Dumbest (uncorrected) Choices in American History: Shortlist


My list of REALLY STUPID CHOICES made in American history; just a short-list I am afraid:

Diet Food” that is more chemicals than food

Having the Soviet Union an “ally” in WWII – better to have let them go it alone; email for full argument

The Electoral College in the Age of Communication; direct election of all offices should be the norm; Political Parties are OBSOLETE and COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE

Public Sector Unions

Adding “under God” to the Pledge making it a point of division instead of unity

Lotus and Apple’s Patent-the-Universe Syndrome making the courts accept patents on things never meant for patent

Failing to live up to Dr. King’s vision and refusing to stop being prejudiced regarding race

Private campaign donations of any kind other than labor

Campaign donations by businesses

Supreme Court deciding that money= a right to a louder voice for YOUR ‘free speech

Dropping the no-partisanship requirements for radio talk-shows and ‘interview’ programs

Letting Lawyers advertise

Supreme Court declaring that nothing of value is earned by the recipient of a military award or decoration

Women’s, Chicano, Black “Studies” propping up people selected, distorted and lionized with blatant prejudice; taking away self-respect while pretending to help by ‘giving the poor things a hand’, and White Studies designed to rip on Western Culture for the same purpose – removing its self-respect – it seems non-whites are too dumb or clueless to run their own lives or stand up to whites and that whites are just intrinsically demonic – welcome to the enlightened world of PC education

Failing to settle on the point in a pregnancy where a woman’s choice is MADE and she must be held responsible for an infant rather than a piece of owned tissue. (6 month preemies regularly survive today and the Radical Right’s agenda on abortion would make women all but chattel)

Worrying more about which consenting adults, what age, color or how many may legally get ‘married’; ignoring the concept of duty, honor and responsibility anyone brings to their marriages

Bilingual Education as a policy

Helmets, knee and elbow-pads for tricycle riders

Peer promotion in school

Affirmative Action after 1990 – where was the transition to color-blind government?

Worrying more about what actual people have DONE with their guns than trying to get law-abiding folk to not have any at all

Electing Andrew Jackson, Jimmy Carter, George W., and Obama

Forgetting that ALL countries do best with immigrants if they pick from the TOP of the pile instead of the bottom

Paying a private group to print/coin money like a product to be bought forgetting that money has no ‘intrinsic’ value’; dollars are just counters for the economic game; increasing or decreasing the supply by fiat to ACCURATELY reflect the production/wealth of a nation is the ONLY reason when deciding when or if to print more money, or let the cash pool contract

Deciding that political consensus and no working model or scientific theory that has been tested is sufficient when making decisions in haste that could wreck the world’s entire economy/infrastructure; in the 70’s it was the next Ice Age that was imminent… no models then either

Making an “eco-friendly” light-bulb containing hazardous amounts of mercury

Adults stealing Halloween from the children and making it another grown-ups party holiday

The Writer’s Strike

ANY serious university or college that “emphasized” sports to make money and enabled ‘tails’ that can wag Great Danes with ease

Guy DeWhitney on Government by Heretics Crusaders

My ideal of government:
Un-self-consciously, individual humans that are raised to feel a profound duty to protect all aspects of seldom/individuality that neither “picks someone’s pocket nor breaks someone’s leg” and a profound respect for the notion that we are all one and what goes around not only comes around, it DIRECTLY affects us; i.e. “successful” assholery damages a psyche’s ability to make ‘good’ choices in the future.Guy DeWhitneys Heretics Crusade

Calling Yourself Liberal and Religious won’t MAKE You a Good Person


Today we have two re-writes of older articles that seem very relevant today:

First, we will take the “Liberals” as well as the “Conservatives” to task for partisan hypocrisy…

Nowadays the word Liberal is often used as a pejorative; I often use it that way myself for good reasons.

Yet I am a moderate, and probably spend about 40% of the time cursing the idiocy of the Left, and 60% of it complaining and worrying about the Right (It is too bad there are not more real conservative minds in the Conservative camp these days.). Of the two the Conservatives tend to scare me a bit more but the Leftists in total power would be/ have been worse. But the actions of the radicals on either side do not condemn entire schools of thought to a mature mind.  This should be remembered by pundits on both sides in this age of attack politics.

 Lately a radically Conservative group has taken over almost all the political voice of conservative American Christianity.  They have used their pulpit to propound, and pound in, their own view of history, and how Christianity has influenced the development of the United States as a nation.

 They are not actually lying about the influence of the churches. The problem is that they have forgotten from just where in the Church all that influence came.  Yes, it was those damn liberals every time!

