Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for April, 2013


Congressional Health Care


What did you say Mr. Commissioner?

Let me get this straight. NBA’s Jason Colins decides to let the world know that he has chosen the homosexual lifestyle ( didn’t care to know that at all ) and the NFL Commissioner has the right to take away all the NFL’s coaches and players First Amendment rights? Typical of the Liberal and Progressive Social Engineer wacky Left caring more about Jason’s feelings than shoving his chosen lifestyle down our throats. Are we the one’s that purchase those obnoxiously outrageous, overpriced ticket prices to see their games? And they don’t care what I think?

What’s wrong with that picture.Jackass Whisperer Shirt

Ronald Reagan Reminds Us Why We Must Fight Tyranny

Ronald Reagan Reminds Us Why We Must Fight Tyranny Ronald Reagan Reminds Us Why We Must Fight Tyranny

Christian ministry in the military “spiritual rape”?????????


Pentagon Recruits Anti-Christian Extremist To Help Craft Tolerance Policy

Over the years, I have seen much of what makes people tick in regard to political leanings. I have discovered that the smarter someone is, the easier it is to have a rational conversation with them. As the curve goes down, and you begin to deal with less intelligent people, rational conversation becomes more difficult. But more than intelligence, passion plays a large role in whether or not a person is able to convey their beliefs without needless aggression and posturing. I have come across people who are so passionate; they need to believe in something so badly; that they have lost any ability to deal with opposing views in a calm and rational manner. It just so happens that those who have this fiery, directionless passion often tend to come from the Left of the aisle.

The Pentagon, under the Obama administration, is developing new policies regarding religious tolerance in the military. They could have devised a plan that would really make a difference; help eliminate needless bigotry and unpleasantness from the military. They could have taken a reasoned and balanced approach; bringing in multiple people with opposing views, to really reach an understanding as to how they should proceed. Of course, they did not do that. Instead, they brought in a man named Mikey Weinstein.

Mikey Weinstein is the kind of man someone like me would find insufferable; the kind of man with such aggressive passion that he is unpleasant to be around. That’s not necessarily a terrible thing–if you can take it–but Mikey’s passion is very focused; Mikey’s passion is anti-Christian propaganda.

On April 16th, in an article written for The Huffington Post, Mikey Weinstein says some pretty incredible things. He takes a machete to Christians and Christianity in general; rather happily slicing his way through the Christian faith and those who practice it. The following is an excerpt. It’s a bit long, but worth the read:

“Ladies and Gentlemen, let me tell you of monsters and monstrous wrongs. And let me tell you what these bloody monsters thrive on…I founded the…Military Religious Freedom Foundation to do one thing: fight those monsters who would tear down the Constitutionally-mandated wall separating church and state in the technologically most lethal entity ever created by humankind, the U.S. military…Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces…These days, when ANYone attempts to bravely stand up against virulent religious oppression, these monstrosities cry out alligator tears in overflowing torrents and scream that it is, in fact, THEY who are the dispossessed, bereft and oppressed. C’mon, really, you pitiable unconstitutional carpetbaggers? … Please, I beseech you! Let us call these ignoble actions what they are: the senseless and cowardly squallings of human monsters…Queasy with the bright and promising lights of the cultural realities of the present day, those evil, fundamentalist Christian creatures and their spiritual heirs have taken refuge behind flimsy, well-worn, gauze-like euphemistic facades such as ‘family values’ and ‘religious liberty.’”

Mikey goes on to compare Christians with 60′s era racists, and rip apart Christianity in the military and in general. He even suggests that chaplains who proselytize are ”treasonous,” and should be punished. Finally, he calls Christian ministry in the military “spiritual rape;” comparing it to physical, sexual assault.

This is the man that the Pentagon has brought in to consult on religious tolerance in the military?! This man is, himself, a hateful, vile creature–to use Weinstein’s own vernacular. His words are beyond basic intolerance; they are just plain wicked.

I wonder how a man such as he came about. What is the origin of his extraordinary hate? It seems implausible that a human being could be capable of such hate toward Christianity. But if you look back in history, there have been many just like him: men whose hatred drove them into darkness; whose hatred was the only thing on which they could live and thrive. History repeats itself.

Under the Obama administration, the Pentagon is seeking Mikey Weinstein’s assistance in crafting religious tolerance policy. That’s like asking Adolf Hitler to help craft policy on Jewish tolerance. It’s backwards, and disgusting.

Mikey Weinstein is passion personified. With that level of passion, the ability to reason; to formulate sound arguments, becomes greatly diminished. What is driving his passion and aggression? What makes him so hateful? We may never know.

