, and should the power rest in the Federal District of Columbia (and not a State or an individual).”  In these terms the Tea Party can be a grassroots success story, outside of these strict terms it’s destined for failure.

The T.V. hosts saying there is no difference between the parties are somewhat correct in that the national party machines have no convictions of their own.  There are however, powerful factions within the parties that can sway, tug, bully, or otherwise scheme to pass agenda legislation.  The Congressional Progressive Caucus is such a one.  You would be hard pressed to find such structure with equal pull over legislation as those factions that exist on the left, and those you find on the Democratic side are all, without exception, believers in government spending–it doesn’t matter how much Dog if they’re still Blue.  The reason I say so is because of what is stated above, fiscal pragmatism is the shared ideal between this Democratic faction and Tea Party goers, but what is not shared is the respect for the strict barriers on authority which are supposed to be in place upon the Federal government.

As for the Tea Party, Fiscal Pragmatism is not an end in itself, and not the goal of good government.  Yeah, you heard me.

The conclusion and the summation is this: The message of the Tea Party, if it’s to be successful and not just a useless movement which lost the message of its redress, is “give us those leaders to send to Congress which will make every decision based not upon their hearts, their goodness, their moral judgement, their fiscal concerns, or their idealism, or their philosophy, and never ever those who cannot be in all ways dispassionate when making this one simple arbitration on domestic policy, by themselves, and without consulting a law firm to justify what can be done, or the outcome in advance, and that judgement is: is it a Constitutional role?”

That’s the onus of the Tea Party, and it is heavy, but if the movement wants to be true to its stated objective then it should pick off the weakest animal in the two party flock that has the most representatives who share that objective.  Then make sure the national party machine knows where the money spigot is along with exactly what to do to get it turned on, that is, restrain all action to doing only those things specifically granted by the states, and if that is no longer adequate to govern this nation, go through the process of amendment not the process of interpretation.  As far as political action groups go, the Tea Party must sell itself as the American Individualists (it is not a party of itself) existing to make sure individual Americans in the silent majority get left alone by the Federal government, and get heard in their State and local government.  As long as it stretches this banner there would be no corporate, private, or public interest group that could buy any congressional legislation without having to immediately answer to the American people.

The stuff of Doctoral theses: Poor sentence structure and bad ideas masquerading as superior intellectual thought because it happens to conform to the idea that all religions are the same, all are superstition, and none of them are compatible with science.  I’ve always enjoyed Christmas even when I wasn’t a particularly religious person, in many respects I was an atheist for almost all days, it’s just easier to count using the ones declared holy.  Being someone who, even as a child didn’t believe in Santa Claus and still don’t (I know, always a party-pooper), but this brief essay is not going to point out all the ways in which Santa goes beyond saint reverence, a thing which is variable in magnitude between denominations or non-denominations, rather the entire object in view is the mind not the spirit.  With that end declared, If we had to go over all the false dichotomies, dependencies, associations and assumptions we’d be here ’til the judgement (if you’ll pardon the religious reference).  Let’s see how many traps can be sprung and how many thought paradoxes remain after.

Assumption: A Creator and intelligent designer based upon the existence of order, law, and rationality.  This designer must be far more capable (powerful) than to just create the “smaller” life forms and allow them to evolve into mankind, but also the stellar bodies and the laws that govern them.
Abstraction: Even what seems like chaos to human observation has elements of design.  Human observation adds uncertainty, both in equation and in experience.  This applies to both the complicated living things as much as sub-atomic particles.  Artificial is the term given to something man-made from physical material, but what mankind classifies as “naturally existing” could also be classified as biological technology.  The existence of trees provides many specific functions for animate life and vice versa, there is nothing either in nature or outside that exists simply for the sake of itself.  A beautiful flower has utilitarian function for all animal life, but to mankind capable of a peculiar attribute called “appreciation” there is another layer to its function, beauty.  If the only things in existence are physical properties there would be neither beauty nor appreciation.  The utilitarian function of a flower remains, but the abstract reality of beauty would be an incapability.  Where does the idea of appreciation come from?  A cat will sink its claws into a piece of furniture and you will not find another cat stopping with any other intention than to get its own turn at the “scratching post” this is in contrast to a man who gets angry at the destruction of his property.  The man appreciates the current form of his sofa and doesn’t want it to wear out or be destroyed.  The sofa has value to him, as the way it’s been crafted and assembled, if his pets were to treat it as just the basic matter it was assembled out of then they don’t appreciate it in the same way.  It requires the capacity to realize things that the object implies but are not visible in the material itself, and in doing do so, value it.  A pet urinates on the floor, his master cleans it up; the pet comes from a natural perspective that everything in its existence is common, the master says “No!  Outside.” discriminating between common and sacred.  The fact that man naturally separates matter in his experience into things to preserve and appreciate not just because they serve a purpose utilitarian to his survival, but they can be beautiful, clean, pure, etc. and within even those categories there are distinctions within.  A man or woman serves a utilitarian function, but with appreciation for order the contractual institution of marriage was formed (to herd the base instincts of men to have as many partners as possible), a woman can bear children as a natural function, but she also has beauty and intelligence which both serve utility but also transcend it.  To say that there is an ideal woman is like a diagram which focuses only on the spot where most points meet, likewise the rationale for an ideal cannot only be classified as an argument of natural selection since animal life makes no distinction of selection for mating purposes except availability.
                Rationalization: If existence is fundamentally without reason what follows is the incapacity for reason to form.  Therefore mankind would not be able to quantify the physical world or form rational thought.
                Dependencies: Imperceptible things that are not manifest except in communication (information), and can only be discerned by deductive inferences since they do not have physical properties.  Reasonability depends on information and instruction, therefore the physical reality depends on an imperceptible legal framework for every object within it or coming from outside.  The imperceptible is governed by morals and judged by conscience.  The perceptible is governed by discriminating laws, discrimination also depends on information.  Information depends on reasonability, reasonability depends on thought, thoughts are imperceptible by any direct means yet they exist; science depends on thought, if science denies possibility of a Creator absolutely they must also deny thought absolutely.

Implication: Scientists, journalists, or anyone claiming there is no Creator are therefore, by nature, fools and/or false opportunists.  Human beings have biological life akin to animal, mind (soul-life) much more advanced than animal, and self-aware (spiritual) life which makes mankind’s soul-life much more capable than animal life.  Anticipating the counter-response would not actually be counter, but conciliatory: “God cannot be disproven any more than the flying spaghetti monster.”  This is simply not true.  The implication of a rational and discernable physical reality alone allows many inferences.  A Creator must be reasonable and rational, powerful, infinite—and be, by nature of existence alone also contain all natural law, morality, goodness, and knowledge.  The existence of a creature such as man, capable of apprehension of truth, likewise has many implications.

First, let’s begin with the thesis: you cannot prove anything about the nature of God, the Author and Creator of all things, using strictly human assumptions and natural possibilities.  It’s irrational and illogical to assume that a being capable of creating us—as with all the physical universe—out of nothing (at least nothing as we understand it, meaning nothing physical) is not capable, but this God has obviously limited himself to following set, non-arbitrary laws (i.e., righteous).  With that in mind, it is logical then to assume that you must have a kind of faith in the supernatural in order to make an argument against a Creator.  Illustration:  if a man takes a piece of fruit from a fruit stand without paying, we call that theft.  If the one who created all things does the same act it would be reclaiming what is his own possession; if a man takes a life willingly we call that murder, if the creator of all life ends someone’s physical body (intent and premeditation are meaningless words for a being with infinite knowledge) it’s neither killing or murder, and if this one were accused of murder then it would be to no avail since the life could be restored without injury.  The assumptions of humanity break down around a God capable of creating all life and matter from nothing.  Arguments against the existence of God are unique in this way.

Therefore here is the paradox (it should have a name for easy reference, so call it the Pauline Paradox): If you want to make an argument against God you must make supernatural assumptions otherwise it makes no logical sense.  In other words, you must assume faith (belief in supernatural power) in order to make a rational argument against God since you cannot remain rational in forming the argument while denying a central attribute of a being capable of creation from nothing.  If this faith is assumed without being real then the argument of the one assuming faith must take on the nature of a liar, making his arguments untrustworthy and therefore meaningless, and irrational since no one can make an assumption of something they do not have, and are attempting to deny the existence of, and have it stand the test of logic without it being discovered as innately flawed and mixed with something other than actual understanding, including holding two or more irreconcilable beliefs at the same time (i.e., incoherent), making the argument against the existence of metaphysical things using purely physical evidence—which is a one way barrier incapable of being inverted in this way, etc.  Logical assumption is only possible for things with quantifiable physical forms and the only place where the physical form exists for supernatural reality, is in the one with the attribute of faith.  If the faith is true then it would no longer be rational, how could you—and why would you—disprove something you believe in?  Faith is tested by belief, not disbelief (at least not rationally), thus it is also a one way barrier.  While only a faithful person is capable of rationally confirming a metaphysical existence, no one is capable of rationally denying it.

In addition, just because the person of faith is capable of apprehension in this way does not make their conclusions correct.  The general concept of mathematics exists apart from assumption; there is only one proper way to solve mathematical equations, correctly and incorrectly.  The universe follows these laws correctly and mankind deduces them by testing and experience.  This is only the case in their physical properties, but the existence of physical objects following unseen laws of motion is an essential property in itself which binds all physical particulars to it.  It could not be quantified if physical reality did not exist, but if the physical reality did not exist the essential law would still remain since it exist apart from the physical reality and is merely followed by entities with a certain physical property.  The type of physical existence determines the way which the physicality will be bound.  Animal and human life has another regulator which provides animation and existence to be self-driven, but it is still bound within these physical laws.  Human beings go yet further than animal life in an additional part of existence which is the perception of things which are unseen (which come from a different state of existence than physical): love, hate, conscience, faith, guilt, virtue, vice, hope, envy, truth, and pride to name a few.  Every particular human life, insofar as it remains in physical existence, makes the choice of which eternal state to exist in, and this is done regardless of the particular person being aware or denying the existence of a Creator; it is an essential property of human life whether they use or refuse it the choices are made regardless.  As human beings are thus far the only form of life capable of consciously choosing our eternal state, human life is the only form which is responsible (accountable to something) for it’s choice in existence, otherwise awareness of self-state would be as impossible as animal life giving an account for itself in harming another.  There is no justification required of animal life; it simply knows instinct and biological urge.

When scientist tells us human beings are animal life and nothing more they are lying expecting you to imitate animal life and be a creature of instinct and biological urge alone, while paradoxically accusing a Christian of being “anti-intellectual” (either Christians are anti-intellectual or they are not, when self-styled atheists say they think our desires are better enjoyed in ignorance is also either “anti-intellectual”, or it is not, but Christianity, which is also an intellectual practice in meaning, in inherently intellectual in all things, not just in what can be physically quantified.  So accusing Christianity of being “anti-intellectual” is irrationality in its highest form of expression, since those making the accusation are not looking for meaning in life as well as existence, which is in itself anti-intellectual since human beings alone have this unique capacity.  Humanism—as defined by its adherents as anti-theist—is therefore a contradiction in itself if it continues to call itself an intellectual practice, while Christianity is highly intellectual and allows for all pursuit of enjoyment of intellect.  If this lie of Humanism is in ignorance it is also an attempted imitation of animal life in not being self-aware, but if one is capable of forming the argument that man is nothing higher than animal life is evidence against it, and so self-contradicting.  Human beings are like animal life in biological function, and God-like (as Christianity states, after the image of God) in spiritual function, spiritual function being harder to discern in reality though it unquestionably exists with or without human beings perceiving it as observed by creation following set guidelines even when it appears chaotic.  These things being unseen are therefore eternal and not seen with the eyes, unless it’s the eyes of the heart.

In the case of Humanism—which is really what many so-called “atheists” are; there is no doubt they hate god and deny his existence, but they replace it with something else which no true atheist can do—it is not a disagreement over “is”, the disagreement is over the form of “is” the state or nature of God.  Or, the disagreement is not over the existence of a God, only the definition of God.  Reason is the object of worship, not science per se; when a Humanist creates the dichotomy of science and “religion” being at odds they are really saying that Christianity doesn’t worship reason, because the statement does not comply with reality as there are many Christians who enjoy reason and science, the distinction is in it not being an object of worship.  So the Christian is called “anti-intellectual” (a postmodern epithet for infidel or apostate; see the paragraph above for the illustration of this absurdity) when in reality all the Christian is actually doing is not elevating his own mind in particular (or human reason in general) into an object of worship.  A Humanist is not capable of making this distinction however since it is a belief system (read: religion) as much as Christianity and evidenced by, if nothing else, its insistence on competing with it.  Both beliefs can agree on the use of intelligence and teaching how to use the mental faculties, but one believes that this is the highest form of life and the other does not.  After all, if man is god then the conclusion is another Mt. Olympus and a pantheon directing all the affairs of mortal—lesser—men while squabbling with each other and overthrowing the primordial gods.  At least that will be the story for the masses to consume.  Secularism is process.  Humanism is myth.

So in my ever so humble opinion, scientists screaming God does not exist ought to stop the emotional ranting and babbling, not that they will, they should at least know what fools they make of themselves however.  A scientist that places his “faith” in science has associated his physical observation with beliefs that depend on not non-physical observation, but un-physical, which is another inversion that makes physical scientific arguments also theological ones in direct competitions with anything that occupies the categorization of a belief.  Science, being just observable fact and evidence, is not a form of worship as an essential characteristic; only mankind can give it this attribute by force or free decision.  Faith being un-physical is proof of existence of something unseen having a physical manifestation.  If the so-called scientist wished, they would see this as an observation within themselves as faith and belief in science in an ontological sense, doing so while denying anything but physical observation—if you want to saw off the branch you perch on—can deny themselves as becoming the physical evidence or manifestation.  It’s impossible for science to be absolutely certain; it can only declare what is observed with in a certain margin of error.  To put it inversely it’s impossible [oops, meant 'possible' here], inasmuch as man is fallible, to be absolutely certain of conclusions drawn from observation, nevertheless, truth is not a casualty to this since truth exists apart from man and observation [so the truth is absolute, the observation is fallible even if absolutely certain].  Illustration: dinosaurs, evolution, and the age of the earth do not disprove a Creator, only the men in physical reality who have lied or were ignorant of creation and the things in it and/or outside of it, including their personal beliefs passing as scripture, or its interpretation, or a world-view or ontological system (call it what you want).  It is then rational to assume that when science is abused in such a way to attempt to occupy the place of worship it becomes its own form of theism and is therefore a religion and the only thing left to discover is the object of worship.  This is not the natural use of science, but a grotesque mutation of mankind’s pursuit of apotheosis, being godlike in a self-creation, opposing the Christian idea of theosis: by the Spirit of God conforming to God’s nature.

It is not the fact of a Creator existing or not in this case.  We know by deduction that meaning exists because it is capable of being sought, if chance is the prime mover then human life would not be capable of meaning or, by consequence, coherency.  This is untrue in the physical world in objects which obey unseen laws, and humans which discover both physical and moral laws.  So there is a mind behind the physical matter and, by consequence, a reason for existence (since a being all-knowing as to creation would be incapable of doing so without reason for His creation, only finite beings are capable of being unreasonable and irrational).  Logically a Creator would not be found inside His creation (it shows an insight into His mind, like a work of art, but the artist is not the work of art in and of itself, so likewise, God).  Therefore a Creator must reveal Himself to His creation, as this is the only reason to bother with the trouble of making little beings capable of taking notice of Him.  Being outside His creation, He must do so through human beings, directly or indirectly, from dimensions outside space-time, and these experiences would likely be recorded, or even commanded to be recorded for others to gain insights.  These would logically be collected into a book for the study of holiness.  What follows then is this: which holy book is right and true, revealing both human and God and the way to be holy?  A foolish person would say they can never know, this would be folly because it’s only true in one sense since even the practice of science can, through process of elimination, leave us with at least the major monotheistic ones.  From there it’s a simple comparison, which God is worthy of your worship.  It may seem childish fantasy in western culture to think about worshipping a God, but that is only if little thought is involved.  If an eternity depends on it, what could be more important?

Side note: to the Christians who say that logic and reason is a practice of [the] [d]evil (believe it or not there are some) I have three questions presented in manner to the conclusions forming a syllogism: (1)Did God create everything in existence?  (2)Does reason exist?  (3)Then are you calling God evil?  A practice is only as evil as the one it serves, therefore it is not the thing itself, this method of reasoning applies to everything in existence since God has declared “…it is I who have created the destroyer to ruin” the disobedience of some angels wanting to establish their own throne in opposition is what introduces evil, not the thing created, so God is good for His creation, even if things within that creation choose to rebel.  I’m convinced that statements making the essential character of any matter evil not only doesn’t serve God, but serves in opposition—this is Gnostic doctrine of matter being innately evil and it’s not even masquerading as sound thought.  It’s the type of doctrine that builds ever increasing irrational thinking, idol thought mixed with idle words.  As does most sophistry and superstition.

“Without faith it is impossible to please God, for he that comes to Him must believe that He is, and that He will reward those who diligently seek him.” ––Hebrews 11:6

Science is science, superstition is superstition, religion is religion, politics is politics, Christianity is Christianity.

Hope you all had a merry Christmas, God bless, and have a happy new year.

K-Lo over at NRO just posted a nice window into the future of Western Culture.  Notwithstanding the one in the middle would be beaten within an inch of life, be set on fire, or have acid splashed on her face for wearing what appears to be make-up.  And didn’t the husbands, fathers, or dominant brothers tell those other two not to wear such bright colors thereby attracting attention to themselves; it’s scandalous.  The one in orange is giving me those “come hither” eyes, I swear–evil temptress!

Actual strumpets and trollops aside, this must be a sick joke on Mattel’s part.  The appeal of these toys to any little girl (okay, fine, I’ll admit that as a kid of about 8 I played with my sister’s barbie dolls, once… .. ….okay twice.  You finished–can we move on now?) has got to be minimal at best, since mankind was dressing themselves in patchwork animal skins in the neolithic era there are records of adornments and beautifications.  There was a certain plant that Native American women used to rub the leaves of on their cheeks because it enhanced the reddish hue to them, a form of blush.  This form of covering is nothing more than the outward act of propriety attempting to depose the inward virtue of chastity.  The big social show in place of the quiet confidence.  I think the Islamic nations are the only ones still on the planet that kill people for breaking propriety, and certainly the only ones still stoning women for being loose with their virtue, so to speak.  This carries both a blessing and a curse, especially in that culture.  The blessing being that in theory there are fewer sluts making babies that have to raise themselves and grow up to mug elderly folk on the subway.  The curse being that in practice we have the best example of how law can’t make perfect the flesh (if you’ll permit a “idolaters” reference to Jesus–or rather a Pauline reference to Jesus–not preaching, God forbid!  Can’t be a serious thinking person and mention Jesus these days, for the love of Christ.  Oops! Did it again.  No I’m not quoting Britney Spears.)