 In American history, every time the religious culture has had a profound positive influence (as judged by successive generations) on changes in society those influences have their roots in the Liberal-to-Radical churches. They most certainly did not come from the Conservative ones!

 The Conservative Churches in every case have held the line with the status quo through history whether it was regarding the Revolution, slavery, child labor, workers rights, racial equality or now, gay rights.  Yet the Conservative Churches of today want to shine their halos with the contributions made for the most part by the Liberal Churches of the past.

This activity is not unique to Christianity by any means.  A Radical Conservative Jew will spend much energy telling you about Judaism’s amazing contributions to Western society, but will refuse to see that his brand of thinking never produced any of it.  Find a Conservative Imam, and you will find a man eager to convince you that Islam has been an enormously positive contributor to civilization over the centuries.  But if you remind him that blind faithfulness to Islam’s Conservative philosophy had nothing to do with the various periods of (heretically liberal) Islamic glory that he is polishing up for you to admire; he may even take offense.

  In every case where religious and political power intermingle the things that modern world civilization would call progress has only come when the dominant Church(s) is(are) liberal to the point of being heretical (to the parent dogmas and doctrines), tolerant and more focused on understanding, accepting and spreading the “love behind the Law” rather than promoting a zero-tolerance attitude regarding adherence to the “Letter of the Law.”

But only stagnation and decay ensue when the Churches are conservative and cling to a memory, or fictitious ideal, of “the way it should be.”

 It should be noted that Conservative religious thought can have a greatly positive influence on society but, that usually the effects remain chiefly negative.

 Witness: the defense of slavery, and the stances of “Godly” preachers and priests against child labor laws, and minority civil rights laws.

Witness: the attempts at forced, coerced and violent conversions directed at any people of another religion that are under the influence of a politicized religion (theocracies, inquisitions, shari’a states).

 We all admit that Conservatism is designed to be highly successful at keeping the wheels of a society turning. Who but a fool will deny that there is a true virtue most times in maintaining most of the status quo; Leftists take note of the qualifications and keep your straw men to yourselves – I am not Christian, and never have been a Republican, or supporter of either Bush.

 But, it also must be admitted that Conservative governments and organizations have a poor track record when attempting to grease those wheels, to make accommodation for the fact that seems “odd“, “weird“, “different” to the average mind; whether the ideas are good ones or not!

When the going gets rough or to be a creative inspiration for the people who bear the main burdens of pushing the cart of civilization further, faster and safer than our ancestors ever believed it could go Conservatives can be of more a drag chain when they should be acting like the regenerative brakes that go with a hybrid engine.

 Conservative ideology certainly does not allow real flaws in the basic social system to be changed without a protracted, and often ugly, fight with the liberal mindset who are busy finding things that are not really broken to make into really nasty situations with well-meaning new laws and more, and more, and more tension from enforcement, and less and less elbow room for the well-intentioned citizen just trying to get along and improve their lives.

 Without a Liberal element in society, one that has enough influence to smack the current bosses on the head now and then but, not enough to dominate society  a person lives in what is at best a well upholstered slave camp destined to fade into the dust of history.


Without a Conservative element at the core to give perspective and balance a people will… well, just look at the aftermath of every single revolution in the past – the American revolution was actually a colony revolt – it was an independently evolving, functioning society that broke away from the parent nation/culture rather than an indigenous movement to topple all the central power structures and replace them ad hoc with unproven or dis-proven but, “much better” institutions; not long after they succeed the real bloodshed is just beginning!

 Who was it again that decreed with proven ‘Holy Authority‘ that all human problems can, and may, only be solved by a totally Left-wing or totally Right-wing ideology? When did admitting that your Party’s platform cannot solve all problems if followed by “good” people?

The voting public needs to take off their trendy, strait-jackets/sheep-outfits, grow up, and look at reality – of the real kind, rather than the oh-so-importantly-unimportant political sort – and then find the ideal solutions, not the solutions that serve your political tribe while walking over everyone else’s Lives’, Liberties, and frantic Pursuits of Happiness.

UN Ignores Islam-based FGM, Honor Killings and Under-Aged Marriage


Ever wonder why the UN Human Rights Commission doesn’t do much about violence against women?  This video of the commission’s meeting with a concerned NGO will explain it is painful detail: Simple explanation; Islam may not be linked with ANY bad “traditions”, period, end of statement.

Littman UN video rev 4 from Vlad Tepes on Vimeo.

Watch it all, it is worth it!  Get ready to applaud the “point of Order” by the German delegate!!!

