I Predict

Karnak the magnificent

After the tumultuous campaign to put Brett Kavanaugh on the U.S. Supreme Court, I was walking around my house, when I suddenly found myself in a haze. It wasn’t a hallucination. It was mystical. I felt that I was peering into the future. It was a prophetic vision of sorts.

As difficult as this may be, I will describe to you this prophecy.

What I saw was a new crisis emerging for the White House. In my vision, I couldn’t see exactly what was going on, but it was clear that Trump will do something that will upset Democrats – tremendously so. This will cause Democratic leaders across the board to condemn the President and everyone in his party. From what I can tell, it will be as if the world is literally coming to an end.

For the next number of months, this will be in all of the headlines. Every media outlet will make this the top news. Columnists, commentators, celebrities, and athletes will all talk about it. This will not be good for the President, because it will almost all be negative. A small number of prominent people, and a small number of media outlets will support Trump.

As strange as this may seem, President Trump will make some public statement about the issue. I can’t seem to determine if it’s a Tweet or a speech, but he communicates it so everyone picks it up.

International conflicts, natural disasters, major financial events, and other significant news occurs, but all of this becomes secondary news. The only thing people seem to talk about is Trump’s issue.

Months later, everything changes. A new incident occurs involving Trump. During the next 24 hours, the first issue is forgotten, being replaced by the new issue. Months later, most people will forget that the first issue even occurred.

I know this is a very wild and difficult to believe prophecy, and I know I’m going out on a limb with my credibility to post this blog. However, I believe this prophecy will come to pass.

(Note to self: Re-post this every few months.)


Secret Memo to Accuser Of The Month

Recently, I sat down at a diner for lunch and found the following few pages of a secret memo. I didn’t see who had sat there before me, but the memo was a real eye-opener. I thought I would share it with you.


Dear Applicants,

I want to thank you all for your enthusiasm in wanting to be the latest accuser of Supreme Court nominee – and overall scumbag – Brett Kavanaugh. We have had such an overwhelming response to our request for new accusers that I haven’t had the time to spend with each of you individually. For that reason, I thought I would send out a memo to help guide you through the process.

First, make sure you get the latest application form. Many things have changed since the days when we processed Anita Hill. Now, you can accuse a far-right nominee of simply failing to recycle their water bottles and get a lot of air time. The new form takes all of that into account.

Section one is where you give basic information about your name, your address, your phone number, etc. Just remember that all of that is optional. If you do decide to enter that information, we will do everything in our power to keep that private[1]. For those of you who don’t remember any of that information because you are still too inebriated from your high school partying, it’s okay. Just enter “It’s complicated.”

The first section also has a small item that asks “Sex?” For those of you who aren’t acquainted with filling out forms like this, please just enter “Male”, “Female”, or any one of the 50-something identities named by Facebook. Please do not enter “Yes”, or “Whenever you’re ready.” Those are not considered acceptable answers and could get you disqualified.

In section two, you have to identify your political status and the political status of the person you are accusing of heinous acts. It looks like this:

Section 2

2.1 I am a (check one):

___ Democrat accusing a Republican nominee

___ Republican accusing a Republican nominee

___ Democrat accusing a Democrat nominee

___ Republican accusing a Democrat nominee

For the purposes of the Kavanaugh nominee and any other nominees that you wish to accuse in the future, if you checked either of the first two responses, go on to the section 3. If you checked either of the last two responses, please call 1-800-NOTACHANCE[2].

The next section is section “3” for those of you who weren’t fortunate enough to have passed elementary math. In this section, you identify both where and when the evil acts of the nominee occurred. Please don’t let this trigger you into a nervous wreck. The only reason we want this information is because we can locate the people who were present at that time and persuade[3] them to cooperate with us. If you can’t remember anything about the incident other than Kavanaugh’s laughter while he was throwing ice at you, that’s okay. You do not have to enter anything into the application that you don’t want to, such as name, address, and any factual information.

The next section after section 3 (also called “section 4”) is crucial. In this section, you identify all of the unspeakable acts Kavanaugh (or a future nominee) performed against you. If you are unable to remember any of these acts being carried out by Kavanaugh, please see our staff hypnotist. She will help you recover your memories of these things. Believe me, you will recover a lot of memories. Even as I write this, we are identifying more and more memories that each of you will recover.