Regardless, this modern Nero, with his reckless aggression towards Christians, is helping to create policy on how to deal with Christianity in the military. With so many Christians currently serving, this frightens me.


“Honor Thy Father and Mother” isn’t a suggestion

‘Honor Thy Father and Mother’: Ignore at Your Peril

by Stephanie Janiczek
Clash Daily Guest Contributor

john-potterI know a lot of theology teachers might argue with me over what the greatest commandment is in the list of ten big ones. To me it always seemed that the biggest one was “Honor Thy Father and Mother”. The other rules God set for us stemmed from that one simple five word bit of divine instruction. Not difficult to understand and not hard to follow.

These days we have certain types of people who not only ignore that commandment but they go out of their way to flaunt that commandment. Too many of our seniors are forgotten, thrown into nursing homes by their selfish boomer children who think they know more than their parents; and because of the privilege’s their parents hard work afforded them are better than their parents.

Today I was introduced to a woman named Janice Cotrill who is evicting her 91 year old father from the home he has lived in with her mother for 54 years. John Potter is a World War II veteran and hero. He has lived in the village of Zaleski ,Ohio his entire life, except for the years he spent in the military in World War II, fighting against the Japanese at Attu in the Aleutian Islands. I am speechless with rage. Here is a link to the story:; and another link.

I think part of my anger towards Ms. Cotrill and her husband is the fact my own father and mother saw their last years sad and lonely and dependent. In fact, it nearly went the same way as Mr. Potter’s life has gone. When it is your own parents and there is nothing you personally can do to help it is the most awful thing to deal with personally. At the time the bad happened to my parents, I was in college and had no money, no personal power to help them. It is funny but it is always that way. The person who cares most about their parents is the one who has the least amount of personal power or money to help them when they need help.

In looking back, I wish I had made different decisions but I know that regrets are for sad sacks. The past should never hold us back but in the case of one’s parents, when they did everything for you, to see older siblings treating them so badly, it is hard not to look back with some regret. The words “I wish I had” run rampant through one’s mind like an old vinyl record skipping. And yet there are those people you grew up with who have no concerns about what they do to their parents. One is introduced to resentments that were never apparent before, angers and envy that were never out in the open.

It is quite disturbing to think there are people out there who are this amoral. Yes, evicting one’s parents from their home of 54 years is amoral. Not allowing a father to see his autistic son is amoral. Instead of spending quality time with a father who is a hero, whom one can learn so much from, this woman and her husband are throwing him out onto the street.

The stories of a father of 91, who has seen so much, done so much could become family lore. It’s the stuff legends are made of. These are the stories children coming after can hear and live up to. Think about the loss of that alone. It is horrifying in a way to think so much can be tossed casually aside like this.

When one throws their parents away like so much trash one throws oneself away with them. So much of a human being’s identity and self are given to them by their parents, through DNA, through being raised and the life’s lessons parents teach their children. You can see in the empty, unhappy lives these amoral creatures live. They live for the moment, materialistic not only in their greed for things and power but a kind of spiritual materialism that causes them to drift even further from themselves. They are quite literally dead inside.

They search continually for a self they would never recognize because they can’t see themselves anymore. Or they know too well who stares back at them from the mirror in the morning and they cannot stand that person. One could feel some pity for these people who abandoned the values and morals they were raised to believe in; but when one reaches a certain age one realizes that there are some people who suck the very soul from everyone around them, and trying to help them is the ultimate expression of futility. One could do better by making life easier for the elderly, reaching out to those that could share with them the wisdom they accumulated over the decades and maybe providing to an elderly veteran and his wife a family they no longer really have.

I want to tell this woman, “That is your Dad. He’s a decorated veteran. Instead of behaving so viciously why not embrace the limited time with your Dad and hear his stories, do your daughter’s duty and honor him? This is the house you grew up in. Think of the memories? Think of times your parents were there for you? Doesn’t any of that mean anything?”

It is funny but in looking back at some of the things I have seen in my own past I realize that those questions would be meaningless to certain people because the idea of honoring ones parents means nothing to them.

We know that people ultimately pay the price for their hubris. It might be in overwhelming guilt for their cruelty with which they have treated their parents. It might be in the hereafter. But people who have committed heinous sins against people they should love and respect do find justice. That is the cold unvarnished truth.

What we are witnessing in this sad story is a Greek Tragedy played out in 2013 USA. It has all the hubris, greed, and like a Greek Tragedy, it will end badly. Not just for Mr. Potter. It will end worse for his daughter and she’s too wrapped up in herself and what she wants to realize that. I feel no pity for her and her husband. What comes ’round goes ’round.