“Queering Our Schools” and excercises in denouncing gays for the wrong reasons

(HH here: well here we go again, not satisfied with legitimate concerns like over the top sexual details in early education and the kudos for the NAMBLA spokesman we will now observe a Right Wing partisan in all his glory attempt to oust someone who needs to go while reinforcing weak personal prejudices. No doubt in order to garner votes for Psuedo-Conservatives by “worrying about the children”.)

Fifty-three Republican congressmen yesterday demanded that President Obama fire his embattled “safe schools czar,” Kevin Jennings. Mr. Jennings’ bizarre sexual agenda for American grade schools is one reason the president should dump this dangerous radical.

(HH: Quite probably, but not for all the reasons that you want. Children are to be taught, not kept in bubble wrap until we thrust them out into a VERY confusing world.)

…book he endorsed was a collection of essays by different authors who supported teaching young children about homosexuality. Mr. Jennings’ foreword explains why he thinks it is important to start educating children about homosexuality as early as activist-educators can get away with doing so. “Ask any elementary-school teachers you know and – if they’re honest – they’ll tell you they start hearing [anti-homosexual prejudice] as soon as kindergarten.” And “As one third-grader put it plainly when asked by her teacher what ‘gay’ meant: ‘I don’t know. It’s just a bad thing.’ ”

(HH: Which is a good reason to keep them in the dark about the entire subject? We should just let them wonder and fantasize and be naive prey for the first plausible line from a sexual predator? Is that what you want so you can pretend that your Victorian concept of children being “harmed” by knowing about sex “too young”? You don’t see a need to tell these kids SOMETHING? When a child that sees a fundamentalist “Christian” who peddles hate instead of the Love of God say that Gays want to come and steal him from mommy and daddy and hurt him…what do you tell him when he finds out that Timmy’s father is Gay while at the school fair?

I am sorry I can’t give you a time machine to go back to when gays pretended they liked the opposite sex and straight folk mostly didn’t know gays were real. )

As another author in the book notes: “Any grade is ‘old’ enough [for the proper education] because even five-year-olds are calling each other ‘gay’ and ‘faggot.’ ” Other writers claim there apparently is no problem getting into these discussions because, “The belief that children are not sexual beings is not substantiated by research.”

(HH: You would just ignore it? Are you under the impression that children are psychological and physiological eunuchs until puberty? Or that they have no sex based perceptions?

We still are waiting for you to explain why it is BAD for children to know the basic facts about the people they are going to become. Explain how you are NOT just harking back to when the CONCEPT of sex was seen as “dirty” and so it is “good” to keep children “pristine” of this disgusting influence as long as possible lest it destroy their “godly character”. Whew, that left a bad taste in my mouth just saying it.)

The authors of “Queering Elementary Education” don’t seem to be bothered by the dearth of evidence to justify their position in favor of teaching children about homosexual relationships. Because they do not provide the names of teachers who told various anecdotes included in the book, there’s no way to check how many of the stories are secondhand exaggerations or even pure fiction.

(HH: spoken like a true disconnected adult. How long has it been since you paid any attention to what the children around you were saying? If you have kids or grandkids of your own how can you NOT know what they babble on about that they pick up from the adult world?

Or is it just that in your little world homosexuality is so hushed, so obviously shameful to even contemplate that the kids don’t share their thoughts and mistaken impressions with you?

The book probably does not make it a formal study because it is obvious. Are you unaware that Junior High and High school age kids use the term “that is so gay” as a put down?

The hilarious part to a moderate like me though is that to these kids, steeped in acceptance of gays, it is NOT a reference to anything homosexual!

That is Humanity for you, the kids have accepted with little resistance the equality of gays as “just people”. But at the same time from the pervasive negative propaganda they hear from, oh people like you, the word itself has become an insult. Does that make you proud or does it frustrate you that they got your hatred of “gay” but still understand that BEING gay is no big deal? In and of itself that is. )

One author in the book attacks the conservative notion that “artificial insemination, transient relationships, same-sex marriages and tangled family structures are not issues children should have to know about.” Others contributors advocate that “sexual-diversity issues are central to multicultural education” and that schoolchildren should sing songs such as “In some families we have two Moms.” Mind you, the authors don’t provide scientific evidence that their policies accomplish the strange goals they push.

(HH: Oh, wow. I just looked at the original article again. It doesn’t list an author; the Washington Times itself takes credit.

I am just floored at the notion that someone so partisan, so out of touch with the changes in the last, oh 70 years at least, has editorial control of a whole newspaper.

let us deconstruct this a bit at a time to avoid choking hazard:
The premise presented is that the book dares to attack a “Conservative” notion. I like that, notion. Not even a belief, just a notion and it is treason to children to defy it I guess.

Let us look at the purported “conservative” thought that is under attack: Children should “NOT HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT” such things as “artificial insemination, transient relationships, same-sex marriages and tangled family structures”. Okaaay! So, since it really IS 2009 and not 1899 what do you advise the parent or teacher or parent of a friend tell a kid who knows nothing he “does not have to know” when:

A) Timmy sees that the new baby next door looks nothing like the rest of the family. Timmy runs home and asks you why this is so when the baby’s mom says she did not adopt him. Given that you feel artificial insemination is something he “does not need to know” aren’t you going to have a lot to explain that could have been taken care of by biology class?

B) Timmy’s best friend Billy is sad because the woman that had been his “mommy” for the last year left and never calls him. Timmy runs home and thinking that all mommy’s and daddy’s are married asks you why Billy’s “mommy” left Billy.

C) I guess you prefer Timmy to cause you and others great embarrassment when he encounters the inevitable same sex couples and gets all freaky because you felt he “didn’t have to know”.

We all wish life was less complicated, never more than when trying to explain part of the adult world to kids. But try to explain to kids intentionally kept in a fantasy world of [Happy Mommy’s and Daddy’s Raising their 2.5 kids with “mom’s eyes but their dads coloring”] for 10 to 16 years how things REALLY work. Or don’t work as the case may be, human relations being what they are. Why do otherwise intelligent adults think that kids should be “protected” from ALL experience that might be useful once they reach marrying/career age?)

“Queering Elementary Education” argues consistently that children should be taught that same-sex-parent families are as normal and common as the traditional two-parent family or single-parent families. But it is one thing to argue certain behavior is acceptable; it is quite another to distort basic facts in an effort to change the worldview of children.

(HH: well it is nice to be able to agree on ONE thing at least in this article. Same sex relationships are as “normal” as the people make those relationships, no matter the plumbing involved. If heterosexuality were the prerequisite of “normal” parents then why are most of the people involved with DCFS hetero? Per capita not by numbers. The most common child molester is a straight male not a gay male or female. Radical “lifestyle” gays are no more representative of homosexuals than Rev. Phelps is of Christians.

But I do agree that the Leftist tendency to view the world via “Pravda” colored glasses is present. The whole “gender Studies” garbage about how we are all bisexual and only convention makes us otherwise is bad science and worse politics. Too bad the article did not start and end with this point.)

Mr. Jennings is one who claims that homosexual couples are more common than they actually are. One of his books titled “One Teacher in Ten” claims that 10 percent of people are homosexuals. Almost no one defends the old Alfred Kinsey survey that Mr. Jennings relied on to make this claim. That 1948 survey interviewed a high percentage of prison inmates and known sex offenders. There’s plenty of more objective studies out there. For example, the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago found that the number of homosexuals in America was less than 1 percent.

(HH: Really? The fact that one study from the 50’s is not wholly accepted as valid means all others since are also wrong? That is a complete strawman argument if I have ever heard one. About the statistics, did you read this study yourself or did someone tell you about it? I hope the latter because otherwise you are seem to be lying! Here is the relevant quote from the study you refer to“:

“The gay and lesbian communities have long adopted 10% as the portion of the population that is homosexual.5 However, a series of recent national studies (Table 8A) indicate that only about 2-3% of sexually-active men and 1-2% of sexually- active women are currently engaging in same-gender sex”

First off 2-3 male and 1-2 female is NOT 1% in any statistics class I have heard of. And the kicker; “CURRENTLY ENGAGING”.

This figure is not even meant to represent all homosexuals. Personally I think that the inherent inability to get fully accurate data makes this answer likely to be on the LOW side. If 2-3% and 1-2% are willing in the hostile environment to be sexually active don’t you think that many places, oh like rural Alabama, are crawling with gays that do the best they can NOT to get caught? Many to my personal knowledge know they are gay but still accept the judgment that there is something “unnatural” about it that can be overcome if they “really want to”. Since they can’t change what they feel, only pretend, the often go radical and over-the-top or stay in the closet and hate themselves.

Oh, and let us not forget the bisexual people who may yearn for the same sex in certain ways but, from being smart enough to stay under the radar, choose to suppress the gay side in exchange for a simpler life.

Do you begin to see just how provincial your declarations are in the light of reality?)

Advocating the indoctrination of kindergarten children based on anecdotal evidence or flawed science isn’t Mr. Jennings’ worst offense. But it’s certainly not what Americans expect from a White House “safe schools czar” who is responsible for making policy decisions that impact children’s safety.

(HH: no, they are not, so why are you cynically using outrage at his real offenses to try to sell your own brand of fascism? Is it not the responsibility of those that choose to be firm against “evil” to be honest themselves about their opponents?

Read the original article or see this commentary and others at http://hereticscrusade.com)