This will amaze you. It amazed me, and I have watched this kind
of thing for 40 years.
The gravy train is thick for some of the participants.
All good things must come to an end. The Great Default will end
it. But in the meantime. . .
One of the guns used by terrorists to
shoot up Paris on November 13 of last year originated in Phoenix,, AZ and was
sold illegally as part of the Fast and Furious gun walking operation.
And ATF agents did their best to cover
up that information.
A Report of Investigation (ROI) filed by a case agent in the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) tracked the gun used
in the Paris attacks to a Phoenix gun owner who sold it illegally, “off book,”
Judicial Watch’s law enforcement sources confirm. Federal agents tracing the
firearm also found the Phoenix gun owner to be in possession of an unregistered
fully automatic weapon, according to law enforcement officials with firsthand
knowledge of the investigation.
The investigative follow up of the Paris weapon consisted of
tracking a paper trail using a 4473 form, which documents a gun’s ownership
history by, among other things, using serial numbers. The Phoenix gun owner
that the weapon was traced back to was found to have at least two federal
firearms violations—for selling one weapon illegally and possessing an
unregistered automatic—but no enforcement or prosecutorial action was taken
against the individual. Instead, ATF leaders went out of their way to keep the
information under the radar and ensure that the gun owner’s identity was “kept
quiet,” according to law enforcement sources involved with the case. “Agents
were told, in the process of taking the fully auto, not to anger the seller to
prevent him from going public,” a veteran law enforcement official told
It’s not clear if the agency, which is responsible for cracking
down on the illegal use and trafficking of firearms, did this because the
individual was involved in the Fast and Furious gun-running scheme. An ATF spokesman,
Corey Ray, at the agency’s Washington D.C. headquarters told Judicial Watch
that “no firearms used in the Paris attacks have been traced” by the agency.
When asked about the ROI report linking the weapon used in Paris to Phoenix,
Ray said “I’m not familiar with the report you’re referencing.” Judicial Watch
also tried contacting the Phoenix ATF office, but multiple calls were not
only language these people understand is the language of lawsuits. You have to
pry information from them using the federal courts, who have been more than
cooperative in getting government to open up and disclose their wrongdoing. In
this case, leaks from within the law enforcement community aided Judicial Watch
in their investigation. If the documents still exist that confirm this info,
they were likely destroyed long ago with other Fast and Furious docs.
sure the French government would be very interested in following up on this
investigation. But if the denial by ATF is any indication, the stonewall will
continue and French intelligence will be denied access to any helpful
As the clock winds down on what is supposed to be the end of
Barack Obama’s valiant attempt to transform America from the world’s only
superpower into a banana republic dictatorship, a couple of unforeseen events
The first is the totally
unexpected appearance of a brash, anti-establishment billionaire who pays
homage to no living person or political party and appears to be totally devoid
of fear. Contrasted to the bootlicking cowardice of the vast majority of politicians,
particularly in the Republican Party, his lack of fear is both astonishing and
The other unexpected event is the appearance of a strange new
hybrid word spelled B-r-e-x-i-t — the
referendum on whether Great Britain should or should not break away from the
European Union. Of course, it was supposed to be a mere formality for Britons
to vote against exiting, but, as with the Donald Trump phenomenon, the experts
completely misjudged the anger and nationalistic fervor of voters. Thus, the polls were once again exposed as little more than
The bottom line is that after centuries of bondage, everyday
people are suddenly revolting against the political criminals who have
controlled their lives. Why do so many politicians, including the most power
hungry among them, still not understand the phenomenon that is unfolding before
their very eyes? Perhaps the prison warden in the film Cool Hand Luke bestsummed up the disconnect
between the corrupt establishment and the general populace when he drawled,
“What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.”
While I wouldn’t want to get my hopes too high, I admit that for the
first time in my life I see a freedom revolution as a real possibility. Not a probability, but a possibility.
Most of us, when we talk about revolution,
think of an uprising from the left. Revolution tends to bring visions of the
good old-fashioned kind of uprising that Marx and Engels wrote about in the
nineteenth century and Lenin and Trotsky put into action early in the next
Since those heady days of the Bolshevik
Revolution of 1917, left-wing revolutions have occurred with regularity
throughout the world, with the people in whose name such revolutions have been
fought always ending up much worse off than prior to the overthrow of their
rulers. To their dismay, the low-information masses have repeatedly found that
left-wing revolutions result in poverty, oppression, and a loss of freedom —
not to mention torture and death.
Enter communications technology, which has
not been kind to the power structure that has been so successful for so long in
keeping the average citizen in check. Plain and simple, the Internet has made
it possible for too many everyday folks to learn far too much truth in a
relatively short period of time and, just as important, given them the ability
to spread that truth worldwide virtually instantaneously.
Democratic slaveholders knew
how important it was to keep slaves uneducated and uninformed. But
today, in rapidly increasing numbers, the sharecroppers on Uncle Sam’s
Plantation are becoming educated and more informed. Thus, it is possible that
history may someday record that Barack Obama came along fifteen to
twenty years too late to accomplish his goal of taking down America. But don’t
count him out just yet. The man is superb at his craft.
In other words, let’s
not get carried away with current events and prematurely celebrate the
overthrow of our masters. Even if the masses succeed in kicking out of office
the ruling establishment, it will all be in vain if they are not willing to go
all the way. And by all the way,I mean that they must be willing to
utter two words that are considered taboo by the media, politicians, and both
low- and high-information voters: impeachment and treason.
In the U.S., my concern is that even if
Trump becomes president, he will end up yielding toestablishment pressure
and let Hillary, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al escape punishment. In defending
their crimes, one of the left’s favorite arguments is, “Oh, c’mon. That’s all
in the past, so what difference does it make now? People want us to move on
with fixing today’s problems.” It’s a very old trick, but a very cute one.
I’ve heard this kind of clever refrain
from both Democrats and Republicans all my life, which is why politicians like
Chris Dodd, Tom Daschle, and Barney Frank — to name just a few scoundrels who
engaged in massive criminal activity during their stay in office — get off
scot-free, then peacefully live off their ill-gotten gains for the remainder of
If there is to be real change, people like
this must be punished to the full extent of the law. Taking the trouble to
prosecute lawbreakers and mete out meaningful punishment is animportant deterrent
to criminal activity. If there are no consequences to
criminal behaviour, what motivation do criminals have to change their
But there’s another component to the hint
of freedom revolution in the air: Trump and Brexit have reaffirmed something
else that most of us already knew — that people are fed up with multiculturalism
and want their countries back. They’re not impressed by the Con-Artist-in-Chief
making self-serving pronouncements like “This is not who we are.” The arrogance
of using the word “we” to speak on behalf of millions of Americans who totally
disagree with him is beyond arrogance and narcissism; it’s downright
As I have repeatedly pointed out, one of
the biggest lies politicians and their media water-carriers have tried to stuff
down our throats for decades is that “diversity is America’s greatest
strength.” Specifically, they tell us that we must support so-called
multiculturalism or we are racists.
Really? Well, I have news for you: Human
beings are tribal by nature. They don’t want to live side by side with people
who do not share their culture — which includes, above all, their values.
Note that I used the word culture rather than race. Personally, I don’t know anyone who evaluates
people on superficial differences such as the amount of pigmentation in their
skin. What the hell does the color of a person’s skin have to do with his worth
as a human being? Absolutely nothing.
But a person’s cultural beliefs are an
entirely different matter. America used to be a melting pot where people came
here and willingly adopted American culture and values. That’s what made
America a melting pot.
Today, however, thanks to the
nefarious actions of globalists in both major parties, America has been
intentionally Balkanized. Which is great for politicians, because
when the populace is divided, it’s much
easier to conquer.
The one little reality of life that
true-believing globalists can’t seem to grasp is that every nation and every
culture, like every individual, will always act in its own self-interest whendifferences arise. “We are the world” is a nice thought and all
that, but neither ISIS nor economic reality are swayed by such radical-left
Which is why, if there is to be a true
freedom revolution, an important step would be for the United States to not
only drop out of the world’s most corrupt political organization (repeat,political),
the United Nations but kick the entire den of thieves out of the country. Let
the globalist criminals set up shop elsewhere to do their dirty work.
So, is it possible that we really are in the early stages of a
freedom revolution? Again, yes, I think it’s possible … but doubtful.
I say doubtful because,
notwithstanding the existence of the Internet, probably at least half the
public is either too stupid (i.e., lacking in intelligence), too ignorant
(i.e., lacking in knowledge), too prone to envy and avariciousness, too
immoral, and/or too irrational to embrace the notion of living in a totally
voluntary society in which the supreme law of the land makes it clear that
force or violence, or the threat of force or violence, is illegal and is to be
dealt with swiftly and harshly — especially in the case of politicians.
Having said all this,
Americans should focus on first things first. And the first order of business
is to stick a large finger in the tyranny dyke by making sure that no more
anti-constitutionalist radicals will be appointed the Supreme Court because a couple
more of those would make everything else moot.
Something to think about
long and hard between now and November 8.
During Friday’s bloodbath, I heard a CNBC anchor lady
assuring her (scant) remaining audience that Brexit wasn’t a big sweat.
That’s because it is purportedly a politicalcrisis,
not a financial one.
Presumably in the rarified canyons of Wall Street, politics
doesn’t matter much. After all, when things get desperate enough, Washington
caves and does “whatever it takes” to get the stock averages moving upward
Here’s a news flash. That’s all about to change.
The era of Bubble Finance was enabled by a political
abdication nearly 50 years ago. But as Donald Trump rightly observed in
the wake of Brexit, the voters are about to take back their governments,
meaning that the financial elites of the world are in for a rude awakening.
To be sure, the apparent lesson of the first TARP
vote when the bailout was rejected by the House in September 2008 was that
politics didn’t matter so much.
Wall Street’s 800 point hissy fit was all it took to prostrate
the politicians. Indeed, the presumptive free market party then
domiciled in the White House quickly shed its Adam Smith neckties and forced
the congressional rubes from the red states to walk the plank a second
time in order to reverse the decision.
There was a crucial predicate for this classic crony
capitalist capture of the authority and purse of the state, however, that
should not be overlooked. Namely, that in the mid-cycle period of the world’s 20-year experiment in central bank
driven Bubble Finance the rubes had not yet come to fully appreciate that they
were getting the short end of the stick.
Indeed, the earlier phases of the bubble era witnessed an
enormous inflation of residential housing prices. For instance, between
Greenspan’s arrival at the Fed in August 1987 and the housing bubble peak in
2007, the value of residential housing rose from $5.5 trillion to $22.5 trillion or by 4X.
The greatest extent of the housing bubble occurred in the
bicoastal precincts, of course. But it did lift handsomely the value of 50
million owner-occupied homes in the flyover zone, as well.
Accordingly, the latter did not yet see that the
new regime was stacked in favor of the top 10% of the economic
and wealth ladder, which owns 85% of the non-housing financial assets. And
that the speculative casinos of Bubble Finance would be an especially
verdant source of windfalls for the top 0.1%.
entire 13 percentage points of the wealth pie lost by the bottom 90% of
households (105 million households) during the past 30 years have been
captured by the 120,000 households at the tippy-top (0.1%).
Nor was it yet evident as to the degree to which massive
money printing under conditions of Peak Debt almost exclusively
stimulates Wall Street speculation, not main street production, jobs, incomes
In any event, by the eve
of the great financial crisis, the GOP was actually controlled by the
racketeers of the Beltway and the Wall Street gamblers, not the red state
voters who had elected it.
In fact, Goldman’s Sach’s plenipotentiary to Washington,
Hank Paulson, was in complete command of the elected side of
government. At the same time, the Bush White House had populated
the central banking branch of the state with proponents of monetary activism,
who were more than ready to authorize “heroic” measures to reflate the bubble.
Needless to say, the leader of the pack, Ben Bernanke, had been
groomed for the role of chief bailster by none other than Milton Freidman. The
latter, in turn, had led Nixon astray at Camp David 37 year earlier when
he persuaded Tricky Dick to default on the dollar’s link to gold,
thereby opening the door to fiat money, massive credit expansion and the
modern era of Bubble Finance.
There is a straight line of
linkage from that great historical inflection point to Friday’s Brexit
uprising. Namely, Nixon’s abandonment of the Bretton Woods gold-exchange
standard, as deficient as it had been, was also a profoundly political
It resulted in the abdication of economic and financial
policy to an unelected elite and their eventual capture by Wall Street and the
forces of speculation and financialization unleashed by unanchored central bank
money and credit.
Nixon’s destruction of Bretton Woods was the enabling
event. It turned central bankers and financial officialdom loose to
operate a dictatorship of bailouts, bubbles, and financialization of
economic life. And to spread this baleful regime to Europe, Japan and the
rest of the world, too.
To be sure, it took more than two decades to fully
materialize. There were deeply embedded institutional cultures and ideologies
among policy-makers that restrained opened-ended resort to the printing press
and financial bailouts.
The Paul Volcker interlude in the US and the determined sound
money regime of the Bundesbank are cases in point.
But eventually, the old regime gave way. There emerged
Greenspan’s dot-com and housing bubbles, the rise of the ECB and
the financial rulers of Brussels, the massive bailouts triggered by
the global crisis of 2008-2009, the hideous expansion of central bank
balance sheets during the era of QE and ZIRP, the emergence of
the destructive “whatever it takes” regime of Draghi and the
current financial lunacy of subzero interest rates across much of the planet.