I do feel a terrible sadness that her father, a WWII hero who is sick, is being treated like a criminal by his daughter. The only criminal I can identify here is Ms. Cotrill. “Honor Thy Father and Mother” isn’t a suggestion, as the saying goes, and one would do one a big favor by abiding by that five word commandment.

Image: John Potter; courtesy of Jaclyn Fraley; “World War II Vet John Potter, 91, Faces Eviction by Daughter”;

get-attachment (3)Stephanie Janiczek is a former Capitol Hill Staff Assistant, Schedule C Appointee and Leadership Institute alum. Military Wife, Hunter, Horse enthusiast, dog owner, writer and feminist kryptonite.

Get more Clash on, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil . . .” – Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

PLEASE take the time to read the entire article I’ve published below. This man says what I have been wanting to say but lack the articulation he has. – Jerry Broussard

How to Take Back the Country, Step One. . .

Written on Sunday, April 28, 2013 by



Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil . . . – Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

Four is five, and five is four.

In my column, The Line, I explained the underlying core issue dividing our country and why it’s time to draw the line. If you’ve stepped across and joined me on this side of the line, welcome to the breed of Lt. Col. Travis. This column will lay out one of the greatest weapons we can use to win the ideological war. This article is a little lengthy and requires some concentration, but if you cozy up with a drink and some time, you’ll be glad you did.

A couple of weeks ago I was talking with a good friend about the state of the country. He quoted Isaiah 5:20 and said, “I always wondered how a person could call ‘evil good, and good evil,’ but it’s obvious, it’s happening now.” He was right. It’s happening now, and we’re allowing it.

The power of words is remarkable. As a former stage hypnotist, current speechwriter, and law student I well understand the effect certain words have on the mind. One or two words can change the entire perception of a sentence, and therefore, a thought.

This is what happened to our country. Over the years, one or two words, here and there, created a dramatic shift in the populous toward the liberal agenda. Ironically, no one has brought it to light. From my expertise in words, I believe that if conservative pundits and leaders will adopt the tactic that I explain below, and aggressively use it in their media interactions, we will see the populous shift back to supporting constitutional principles.

First, how it’s happening.

To understand how society has been manipulated by words, let’s take a look at the infamous math riddle George Orwell made famous. In his book, 1984, Orwell explained the slogan “2+2 = 5” as a dogma that the Party presented as truth. The reason for this was because the actual fact that two and two equaled four was politically inexpedient. Since the logic explaining why 2+2 = 5 is bent, the conclusion stood only because the Party said so. The result was indubitable deference to the Party: whatever it said, was the controlled truth.

The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?” – George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

Interestingly, 2+2 can, through theory, mathematically equal 5. This gives a spooky awe to Orwell’s proposition. I’ve seen several different theorems that explain how two and two can make five but, in my opinion, two are especially intriguing. The trickiest theorem essentially states that upon starting with the truthful proposition that 20 = 20 (x = x), we can follow a logical sequence of “if thens” to finally prove that 4 = 5 (x = y).

Read the following slowly and do the math with me. Understanding this will prove both necessary and important when I explain how the left has used the tactic.

Instead of going through the full theorem, I’ll sum it up this way. To deduce from 20 = 20 that 4 = 5, you must use square roots. If one takes the equation 4 – 4.5, solves it and then squares it (-.5 x -.5) you’ll get .25; which is the exact same answer as 5 – 4.5 solved and squared (.5 x .5 = .25). So, if the square of the first equation, 4 – 4.5, equals the square of the second, 5 – 4.5, then the two equations are equal to each other. If they equal each other, then we may skip squaring each side and just work with their original forms. So, we have 4 – 4.5 = 5 – 4.5. We then solve each side to get -.5 = .5. Now add 4.5 to each side and, bam! The truth that 20 = 20 has now been deduced to show that it is the exact same as 4 = 5 (or 2+2 = 5) (new truth).

Of course, the presentation is much more convoluted than that, but those who are brushed up will spot the flaw. The problem is that, while the squaring the two equations creates the same result (.25 = .25), a negative number is not the same as a positive number. In other words, -.5 is not the same as .5, even though they both square up to equal .25. It’s all in the “if then” presentation. It’s a matter of the conclusion versus logic.

The second theorem goes through similar steps, but in the end its flaw is that it requires dividing by 0. The novice mathematician doing mental math performs the function despite the error and arrives at the controlled conclusion. The problem is that it’s mathematically impossible to divide any number by zero.

Now, welcome back. So, what does all this fuzzy math have to do with the left’s words? Well, if 4 can be 5, then of course it’s possible for good to be evil, and evil to be good. Fuzzy math teaches us “doublespeak.”