After your recovered memory session, fill out the section. You only have to check the ones that apply. In fact, you may want to just check all of them to be safe. Here are some tips on the specific items.

  • You can check “Sexually Assaulted Me” if he assaulted you, kind of tried to assault you, thought about assaulting you, or gave you a flirtatious grin. (I’m very sorry to make you try to remember this.)
  • You can check “Tried to Get Me Drunk” if he forced alcohol on you, gave you a beer, stood by a punch bowl that was spiked, drank from a water bottle that was obviously filled with what looked like vodka, or hung around people who were drinking at a party. (Please grab a hanky if you made it to this part. There’s not much more.)
  • You can check “Ran a Gang Rape Mob” if you saw him participate in a gang rape, acted like he wanted to participate in a gang rape, ever mentioned the word “gang”, or stood in a line where he was trying to go to the bathroom.
  • You can check “Was a Violent Serial Killer” if you ever saw him murder someone in cold blood, killed a joke by telling it badly, or threw an ice cube at anyone.

The final section is just additional information that helps us to know special information about you that could make your case more important. Here are some of the questions:

_Y__ I will not fly in an airplane. (Note that this is already marked “Y” to save you time filling out the application.

___ I have studied how to take polygraph tests to get good results.

___ If selected as Accuser Of the Month, I agree to be paid the equivalent of ten thousand Venezuelan dollars or its equivalent in American dollars.

___ Even if not selected to be Accuser Of The Month, I am still willing to harass Senators and their families in the Capitol Building, the airport, restaurants, or the bathroom in order to get them to vote correctly, as long as I am paid $2 for each swear word that I utter.

And remember to initial the disclaimer at the bottom of the form that says

___ By initialing here, I agree that everything in this form is 100% true and accurate, and if anything is determined to be false, I will agree to change my story.

There now! That wasn’t so bad, was it? Of course not.

Please take your time to complete the application before you initial and turn it in. After all, it isn’t every day that we get this opportunity[4]. Don’t call us. We’ll call you.

[1] At least for a few weeks.

[2] And ask for “Guido”.

[3] By “persuade”, we mean “threaten”. Remember Guido?

[4] That is, the opportunity to destroy the life of a committed Conservative and their family.

Galileo, the Rainbow, and Guido

Researchers at Brown University recently came up with some surprising research results. So, of course, the Ivy League School did what any institution committed to science and free speech would do.

They quashed the results.

That’s because the findings upset the Perpetually Offended in the LGBT community. It didn’t please them, so Brown University knew they had to remove the results from their web site, even though it appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, PLOS One.

We know that’s the right thing to do, because that’s exactly  what happened to Galileo:

“Hi, Gal! What’s up? Anything new on that telescope?”

“Oh, hello Cardinal Snooticus. I just discovered that the sun does not revolve around the earth. It’s the other way around.”

“Oh, that can’t be right, Gal! You need to look again. Maybe you’ve got a smudge on your telescope. Yeah, that’s right. It’s a smudge.”

“Well, I don’t know about that. I can only report what I observe, Cardinal.”

“Gal, or perhaps I should say Mister Galileo. I don’t think you are getting the picture. Your scientific results do not sit well with the Church. “

“But that doesn’t matter to me. It’s science.”

“Maybe you should talk to Bishop Guido here. He’s from the Inquisition.”

“Actually, uh, Cardinal, I do think I may have a smudge after all. Never mind. It never happened.”

Of course, we all know that’s not what happened. Western society for centuries has put science in a high position in our culture. Christians of all stripes have learned to consider science as another important source of truth, but not the most important source. (And my apologies to my Catholic friends. This was just a silly story.)

But for people who have abandoned Christianity, there is nothing else that’s authoritative to turn to other than science. Secularists like to say that they count on science, and science alone, as the source of truth. We are constantly reminded of that by celebrities and luminaries, lecturing Conservatives about how we need to just focus on science, not opinion. One of the most recent examples of this was Harrison Ford, who spoke out against the anti-science leaders who are skeptical of climate change.

This is thrown at us all of the time. The Perpetually Offended accuse us of being anti-science. But, at the same time, those same accusers only accept the science they like.

And that’s where the research at Brown University comes back in. It was entitled “Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports”.  The study had a number of interesting findings:

  • The parents of many female adolescents reported “outbreaks” of gender dysphoria that were statistically unlikely. These girls never reported any instances of gender confusion until they began to hang out with other girls who engaged in heavy Internet use and binge-watching of videos of transgenders.
  • There is a high probability that the outbreaks of gender dysphoria were due to social and peer influence and pressure
  • Peer influence in adolescent girls is typically linked with depression, eating disorders, and drug use

These findings do not fit the template put forward by the LGBT community. Their story is that transgender people are “born that way”, and that it’s not a trend you can just try out and adopt because your friends are doing it.

So the Perpetually Offended were offended again. Adopting the same bully tactics they use with practically anything else they object to, they raised a ruckus with Brown University and demanded that the paper be deleted. Brown University complied. These days, it doesn’t take actual death threats to bring universities into compliance with the Perpetually Offended. It only requires the possibility of death threats. Or perhaps a visit from Guido.

Past studies have shown that the vast majority of adolescents who identified as homosexual or transgender as a minor no longer do so as an adult. I think it’s fair to say that it probably would happen to the children in the Brown University study as well.

The earliest American attempt to determine the percentage of adults who are homosexual was a 1948 book by 1948 book by Alfred Kinsey called Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. That study claimed that 10% of the male population was homosexual, but it was based on a count of incarcerated men. It is well understood how “group pressure” in prison often makes those men homosexual, at least while they are in prison. (It should be noted that the 10% figure has been discredited, although it is still repeated throughout the culture. Subsequent studies have shown homosexuals at somewhere between 1.5% to 2.4%.)

Interestingly, a recent survey of Americans showed that most Americans believe the rate of homosexuals in our population is about 21%, which is much, much higher than the actual population. Much of that is probably attributed to the fact that the lifestyle is pushed and promoted throughout the media. That media gives the general impression that homosexuality is more prevalent than it really is.

In addition, there have been a number of recent studies that focused on “sexual fluidity”, or the concept that at least some people can flow between heterosexual and homosexual behavior easily. There certainly are a number of celebrities who appear to have done so, including Drew Barrymore, Elton John, and Anne Heche. But the other studies cited earlier show that the vast majority of people who have ever engaged in homosexual acts will not continue to do so throughout their life.

We are beginning to get a better picture of how homosexuality has become such a “big thing” in our culture. It is a cultural phenomenon that is primarily spread by group pressure. After that pressure is lifted, there is only a very small fraction that remains attracted to the same sex. The homosexual lifestyle has an influence that reaches far beyond the actual population, primarily due to their allies. However, it appears that the vast majority of those who have tried that lifestyle did so because of pressure. It was tried by them and rejected. Let us help those who want to leave that lifestyle. Let us also continue to allow academic freedom to pursue science wherever it leads us. And let us resist the Guidos of this world that pressure us.

Hamas rioter: group tricks women, children to enter line of fire

What is the mindset of those who deliberately want to put women and children into harm’s way. No matter what religion you belong to, it’s never right to put innocent lives at risk.


Shoelace mistaken for noose causes racial uproar at Michigan State University | Fox News

What’s amazing is that this sort of thing happens so often to the Perpetually Offended. It doesn’t even look like a noose. Clear thinking individuals will look for the most likely explanation first, as in, “You know, Eileen, I think that’s just a shoe lace some body dropped.” 

 Instead, the Perpetually Offended train themselves to look for offenses, even if they are imaginary ones.

And the university administration is so afraid of a riot that they  kowtow to this.

Where are the mature heads who will speak truth in the situation?


Why So Much Violence?

One of the old adages of parenthood is that you check to see who your children’s friends are. That’s because their friends influence them a great deal. If your daughter has friends who have their head on straight, then your daughter will probably do the same. But if your daughter tends to hand out with people who “make bad life choices”, then chances are that your daughter will be tempted to do the same and may make similar choices. Our friends often have big influences on us, and bad friends will have bad influences on us. 

When we are young, we often don’t have the maturity to understand this, and we observe this in our kids. Son Jimmy has a friend Ryan who keeps coming over after school to play. At first, Ryan seems nice. But then, you start to notice that Ryan begins to do other things, like taking Jimmy’s toys home with him, or bossing Jimmy around, or even punching Jimmy when no one else is looking. Whatever it is, let’s just call it “bad behavior”. When Jimmy is young, as a parent you probably have to intervene. You may have to discourage or even discontinue letting Ryan come over. 

When Jimmy is a little older, when he gets around other kids with bad behavior, you may have to have a talk with him and help him to focus on healthy friendships and not those that move him in the wrong direction. You expect him to start making at least some of those decisions himself. He may even have to tell someone directly that he doesn’t want to be friends anymore. 

And when he is much older, he will have to make those decisions himself without your input. Hopefully, he learns to observe people beforehand and make proactive decisions about who he’d like to befriend without simply waiting for others to approach him. 

This often affects us as adults, too. The people we hang with are typically people who think the way we do. Although there are often exceptions to this rule, we do have a great affinity for those who are like us. But there often comes some event, some abrupt occurrence, that shows those differences in some stark way. And then, we have to make a choice. Should we still be friends? And then we have to deliver that message to them. 

We can also apply this to current events. When the Charlottesville white supremacist rally took place in August, followed by a violent conflict with an Antifa group, the white supremacists (KKK and others) were villified by all manner of other groups. This included not only liberal groups, but conservative groups as well. Although the white supremacists intended their rally as a way to “unite the right”, the right turned around and condemned the white supremacists. In addition to conservatives, an overwhelming number of churches and Christian groups spoke against the white supremacists as well.

The good thing is that, although many in today’s culture group will white supremacists with conservatives, there is a distinct difference. The former may want to hang around with the latter, but the latter do not want to hang around with the former. 

Getting back to the Charlottesville rally, I think the white supremacists got the message. The Right does not really see them as friends.  
But the Left also has their own problem: a violent group called Antifa. In this case, Antifa never got the message. 

Not long after Charlottesville, there were two rallies in California: one in San Francisco and one in Berkeley. These were held by a group called “Patriot Prayer”. Lots of people turned out to oppose the rally, including Antifa. As you can imagine, it was a liberal counterprotest against this group. In both cases, Patriot Prayer had to cancel their rally because the police were afraid a violent confrontation would occur. Actually, a few members of Patriot Prayer showed up anyway, and they were violently confronted and injured by Antifa. You would think that this was another victory against white supremacists, right?
But that was not the case. It was a completely different story. Patriot Prayer is a small group that focuses on freedom, unity, and First Amendment rights. They are a diverse group with no bent toward white supremacy at all. They showed up even after their rallies were canceled because they wanted to talk to the counter-protesters as individuals. They wanted to have a dialog with them. Nevertheless, Antifa gave them the beat-down. 

Of course, after this, many on the Left quickly denounced Antifa, right? Here’s a list of liberal groups that spoke against Antifa after those events:


That’s right. Crickets. Nada. 

I would like to say that a small number of people on the Left did denounce Antifa, but only after a number of days went past. And that was a woefully small number

The problem is that the Perpetually Offended have become the Left’s Ryan. And the Left’s Jimmy doesn’t want to tell Ryan not to hang around. In fact, Antifa seems to be welcome whenever the Left has any confrontation these days. 

I’ve written about the Perpetually Offended and their worldview in this blog. The Perpetually Offended are angry about some long-past offense and will never get over it. There are many groups who are Perpetually Offended these days. The Left seems to be running over with them these days. They are angry, really angry. And nothing seems to placate them. How did they get this way?

I believe it all boils down to the problem I mentioned earlier concerning who your friends are. If they aren’t the kind of people you want to be friends with, then you should let them know. Otherwise, they will influence you. 

The book of Proverbs has this to say: “Do not make friends with a hot-tempered man, do not associate with one easily angered, or you may learn his ways and get yourself ensnared.” (Proverbs 24:25.)

I know a lot about anger. I have struggled with it. I have it largely under control these days, but I know I have a tendency to go back there if I’m not careful. I once had a good friend – we’ll call him Bill – who I had a lot in common with, but he also struggled with anger. In fact, he struggled much more than I did. I found that I had to separate myself from Bill because he tended to pull me in that direction. His friendship was toxic for me. 

The Left has a lot of important things to say, but they are associating too much with violent groups like Antifa. And the anger of those groups is overshadowing anything good the Left might be trying to say. Liberals have spent way too much time sitting in the hot tub of anger with those groups. 

It’s time to tell Ryan to go home. Here’s hoping someone on the Left has the maturity to do so. 

Trigger Warning: This is About Trigger Warnings

According to a new study, only about 31% of blacks said that they experienced discrimination “sometimes” or “often.” Comparatively, 27% of Hispanics, 23% of whites, and 18% of Asians were in the same category. That means that most minorities do not experience discrimination on a frequent basis. 

See https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9699

The actual question they asked was “In your day to day life, how often do you feel you have been treated with less respect or courtesy than other people?” The answers were “never”, “rarely”, “sometimes”, or “often”. That means 69% of black “never” or “rarely” experience discrimination. 

This was a scientific study that did not coach the respondents. They were free to interpret the question as they saw fit. 

The authors of the study said they were “surprised” by this finding because they expected the rate of discrimination to be much higher for blacks. 

Note that this study reported how each group felt they experienced discrimination. It did not identify whether there actually WAS discrimination. It was what they felt. Nor did it mention how strongly they felt discrimination. It was purely self-reported. 

Let me say here that I don’t want to minimize the experience of discrimination. Anyone who has felt discrimination can tell you how small and irrelevant it made them feel. And obviously there are different intensities of discrimination. The study does not address instensity. It only mentions frequency. 

Why does this surprise us? Because we are constantly receiving messages about racial discrimination, overwhelmingly against blacks. But the data does not back that up. 

If each of the groups reporting discrimination actually reacted in the same way about their discrimination, then Hispanic, white, and Asian outrage would less than, but not tremendously less than, black outrage. But this is not what we see in the news. 

But let me emphasize here that the discrimination reported in the survey is whatever the respondent identifies as discrimination. One of the most egregious kinds of discrimination that has been in the news during the past few years is that of white policement reportedly targeting and killing black men.Let’s ignore for now whether that is valid or not and assume that at least some (whether a majority or a minority of cases) of it are actually occurring. That’s on one end of the spectrum. 

On the other end of the spectrum is a perceived discrimination about incidents that often seem ludicrous. Recently, there were blacks from Ole Miss who were “triggered” because someone threw a banana in a tree. NC State University black students were triggered when a toilet paper noose was found in a bathroom stall. And there are others. Individuals on a witch hunt for racists will see this type of behavior as indicative of widespread racism, but the vast majority of Americans just see this as silly. It is a shame that we have to treat these kinds of incidents with the same validity as significant cases of discrimination. 

Racisl protests are almost exclusively about black racism and discrimination. It is as if no other group of Americans experience discrimination. If we were all reacting to discrimination in the same way, we would find Hispanics protesting slightly less than blacks, white protesting slightly less than Hispanics, and Asians protesting slightly less than whites. But it’s not like that. 
Again, I know some will read this and think that I don’t think discrimination is taking place. No. I know discrimination occurs, that it is sometimes horrific, and I believe that blacks probably experience more discrimination than other groups. But I think there’s an assumption that blacks are triggered much, much more easily than other groups. And I think there’s an assumption that no other groups should feel discriminated against. 

I understand the fact that lynchings of blacks were a terrible part of our past, but they have almost completely disappeared. I doubt that there are many black Americans alive who actually witnessed a lynching. That doesn’t make it inoffensive, but I wonder about the concern for “triggering” when most black Americans never saw it occur.

There are other groups who could just as easily feel triggered:

  • Shouldn’t Christians who have witnessed their brethren around the world being slaughtered on camera by Islamists with large knives be triggered by hooded men, large kitchen knives, and Muslim symbols?
  • Shouldn’t Korean- and Vietname-era veterans who were POWs be offended by anything that reminded them of the tortures they experienced in their own lifetimes at the hands of Communists? Should anyone be allowed to speak of Communism in a good way based on how these men suffered terribly?
  • Shouldn’t women (and men) who were trapped by forced sex slavery be triggered by scenes of prostitution on television and the movies? 
  • Should anyone be allowed to show entertainment that involves illegal drugs based on the number of people whose lives have been actually ruined by the same? 

It’s time for us to move beyond hyping and trivializing the discrimination experienced by one group and focus on how to remove discrimination by all. And it’s time for the Perpetually Offended to begin focusing on what others have experienced.