I don’t know what the lesson is here, except that another bit of Western culture bites the dust.  “But Church–,” you say, “who gives a damn about Barbie?”  I would agree, but this toy, in itself there is nothing wrong with it except for what it represents, an ideology that our kids (or at least those in Europe) now have to deal with as part of their immediate world.  If it were something as simple as a woman walking down the street wearing hardly a scrap of clothing we might be able to teach those children observing the world around them about the respect and decency of a heart not wanting to attract such base attentions.  On the other side there are those women wearing scratchy wool blankets for dresses that knock on your door every Sunday–kooky, irritating, but otherwise harmless (i.e. they don’t have a gigantic religious network behind them trying to impose a new legal system foreign to our own).  Then there are those who with their dress represent an ideology that at its core practice is oppressive of women, just to name one gender.  It’s oppressive to men in many ways as well, mostly in violence and the paying of taxes for international jihad–so basically when they pay zakat they might be funding silent or violent revolution.  Though it’s also fair to say that other charitable giving done by anyone and everyone might make it’s way to the same end.  Read up on who you want to donate your money to, I’ll stick to the local church, at least I know the orphans and widows aren’t going to be strapping on nail encrusted explosives and go blowing up infidels on a bus somewhere.  Save the world!  Start with your own community and see how far that takes you.

We’ve got enough talk of revolution in this country with the Marxist and Globalist agenda’s for Europe and America.  No more revolution here, we’re all full up at the moment.

[This diary post is almost totally satirical in nature, too bad it's not totally..]

Democrats on the Hill today debate between themselves on which 3rd world country to import their next batch of slave-labor from.  The meeting was hosted by the Center for Comprehensive Immigration Reform for the Collectivist “Legalized” Enslavement of Spanish-speakers (CIRCLES for short).  None of the political-class could reach a consensus but all too often, talking in CIRCLES has been prone to coming up with no solutions.  The reasoning in CIRCLES is that in order to get those jobs done which the fat and lazy white-privileged American worker wont do, they must make sure that all white labor is organized into unions while the illegal worker can be eternally exploited to drive down the embedded cost of our exports.  (God bless those patriotic illegal aliens).

Meanwhile, the tarrif must be used on products we import from the markets and industry those whitey crackers work at, in order to inflate prices and keep their snacking lard-butts in front of Law & Order re-runs whilst they draw pensions and benefits that can only be compared with the salaries paid to the union polit-bureaus.  The thinking in CIRCLES meeting today managed to come to one conclusion, that illegal aliens must be free to trespass the laws in order to earn a “living wage” and that any whitey trying to see the law is enforced (not just for respect of sovereignty, but respect for a person’s work to not be rapaciously exploited), is a racist bigot.

They also added, that anyone who believes their dip-sh^ttery doesn’t know his donkey from a hole in the ground.

“…we must yet be on our guard not to dismiss them [directions and charters decided by central planning that are beyond dissent and criticism] as mere accidental by-products which have nothing to do with the essential character of a planned or totalitarian system.  They are not.  They are a direct result of that same desire to see everything directed by a “unitary conception of the whole,” [5] of the need to uphold at all costs the views in the service of which people are asked to make constant sacrifices[5], and of the general idea that the knowledge and beliefs of the people are an instrument to be used for a single purpose[1,2,3].  Once science has to serve, not truth, but the interests of a class, a community, or a state[1,3], the sole task of argument and discussion is to vindicate and to spread still further the beliefs by which the whole life of the community is directed[1].  As the Nazi minister of justice has explained the question which every new scientific theory must ask itself is: “Do I serve national socialism for the greatest benefit of all?”  The word “truth” itself ceases to have its old meaning[1].  It describes no longer something to be found with the individual conscience as the sole arbiter of whether in any particular instance the evidence (or the standing of those proclaiming it) warrants a belief; it becomes something to be laid down by authority[3], something which has to be believed in the interest of the unity of the organized effort[1,2,3,4,5]…” (F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom; “The End of Truth”)

[1] Global Warming

[2] Bailout, Omnibus, et al.

[3] Carbon tax, Cap-n-Trade

[4] Green science, Green Agenda

[5] “Shared Sacrifice,” “Shared Responsibility,” anyone?

If I had to link to every story where our fearless Chairman Obama brings up shared sacrifice and some “unitary conception of the whole” I’d have to give up working for the next 4 years at least.

You know, if people still spoke in english and not bullsh^t we might not have the needs to choose between one shiester or the other.  If people were prepared to accept TRUTH! and not love all the careful LIES! of dialectical materialists we might get somewhere in politics.  As it stands every peckerhead who wants to be in politics must be a trained liar.

/end rant