Although the term “doublespeak” is not explicitly used in 1984, most attribute its origins to George Orwell. The basic concept is to deliberately disguise, distort, or reverse the meaning of words. In mathematical terms, the target word (x) is assigned a new definition (y). But the definition has a flaw (like dividing by zero or presenting a negative to be equal to a positive). However, with the right presentment, the flaw can be overlooked and I can make good become evil and visa versa. Soon enough the majority of the population believes the new truth, even those on the right.

Let’s turn to some examples. Since the Gosnell trial hasn’t been respectively covered, let’s use that topic.

Somewhere along the line, we accepted the labels of “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” How ridiculous. Where is the word “abortion”? After all, that is the beginning point (20 = 20). The left justifies their it by claiming their label means they support “a woman’s right to choose.” Choose what exactly? To own an AR-15? To support cutting entitlements and scaling back government? Ending affirmative action? Freeing the market from burdensome regulations? Supporting traditional marriage as the only definition of marriage? No, the left vilifies all of these. They support a woman’s choice to have an abortion. Period. So, let’s call it what it is. They are not “pro-choice,” they are “pro-abortion.”

Start saying “pro-abortion” on a regular basis and watch what happens! Since the word “abortion” doesn’t feel very good, I suspect you will see an immediate back-pedal. “No, no, no. We aren’t ‘pro-abortion,’ we just support a woman’s right to choose, for herself, to have an abortion.” Illogical. The pro-abortionist tries to equate positives and negatives. One cannot support a person’s right to choose an abortion without necessarily supporting the practice itself. Their argument is the same as me supporting a woman’s choice to kill her neighbor. “I’m not ‘pro-neighbor-killing myself, but I support a woman’s choice to do it.”

Oh, but neighbor killing isn’t the same as abortion because the neighbor is alive? Now we’re dividing by zero. Is the living cell in the womb not just as alive as the living cell in the neighbor?

Oh? The cell is alive, but the fetus isn’t viable? Nonsense. The 6-moth old baby, the 6-day old newborn, and even the 6-year old child are just as dependent on their mother for survival as the 6-day old zygote.

And deeper we go, exposing how pro-abortionists divide by zero to make abortion equal “supporting a woman’s choice.” This is how four has become five . . . how evil has become good. Words and their presentation.

No. “Pro-choice” is pro-abortion. And pro-abortion is pro-dismembering fetuses. Hmmmm, maybe we should start using the latter term?

Feel the power of words? And that is just one example.

Try “affirmative action.” Break down its logic and you get the actual fact: race preference or race favoring. (Believe me, I’ve studied the line of affirmative action cases. You’d be amazed at the preference systems colleges have tried to give non-Caucasians.)

“Gun control” is doublespeak for gun taking through regulation. The faulty premise here is that the left claims “gun control” bills do not come out and call for an actual gun confiscation. This is their presentation: “No one is taking away your guns.” But they mask the negative integer. The regulations are actually so strict that it becomes nearly impossible to obtain or keep your guns and ammo. It is, at the very core, confiscation via regulation. (Regulatory takings are unconstitutional under Supreme Court case law. See also my column, The Emporer’s Pen and the Extent of His Power for more on this.)

“Entitlements” is doublespeak for dependence.

“An act of terror” is doublespeak for terrorist attack, or more bluntly, and as is the case in most situations, Islamic terrorist attack.

“Assault rifle.” Laughable. I would argue that every rifle can “assault,” since that word is only a noun and never an adjective. This is doublespeak for semi-automatic rifle.

And of course, “political correctness” is doublespeak for, well, doublespeak.

The list goes on, but the point is this, the left has successfully made evil good by using faulty premises and great presentation. The left is controlling the narrative because the right has rolled over and accepted doublespeak simply because the left has said so. Sadly, I can think of only one political leader who has ever challenged the flaw on the air. Everyone else is deathly afraid of being called “racist,” “sexist,” or whatever (do we need to break down the logic on those words too?).

It’s time to fight back with words.

I call on every patriot, pundit, and conservative who has a voice and a far-reaching medium to quit accepting the left’s manipulative doublespeak and start using truthspeak. Remember, one or two words can change the entire perception of a sentence, and therefore, a thought. Truthspeak resets the public’s perception and thoughts back to the original truth. This is why the left tries to eviscerate leaders like Allen West. Truthspeak is the left’s primary enemy, and he’s the only one I can think of off the top of my head who publicly speaks it.

