Psalm 7


This Psalm speaks unambiguously about God’s wrath.  I can easily imagine many people therefore turning away.  If you fear God then I beg you to read, pray and trust that this too is in God’s Word for your best good.

O Lord my God, in thee do I take refuge;
save me from all my pursuers, and deliver me,
lest like a lion they rend me,
dragging me away, with none to rescue.

David opens by admitting his sense of helplessness in the face of ravenous enemies who appear to be both powerful and skillful.

O Lord my God, if I have done this,
if there is wrong in my hands,
if I have requited my friend with evil
or plundered my enemy without cause,
let the enemy pursue me and overtake me,
and let him trample my life to the ground,
and lay my soul in the dust.   Selah

Here David in effect confesses that he is a fallible man, capable of self-deception.  Although he is convinced of his righteousness in this situation he yet places himself in God’s hands.  For only God can judge rightly.  Note also that David is willing to accept God’s judgement even if it goes against him.  This is what it looks like to truly trust God.  Are we willing to place ourselves in God’s hands regardless of the outcome?  This is in fact where we sit regardless of our belief.  Perhaps we would more carefully search our consciences and more honestly confess our sins were this our attitude towards the Most High God.

Arise, O Lord, in thy anger,
lift thyself up against the fury of my enemies;
awake, O my God; thou hast appointed a judgment.
Let the assembly of the peoples be gathered about thee;
and over it take thy seat on high.
The Lord judges the peoples;
judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness
and according to the integrity that is in me.

David yet dares to call upon God’s wrath against his enemies.  Although he asks God to judge himself according to his righteousness, he is confident that his enemies have earned God’s punishment.  Although his enemies appear to be invincible by worldly means, they are powerless to withstand God’s justice.

O let the evil of the wicked come to an end,
but establish thou the righteous,
thou who triest the minds and hearts,
thou righteous God.
My shield is with God,
who saves the upright in heart.
God is a righteous judge,
and a God who has indignation every day.

Although I have never been physically threatened my good name and livelihood have been repeatedly assaulted by persecutors.  I am certain that in all of these cases I was not blameless for the situation.  However, I yet considered myself to be generally in the right.

How can a frail, fallen man dare to judge himself to be on the whole righteous in a specific situation?  Here are some questions that I have used to gain insight.

  • What actions in word or deed might I have taken to cause this situation?
  • What were my motivations throughout the events that precipitated the situation?
  • Once the situation was upon me, are my thoughts focused on the seeking of a resolution and/or defense against unwarranted attack?  Or, are they focused on the personal and/or professional destruction of my adversaries?
  • When the crisis has passed, is my goal restoration and forgiveness or am I harboring anger and looking for a means of future attack to “level the scales of justice?”
If a man does not repent, God will whet his sword;
he has bent and strung his bow;
he has prepared his deadly weapons,
making his arrows fiery shafts.

This is a straightforward and clear statement about God’s wrath.  No one who has trustingly, comprehensively and honestly read the Bible can doubt that this passage describes a real and fearful aspect of God’s character.  But, since the Bible is so ofter read with skepticism, selectivity and dishonesty, there exists a huge segment of believers (let alone nonbelievers) who don’t know or meditate upon it.  Great danger to our souls is the result.

Behold, the wicked man conceives evil,
and is pregnant with mischief,
and brings forth lies.
He makes a pit, digging it out,
and falls into the hole which he has made.
His mischief returns upon his own head,
and on his own pate his violence descends.

The wicked become ever more consumed by the evil they have welcomed into their lives.  They spend massive time planning how they can destroy their adversaries.  They ever more easily and completely justify lies to obtain their corrupt ends.

But hatred and arrogance blinds them to the utter self-destructiveness of their path.  Yes, they may prosper for a time.  Yes, many may appear to escape judgement in this world.  But they have raised Hell itself into their minds and souls.  Their every waking moment becomes consumed by the scheming necessary to maintain massive card-houses of lies and fortresses of good appearances.  They grow more hateful with time.  No success is sufficient, no setback causes self-reflection.  They live in a self-made Hell on earth and then face their Maker unclothed by Christ’s perfect grace and righteousness.  Yes, they are to be resisted and defeated.  But even more they are to be pitied.

I will give to the Lord the thanks due to his righteousness,
and I will sing praise to the name of the Lord, the Most High.

David ends with his eyes firmly fixed upon God.  For He is the ultimate source of righteousness.  It is He alone who deserves our worship.  It is in Him alone that we must find our help and hope in this fallen world.

Praise be to God — Father, Son and Holy Spirit now and forever more!

A Two-Tiered Moral Standard (3)


Targets of explicit Progressive deportation demands

Who is Really Explicitly Demanding Deportations?


Not a deportation demand

Now that the caravan has moved on perhaps we can profitably revisit the incident that appears to have kicked-off the new narrative that Donald Trump (and by association all 65 million of our fellow citizens who voted for him) is a “racist.”  I’ve previously focused on how The Squad has turned the charge of racism back against their own party’s Speaker of the House.  However, it is President Trump’s recent Tweet that initiated this particular conflagration.  The key Tweet is again shown.  Note that President Trump isn’t threatening to deport members of The Squad, but is rather suggesting that their lot has improved significantly through citizenship in the United States.  Their suggested going back speaks to their free decision as opposed to a threat of government action.  In my opinion this is a crude, callous and destructive way to criticize The Squad.  It has pushed us a step further down the road to national perdition.  But, it is only in a “thorough the looking glass” Progressive world that the President’s language can be found to be uniquely cruel, let alone racist.

As is so often the case, the Progressives are projecting their actual behavior onto their political opponent.

Screen Shot 2019-07-28 at 8.35.08 AM

Rep. Rashida Tialb (D. MI) in her typical profane manner demands that candidate Donald Trump be deported.

To become sickeningly specific, do you know dear reader that the Progressive Left has prior to the President’s Tweet explicitly proposed deportation for the President and people close to him? Are you surprised?  Well, here’s the proof regarding President Trump (I apologize for the profanity, but you need to know what kind of people they actually are).

You may be thinking that Mr. Trump is fair game.  However, the Progressive Left took steps to initiate deportation of a presidential advisor who also happened to be a naturalized citizen.  None other than the Democratic Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee took practical, explicit actions to seek deportation of Sebastian Gorka.

Screen Shot 2019-07-28 at 9.00.45 AM

Senior Democratic Senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, was also involved in this explicit, practical deportation effort.

Yet when Democrats spearheaded deportation efforts against former Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka, the media was silent. In 2017, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) asked the White House to hand over Gorka’s immigration paperwork to the House Judiciary Committee. Gorka is a British-born Hungarian-American who was naturalized in 2012, five years before Nadler attempted to use state power to intimidate him.

Even the First Lady is included in the Progressive deportation mania.

Apparently, no one thought #DeportMelania was racist or deplorable when it was being used by verified Democrats and journalists (is there a difference?) on Twitter just a short time ago.

Apparently it’s racist to suggest that people critical of the United States choose to go back to their countries of origin to fix terrible problems but it’s just peachy-keen to explicitly demand deportation of the President, his wife and an advisor.  In a sane world these powerful Progressives would be pilloried for their appalling hypocrisy.

hypocrisy2But the most recent peak in Progressive hypocrisy was reached by Cory Booker in a statement contemplating physical violence against President Trump.

“Donald Trump is a guy who you understand- he hurts you and my testosterone sometimes makes me want to fee like punching him, which would be bad for this elderly, out-of-shape man that he is if I did that,” Booker laughed. “Physically weak specimen, but do you see what I’m talking about here? That’s his tactics and you don’t beat a bully like him, fighting him on his tactics, on his terms, using his turf. He’s the body shamer, he’s the guy that tries to drag people in the gutter.”

Just to be clear, Senator Booker due to his life-long experience of unaccountability accused President Trump of “body shaming” while he engaged in “body shaming.”  This level of pathetic hypocrisy is the catastrophic consequence of decades-long Progressive immunity from accountability.

It will likely get worse than this as we experience the 2020 election season.