But here’s the thing. The rubes are on to the rig.
Twenty-years of Bubble Finance have made the City of London an
oasis of splendor and prosperity, for example, but it has left the
hinterlands of Britain hollowed-out industrially, resentful of the
unearned prosperity of the elites and fearful of the open-ended flow
if immigrants and imports enabled by the superstate in Brussels. As on
observer put it, the geography of the vote said it all:
got money, you vote in,” she said, with a bracing certainty. “If you haven’t
got money, you vote out.” We were in Collyhurst, the hard-pressed neighbourhood
on the northern edge of Manchester city centre last Wednesday, and I had
yet to find a remain voter.
Look at the map of those results, and that huge island of “in”
voting in London and the south-east; or those jaw-dropping vote-shares for
remain in the centre of the capital: 69% in Tory Kensington and Chelsea; 75% in
Camden; 78% in Hackney, contrasted with comparable shares for leave in such
places as Great Yarmouth (71%), Castle Point in Essex (73%), and Redcar and
Cleveland (66%). Here is a country so imbalanced it has effectively fallen
The rise of Trumpism in the US reflects the same social and
economic fracture. To wit, Bubble Finance has also drastically unbalanced the
US as between the bicoastal zones of prosperity it has enabled and the
fly-over zones its has effectively left behind.
It goes without saying that massive debt monetization and
90 months of zero interest rates has been a boon for the Imperial City. With
almost, no restraints on its ability to borrow and spend, the
military/industry/security/surveillance complex have prospered like never
before, as has the medical care cartel, the education syndicate and the lesser
beltway rackets such as green energy and the farm subsidy/food
Likewise, asset gatherers, financial intermediaries, brokers,
punters, financial engineers and corporate strip-miners have prospered
enormously because the market has been rigged every since Black Monday in
October 1987. That is, the cost of debt and carry trades have been
falsified, downside hedging insurance in the casino has become dirt cheap
and time after time the Fed’s put has bailed-out speculations gone bust.
Even what passes for entrepreneurial breakouts in the world
of social media and new tech isn’t really. It’s just another variant of the
dot-com bubble in which a few good innovations are being drastically
over-valued (e.g. Uber) while a tsunami of worthless and pointless
start-ups have become giant cash burning machines (e.g. Tesla).
Taken all together, they are funding an ephemeral complex
of pseudo businesses, pseudo jobs and pseudo start-up networks that
are attracting tens of billions in venture capital. But that amounts to a
simulacrum of prosperity today and the substance of
tomorrow’s malinvestment waste and losses.
Meanwhile, the main street economy has atrophied. The first
round of Bubble Finance buried the middle class in debt, while the post-crisis
intensification has turned the C-suites of America into a giant stock trading
room and financial engineering arena.
Contrary to the bubble vision pattern, in fact, there has been
no business deleveraging at all. On the eve of the crisis in Q4 2007, total
non-financial business debt outstanding was $11 trillion, and it is now $13.5
But on the margin, every dime of that massive swelling of the
business debt burden represents real economic resources cycled out of the
flyover zones and pumped back into the financial casinos and the bicoastal
elites which fatten on them.
The recent studies of the Census Bureau data which show that just 20 counties have generated
half of all start-ups since the financial crisis provides another take on the
underlying fissure. What the study describes but doesn’t explicitly articulate
is that the massive flow of venture capital to the 20 mainly bicoastal counties
and outposts of the military/industrial/security/surveillance state is itself a
product of Bubble Finance:
Americans in small towns and rural communities are dramatically
less likely to start new businesses than they have been in the past, an
unprecedented trend that jeopardizes the economic future of vast swaths of the
recovery from the Great Recession has seen a nationwide slowdown in the
creation of new businesses, or start-ups. What growth has occurred has been
largely confined to a handful of large and innovative areas, including Silicon
Valley in California, New York City and parts of Texas, according to a
new analysis of Census Bureau data by the
Economic Innovation Group, a bipartisan research and advocacy organization that
was founded by the Silicon Valley entrepreneur Sean Parker and small group of
That concentration of start-up activity is unusual, economists
say. In the early 1990s recovery, 125 counties combined to generate half the
total new business establishments in the country. In this recovery,
just 20 counties have generated half the growth.
The data suggest highly populated areas are not adding start-ups
faster now than they did in the past; they appear simply to be treading water.
But rural areas have seen their business formation fall off a cliff.
Economists say the divergence appears to reflect a combination
of trends, all of which have harmed small businesses in rural America. Those
include the rise of big-box retailers such as Walmart, the loss of millions of
manufacturing and construction jobs across the country and a pullback in
business lending that appears to have stung small-town and rural borrowers
The changes also reflect a fundamental shift over the past two
decades in which workers and industries power the country’s economic growth.