Therefore, my fellow Americans, let us declare in our dialogues and monologues, our posts and our tweets, speeches and interviews that two and two do not equal five simply because it feels better to say. Good feelings were never the predicate of truth. Two and two make four, but only for as long as we guard its underlying logic. No more passive defensiveness. Go on the offensive! A Spade is not an upside down heart, so why accept the flaw and call it one? Call a spade a spade! Flood their minds with truth and watch the public support for the left buckle and fall.

Mark. My. Words.

That choice is yours to make. That choice—the dedication to one’s highest potential—is made by accepting the fact that the noblest act you have ever performed is the act of your mind in the process of grasping that two and two make four.” – John Galt

Read more:



This is the problem with progressivism. It is barren.

America’s Empty Progressive Culture

By /

empyt headWe enjoy looking back to a time when generations of men were willing to fight and die for the things of value in this world, especially today.  Many of those men were mere teens when they took up their causes.  When Alexander Hamilton was around 19 years old, he wrote “The Farmer Refuted,” a lively response to the loyalist writings of Samuel Seabury in 1775.  Hamilton was not only a rowdy and confident teen, he knew well the ideas that this nation would soon be founded upon and that he would help to define:

Hence, also, the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact between the rulers and the ruled, and must be liable to such limitations as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man, or set of men, have to govern others, except their own consent? To usurp dominion over a people in their own despite, or to grasp at a more extensive power than they are willing to intrust, is to violate that law of nature which gives every man a right to his personal liberty, and can therefore confer no obligation to obedience.

Hamilton also suggests that Seabury become more acquainted with the likes of Grotius, Puffendorf, Locke, Montesquieu, and Burlemaqui.  While I imagine some American youth are exposed to Locke and Montesquieu in the most empty fashion possible, they would be hard pressed to truly understand how important their ideas are.

Public school systems have dumbed down philosophy, history and all of the humanities which the founders of this nation studied extensively.  The very fabric of this nation was based on classical philosophical ideas.  Is there any way a student can be expected to understand their Second Amendment rights when they have no clue what liberty is or why it is worth fighting for?  They have studied culture relatively and are never asked to compare our republic to other nations (because of course, that might offend someone).

In George Washington’s Farewell Address of 1796, he warned that “reason and experience forbid us to expect that popular morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.”  To apply this to today’s world, it might be better to say a “global morality.”  This is what many children are being taught.  There is a “global” way of thinking that washes American culture in particular of its values and morality.  Even some modern conservatives shrink away from attempting to argue the value of religion for our nation and its people.

And what has been the happy result of this progressive mission to destroy our culture?  Suicide rates amongst teens and young adults have been higher than at any other recorded point in history.  Young men have the highest rates and this is not surprising.  Liberal culture has failed them.  It has confused the roles they should aim for, leaving them empty, void of tradition, values, or morality.

For the youth fortunate enough to get a “great” education, they are likely to become educated dumb people with no convictions on anything.  Obama’s 2007 campaign was powerful amongst youth for one reason, they had absolutely no faith in anything else.  American youth culture has grown to reflect the empty things on television and in public school curricula.  Bars are filled with young adults whose best attempt at life is to model something they hear in a Lady Gaga song.   Somehow, getting embarrassingly drunk or yelling obscenities to the world is a defining moment in their lives.  They resent anyone who tries to tell them about deeper things in life, philosophy, religion, anything that seeks to answer the questions that plagued them.  Somehow they know it all without understanding a thing.

This is the problem with progressivism.  It is barren.  Barack Obama caught youth attention because his media image sold him as hope, the Messiah come to earth; and needing something to link them to their sorry existence, to have a reason to experience joy or to feel tears on their cheek, they praised him.  Now that many of them have returned to their empty feelings, they still praise him out of the memory of having something to believe in.

Though it seems like a devastating picture, the culture war is still going.  In the book, “The Conservative Mind,” Russell Kirk described a few ways Conservatives or any loyal American can work to hold back the damaging emptiness of progressive culture:

  1. Reaffirm the truth that lies in tradition, i.e. stop saying morality and tradition do not matter.  That is the progressive game.  He who cares the most wins.  If you feel religion is pointless to the conversation, then you leave space for progressive “values” to fill in the gaps.
  2. Defend the classes and regions where tradition is still a living force, Middle America and rural communities.
  3. Humanize urban life, instead of destroying old buildings and landmarks for new ones, keep native architecture.  People have a deeper connection to their cities when their monuments remain for generations.  This was one reason why the World Trade Centers were targeted by terrorists, they were symbols of the Western world.
  4. And probably most importantly, return to family-centered and church-centered life, the glue that has held American culture together from the beginning.


*If you are curious to see Kirk’s arguments in more detail, they are contained in the chapter titled “The Problem of Tradition.”

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: