Saturday, February 6, 2016

Re: BLM takeover of ranchers' lands

"What do you think about the federal Bureau of Land Management staking claim to land that has been owned by Texas ranchers for over 70 years? Should the BLM take into consideration that the land owners have deeds handed out by the State of Texas and that they have been paying property taxes on the land over the years?"

This comment at the end of the article really burned me.  "Should the BLM take into consideration..."!  In other words, the BLM is the arbiter of this affair!  There wouldn't possibly be a conflict of interest, would there?

I'd like the sentence to read, "Should the BLM take into consideration...that with the wide dissemination of happenings like this on the internet, their chances of burying this whole affair may be greatly limited compared with past years, and could set off a firestorm of outrage not only against the BLM but against federal agencies in general, and against the whole idea of immunity from prosecution for federal officials that only dates back to a 1970s decision which, if reversed, could result in a number of bureaucrats having their butts thrown into the slammer for long periods of time, not to mention the public infamy brought upon them and their families?"  That's what it SHOULD read. 

Whew, that felt good.

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

The Left and Morality--Response to John Little of Omega Shock

Re those voting for Hillary: "We are so dumbed-down, that we will vote for her, without realizing how important all this is."
John, I believe that it's worse than that. It's that many if not most of the people voting for Hillary won't even care about the moral issue because their primary desire is for political power.  The Democrat party "has become a habitation of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird!" (Rev. 18:2)
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind" (Rom. 1:28)
I know, there are plenty on the right side of the aisle who are guilty of wrongdoing.  But those things are not policy with them, as they are with the left.  The right still admits to the existence of moral categories, and they're still humiliated when caught doing wrong.  But the left denies the existence of objective morality, calling it a purely human construct.

If you survey the university scene, you'll find that objective morality basically ceased to exist there decades ago.  And it's at the universities--with the intellectuals and the future leaders--that the direction of society is determined.  The contempt on the campuses for traditional values and morality is stunning.  These are the strongholds of the left, and this is the intellectual and philosophical base of Hillary's supporters.
If you've never done so, please go online and check out two publications which have wide readership in Portland OR, the city my wife and I live near.  You really have to read them to truly understand where our society is:  Willamette Week and the Portland Mercury.  A total jettisoning of moral values, except those values found useful by the left in argument.  As I like to say, the left doesn't really believe in morality, but finds it a convenient club with which to bash their opponents, who DO believe in morality.
If you really pin a lefty down on a moral issue, and he finds no way to escape, he'll just look you in the eye, spit in your face, and say "To h--l with your outmoded, bourgeois morality!"

This could be 50% of our electorate, John.