That shift advantages highly educated urbanites at the expense of everyone
else. Polling suggests it is one of the driving forces in the political unrest
among working-class Americans — particularly rural white men — who have flocked
to Republican Donald Trump’s presidential campaign this year.
In short, Bubble Finance is a giant engine of reverse Robin Hood redistribution.
It embodies a sweeping fiscal intervention in the natural flows of the
free market that punishes savers, laborers, self-funded main street
entrepreneurs and the retired populations in favor of speculators, the holders
of existing financial assets and the dealers in money.
Bubble Finance is an affront to both democratic governance and
true capitalist prosperity. The Trump voters, the Brexit voters, the
masses rallying to the populist banners throughout Europe above all else
represent a reactivation of the political machinery in a last-ditch campaign to
stop the financial elites and their regime of Bubble Finance.
Yes, this time is different, and this time, there will be no
reflation of the financial bubble like there was after Black Monday, the S&L
bust, the dot-com crash and the great financial crisis of 2008-2009.
Needless to say, the Wall Street dip-buyers and perma-bulls who
take their cues from the modern day financial ruling class are in for a shock.
And today’s statement by Martin Schulz, the President of the EU
parliament could not more aptly explain why.
“The British have violated the rules. It is not the EU philosophy
that the crowd can decide its fate“.
We think Schulz is dead
the EU proponents always swore up and down that it was not a political project.
Of course, as some of us always knew, they lied. Now they're not even bothering to pretend otherwise
anymore, as in reaction to Brexit, two foreign ministers propose eliminating all the other national member-states before
any other nations are able to escape globalist rule.
foreign ministers of France and Germany are due to reveal a blueprint to
effectively do away with individual member states in what is being described as
an “ultimatum”. Under the radical proposals EU countries will lose the right to
have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all
those powers being transferred to Brussels.
Controversially member states would also lose what few controls they have left
over their own borders, including the procedure for admitting and relocating
refugees. The plot has sparked fury and panic in Poland - a traditional
ally of Britain in the fight against federalism - after being leaked to Polish
news channel TVP Info.
The public broadcaster reported the bombshell proposal would be presented to a
meeting of the Visegrad group of countries - made up of Poland, the Czech
Republic, Hungary and Slovakia - by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter
In the preamble to the text the two ministers write: "Our
countries share a common destiny and a common set of values that give rise to
an even closer union between our citizens. We will therefore strive for a
political union in Europe and invite the next Europeans to participate in this
The revelations come just days after Britain shook the Brussels establishment
by voting to leave the European Union in a move some have predicted could leave
to the break-up of the EU.
A number of member states are deeply unhappy about the creeping federalism of
the European project with anti-EU sentiments running high in eastern Europe, Scandinavia
can't think of anything that will bring about Fixit and Frexit and Nexit, and
any number of additional exits faster, than the EU doubling down on political
integration. It's prodigiously stupid in any event; it could not be more
obvious that economic integration has completely failed. But, as we know, SJWs
always double down, and apparently there is no amount of failure and democratic
rejection that will even slow down the globalists in their mad grasp for
I have never been more certain that the EU will collapse,
hopefully sooner rather than later. Socionomics always predicted the EU's
failure to be inevitable, but now we're actually beginning to see it happen.
Editor’s note: The following is written by a PCA pastor’s wife, who
is herself a seminary graduate. In the interests of focusing on issues and not
personalities, the writer shall remain anonymous.
As a woman in the PCA, I am concerned about what I witnessed at
the PCA’s General Assembly last week, not just because I strongly disagree with
some of the overtures that were passed, but because of the presence of a
cultural morality guiding the arguments and votes of commissioners.
We live in an age of moral evolution. Gone are the days of a
powerful state church dictating the action of a king with the threat of
excommunication or withdrawal of funds. In this new age, characterized by a generally valuable
separation of church and state, the weight of moral responsibility has fallen
into the hands of our lawmakers and politicians and, for the most part, whoever
makes the loudest noise and garners the largest following.
Faced with moral ambiguity, our nation, among so many others,
has turned to a morality of the majority. (I’m pulling this straight from
Francis Schaeffer) Whichever law, movement, or organization can get the will of
at least 51% of the population shapes the morality of the day. Morality evolves
as the bloggers and Facebook posters make their views heard.
This moral evolution reflects a sort of humanism that ever seeks
out the next “problem” to root out or allows the next minority to hurl itself
into the face of the public. Americans see this evolution as bringing progress.
Change is good. Seek what is next. Yes we can. Americans worship anything
perceived as progress.
It is not so with God, however. Christian morality is based in
God’s word, which endures forever. God’s word is unmovable because God is
immutable and unchangeable. The nature of His Word reflects who He is and as
followers of Christ, we ought to feel a rub between the moral evolution of our
culture and the changeless of our faith.
When I showed up to GA last week, I expected to, in the best
possible way, run into a bunch of sticks-in-the-mud. I expected to feel like I
had traveled to a new land where everyone and everything would feel a bit alien
from the bombardment of American culture I experience every time I log onto
Facebook. I expected to feel at home in the midst of men and women who are just
a bit “other” than the world.
My experience could not have been more different. Instead, all I
could see and hear as I bumped into yellow-lanyard-wearing, hipster, bearded
PCA men in the conference center and crowding the restaurants surrounding it
was this cultural morality. This glorification of progress through change
littered their conversations as well as their arguments on the floor. My jaw
fell to the floor when I overheard one commissioner comment to another, “These
other denominations have done it; isn’t it time we caught up?” Isn’t it time we
caught up?!? Does not the Scripture make it clear to us that when other
churches are changing with the times, we ought to hold strong? Should we not
see these shifts and hold tighter to our doctrine? Are not these changes a red
flag? Have we learned nothing from church history?
When it comes to the issue of
women in the church, my earlier questions still remain. Given that we have no
new revelation from God and there has been no breakthrough theological paper on
the issue, why is this coming up at GA? My answer: because of American cultural
morality. Moral progress in the United State right now is currently focused
upon equality and I believe our commissioners, for the most part, fell prey to
this cultural pressure.
As an American citizen, I want women to have all the same rights
as a man from suffrage to pay rate to holding political office. As a Christian,
I believe that men and women are equally sinners, equally saved, and equally
valued as the creation of God Almighty.
In another sense, however, I am not equal to men. In God’s
kingdom, there are certain responsibilities given to my husband not given to
me. There is authority given to my husband not given to me. I like it that way.
God did not make men and women
the exact same; it is not that they are identical except that one group is a
little prettier than the other. God made man and woman with unique roles such
that, together, they bring Him glory. I enjoy being a woman according to the
example outlined in Scripture, in part, just so that I can see my husband being
a man as defined by Scripture. I am fulfilled as a woman with my beautiful
submissive, nurturing role that provides opportunities to bring out the
leadership role of my husband. I do not want to change this to either lose my
own role, which I love, or to deprive him of his, which I love to see him do to
Nevertheless, my culture tells me otherwise. It tells me I ought
to grasp for rights that will make me indistinguishable from men. But I like
being a woman and I want to stay that way.
I am grateful to have attended General Assembly this year. It made
me thankful for my role as a woman in the church. I got to participate in the
worship services, sit in during the proceedings, attend conferences for men and
women alike, and support my husband as a commissioner. I had the chance to sit
amongst pastors, listening to them work through the issues while questioning
and being questioned by them on various topics. I had a role at General
Assembly and I did not even have a title. This week, as I return to my home
church, I return to my various roles: women’s ministries, greeting,
hospitality, music, and mercy ministries. I have plenty of roles and I do not
need to be ordained or certified to do them. I have value in the church
superficially because my husband, the elders, and the congregation respect me
for how I am serving them, but ultimately because I am serving my Lord and Savior.
There is nothing terribly wrong with setting up a study committee
on the roles of women. It is never a bad idea to dive into Scripture, study an
issue at length, and faithfully check ourselves against God’s word. The problem is the reason why it was
Why do we need to consider the history of ordination? Why do we need
to reassess women on the diaconate? Why does a letter need to be written to
churches to help them promote women in the church? Since we have no new
revelation from God on these issues and the overture is not in response to a
sin or failing the PCA is specifically aware of, the only answer can be that
this is a culturally pressured decision. That is dangerous. It is dangerous
because this desire for moral evolution will cloud the interpretation of
Scripture such that, regardless of the truth, evidence will be found for the
ordination of women. The wording of the AC’s recommendation clearly suggests
that there will be a search for women’s roles in Scripture; it is as if the
study committee has been commissioned to just look harder for evidence that has
heretofore never been found. This is a biased study that will get the results
Even more, however, it is dangerous because the decision is not
being made as a result of a direct attack upon Christian values (such as gay
marriage), but, rather, a cultural encouragement to just “catch up” with the
times. If we are willing to reconsider our theology regarding women now, what
will we be willing to reconsider in 5 years?
As a Christian woman, I do not want to catch up. I want to watch the
world change like the stormy seas while I hold fast to my anchor, my God, my
Reformed theology. I do not want to budge; I do not want the study committee to
think about budging. And I want my commissioners who vote and make decisions
for me at GA to not consider budging either.
initial plan was to make the Ukraine a sort of “black hole” which would suck in
all the economic, political, and military resources of Russia, ideally by
having Russia occupying the Donbass. But now that the Russians have declined to
get sucked in, it is Europe which is now threatened with the Ukrainian black
The Americans probably realize by now that it is too late to put Humpty Dumpty
together again and they are right. While, in theory, a join effort of the USA,
EU and Russia could, at a huge cost, try to rebuild the Ukraine, political
realities make such a joint action impossible, at least for the foreseeable
future. They also realize that, courtesy of Mrs Nuland’s candid words, the
blame for the disastrous outcome in the Ukraine will be put on the USA (which
is not quite fair, the Europeans are also guilty as hell, but such is life).
And if “losing Syria” was bad enough, then “losing the Ukraine” will do
irreparable damage to the USA simply by debunking the myth of the USA’s
omnipotence. This is very serious, especially for an Empire which has basically
given up on negotiations or diplomacy and which now only delivers ultimatums.
So what are the US options here?
It is hard to predict at this time what the US might try to do. The normal US
practice in such a situation is to simply declare victory and leave. That would
work in Africa or Asia, but smack in the middle of the European continent that
is hardly an option as it would result in a PR disaster.
The second option could be to basically blame the Ukrainians themselves for
everything and try to protect Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Moldova from
the inevitable consequences of the spreading chaos. The risk here, at least
from the US point of view, is that Russia and her Novorussian allies would be
more or less free to move in the created vacuum and that is something the USA
absolutely cannot accept. The Americans would have visions of Zakharchenko in
Kiev or pro-Russian riots in Odessa and that is simply beyond unacceptable.
Which leaves option three: to deliberately blow up the Ukraine.
going to be fascinating to see what happens once President Trump is able to put
the leash on the foreign policy lunatics who still think they can control the
world through their ever-judicious interventions. Did no one ever explain to
them that breaking things is a) is not controlling them, and b) is a lot easier
than controlling them?
I took a long walk on
the boardwalk with my wife and mother last night, after a long day of packing,
doctor appointments, travel, unpacking, food shopping and buying enough liquor
to get me through the next week. I was confident the oligarchs had the Brexit
vote rigged in their favor. I went to bed exhausted at 10:00.
I wake up this
morning to global pandemonium. I just wanted to ride my bike on the boardwalk
in peace, but Noooo. First it was raining, so I have to wait for the showers to
end. Then I flip on the radio and hear about stock markets around the world
crashing because the British people grew some balls and told their keepers to
My first thought upon hearing the news was “Fourth
Turning”. It’s all about the mood of the people in these countries. The
establishment is constantly baffled during Fourth Turnings because they think
their old methods of propaganda, fear and control will continue to work. They
don’t realize the cyclical nature of history and how the current generational
configuration will lead to earth shattering change and a complete destruction
of the existing social order. Brexit is just another brick in the wall.
I also find it
interesting that over the last month or so some of the most renowned investing
billionaires in the world have announced their bearishness and had placed large
bets on such an outcome. George Soros is the perfect example. He switched his
position to shorting the market recently. Then he constantly blathered in the
press about what a disaster Brexit would be for global markets. Then the
captured legacy media convinced the world Brexit would never happen. When it
“shockingly” happened last night, stock markets around the world crashed. Soros
and his billionaire cronies made hundreds of millions in profits. Meanwhile,
the poor schmuck with his 401k gets clobbered again.
Since I was 100%
wrong in my prediction regarding Brexit, you can take my following observations
with a grain of salt. But this is what I see:
This further cements the coming showdown between the people and the
establishment (politicians, bankers, mainstream media).
The EU is dead. France, Italy and other EU countries will push for
the same referendum and the people will vote out.
The insolvent banks across Europe were never fixed. The central
bankers just extended, pretended, and printed more debt. Bank failures will
trigger further economic strife.
The credibility of central bankers around the globe will completely
disintegrate as their one trick pony method of easy money has proven to be an
immense failure for the people.
With the disintegration of the EU, the possibility of civil chaos
and war with Russia goes up dramatically.
It will be interesting to see if the Fed and their Wall Street
banker puppeteers can stop the stock market from dropping by its destined 30%
to 50%. The overvaluation is drastic and this could be the Lehman moment, or at
least the Bear Stearns moment.
The credibility of the corporate mainstream media has further
disintegrated as they again have been revealed as nothing but propaganda
mouthpieces for the establishment. Their anti-Brexit poll numbers were fake.
They are not journalists, but cheerleaders for their corporate sponsors.
The constant media bashing of Trump and cheerleading for Clinton
will be disregarded by the silent majority in the U.S. Their polls and opinions
can be completely ignored and dismissed. The people of this country who don’t
live in NYC, DC, LA, or SF are pissed off. Their mood is dark. They want
change. The only person who will give them change is Trump.
I’m more convinced than ever that Trump will win the presidency in
November. This is a Fourth Turning. The status quo never wins during a Fourth
Turnings never peter out. They intensify to a crescendo of turmoil, chaos,
violence, war, and bloodshed. This Fourth Turning intensification just got turned
up dramatically. It will eventually be turned up to 11.
"I know that virtually none of you have ever done a proper job
in your lives, or worked in business, or worked in trade, or indeed ever
created a job."
It's really remarkable to see how many
atheists fail to understand what their "assume the other person is lying
if he does not immediately present documentary evidence upon demand, which will
of course be immediately dismissed for failing to meet the unexpressed demand
for peer-reviewed and published scientific evidence" says about their
personal integrity, or as is more precisely the case, their lack of it:
Dark Lord @voxday
The reason most atheists trust fellow atheists less than anyone else is because
they recognize their own lack of integrity and morality.
Paul D @Lost_in_Formosa
Any evidence for that?
Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
Yes. Look it up.
Paul D @Lost_in_Formosa
in other words, you just made it up, right?
Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
No. You guys are so predictable. You assume lies. Why? Because you are an
atheist and you readily lie.
Paul D @Lost_in_Formosa
Why are you slandering a huge group of your fellow human beings?
Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
You are lying. Truth cannot be slander by definition. You're really not helping
the case for atheist integrity here.
Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
Vox: Atheists don't trust other atheists because projection.
Atheist: Show me the evidence!
Atheist: You lie!
The amusing thing is that they still
absolutely believe that they are the smart ones, the "bright" ones,
because godless. It's now gotten to the point that when I hear someone is an
atheist, rather than an agnostic, I now assume aggressive midwittery.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And
a refusal to provide freely available, readily accessible evidence on demand is
not a reliable indication that the other party is lying. It could mean that, or
it could simply indicate that the other party is aware that you are an
intellectually overmatched and lazy little bastard who is going to quibble in a
dishonest and self-serving manner about any evidence that is provided to you,
no matter how reliable the sources.
a scientist with a 15 year career behind me so far, I am afraid that my
experiences reflect this. Peer review is excellent in theory but not in
practice. Much of the time, the only vetting the papers get are two relatively
junior people in a field (often grad students or postdocs) giving it a thumbs
up or thumbs down. That is absolutely it. In theory, the editors should make
the decisions with the recommendations of the reviewers, but the editors rarely
have the time or the expertise to judge the papers and often automatically
defer to reviewers. Also, the papers should be reviewed by luminaries of the
field, but these folks rarely have the time, and either decline invitations or
bounce the work to a student or another trainee. It's not just bad papers that
get through, but also good, rigorous, papers that are bounced by this system.
Many if not most of the people in academic science today, at least in biology
(my field), are overwhelmed with the need to publish in such high volumes, few
people with the needed expertise can afford the time to go over the results in
detail. All this while, at the same time and for the same reason, the volume of
papers that needs to be reviewed goes up. I've heard of (and had myself) papers
havve lingered for 4+ months before they even went out for review.
And, in our rush to publish, we often don't read this literature carefully
ourselves but start citing papers anyway, which weaves these potentially weak
or erroneous papers even more tightly into the fabric of their field.
It's difficult to care a lot about the quality of your work when you know the
extra effort often doesn't help something go through this fickle review
process, and when you know people will cite it without really reading it
closely. There is little incentive to spend longer on a paper to make sure
everything is right and the results are reproducible because there is very
little accountability for errors and huge rewards for being prolific.
The ironic thing is that True Believers and
the I Fucking Love Science crowd genuinely believe that "peer reviewed
science" is the gold standard for evidence. But there is a reason scientific evidence is not
automatically allowed in a court of law, let alone considered conclusive, and
the more we learn about the defects of peer review, the better we understand
that science's credibility is limited.
We have a word for science that is
trustworthy, and that word is engineering. Until science can be
applied, it cannot be fully trusted to be correct.
All peer review is really designed to do is to
reassure the reader that the information presented fits safely within the
confines of the consensus status quo.