Progressive Insanity (2)


Understanding Why


I use this post topic to document the insanity that currently drives Progressives.  There’s no doubt where I stand on this issue.  Perhaps this quote from a previous post best captures my thought.

What we are witnessing is a collective nervous breakdown by a group that viewed themselves as the perfect-righteous; confronting the cataclysmic reality that over sixty-million citizens disagreed enough to elect their polar opposite to the Presidency.  In fact, enough citizens in states that had for decades voted reliably for the “righteous” politicians turned traitor to righteousness and voted for an “unrighteous bigot.”  This outcome has launched the elite perfect-righteous into a state of mind-shattering cognitive dissonance from which escape will be at the very least painful and difficult.

What has emerged is a group of people who occupy powerful positions in our nation whose personalities have disintegrated and been reconstituted as seemingly undifferentiated components of a massive social justice mob.  They will believe anything, say anything and do anything, in collectivist unison, to destroy the source of this atrocity committed against their sense of perfect-righteousness.

So, if you disagree my current purpose isn’t to change your mind.  On the other hand if you completely or partially agree then the more interesting question is “Why did it happen?”  The above quote posits an answer for the proximate cause.  However, for a mere election to have generated such a response there must have been deeper issues at play for a longer period of time.

Thoughts on Why

We need to go back at least 70 years to understand how Progressives got to this point.  Back in the 1950s and 1960s they imagined that their utopian dreams could come true through external subversion and internal revolution, respectively.  However, the United States citizenry stubbornly refused to see the light.  Thus began the long march through the central institutions of our nation: education, media, entertainment, government bureaucracies, religious denominations, professional organizations, etc.

The purpose of this long march was to convert those institutions that communicated and defended traditional American values into strongholds of Progressive power.  And they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.  By the 21st century the Progressives controlled virtually all of our nation’s institutional commanding heights.  And from this position of power they were able to elect and reelect Barack Obama, one of their own, to the Presidency!

The euphoria associated with this victory can hardly be exaggerated.  With Barack Obama in power the Progressive Left was able to aggressively place their own in the U.S. government’s most powerful positions and thereby weaponize government power against any and all remaining opposition.  The giddy anticipation that Hillary Clinton would be elected and finish off for good that “basket of deplorables” who stood in the way of total Progressive power was barely concealed.

But then things started to go wrong.  Parents began noticing that our education institutions were run by highly credentialed, ideological mediocracies who were turning their children into supremely confident incompetents.  Our media and entertainment companies were cesspits of crude Progressive propaganda, sexual predation and conspiracy fantasy.  Our government agencies were dispensing two-tiered justice, one for the Progressive elite and another for everyone else.  This utter rot of corruption and incompetence became so bad that even by use of their only real skill, spin, they were unable to hide the truth.

And so, in spite of all their accumulated power, all their propaganda, the American people yet elected Donald Trump to the Presidency.  After all those decades of toil to take over, hollow out and recreate our nation’s institutions into centers pf Progressive power there yet remained a large enough cohort of resistant citizens to elect a man who opposed most of what they stood for.

If you wonder why the most radical Progressives are turning on Barack Obama’s legacy the answer is clear.  President Obama failed in his primary task of “fundamentally transforming” the United States into a reliably Progressive nation.  Even with all the right apparatchiks in the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, IRS, EPA (etc.), all the one-sided media slander of Republicans, all the higher education brain-washing, all the air-headed celebrities’ mocking; the Progressive Left wasn’t able to elect Hilary Clinton to the Presidency.

And so they went insane.  By so doing they have exposed just how utterly hollow, how corrupt, how juvenile, how greedy they really are.

hate-you-vote-for-meWho knows, they may yet turn it around and elect a radical Progressive to the Presidency in 2020.  However, I’m highly doubtful that they would be able to effectively govern.  For even if they can cobble together a majority there will be a vast minority of citizens who have lost all confidence in and trust of a government led by Progressives.  What happens then is anyone’s guess, but it likely won’t be pretty.


iBooks Publish Announcement: A Denomination’s Debacle

I have published my fourth eBook on iBooks.  If you have an iOS device then you can use this link to access.  If you do not use an iOS device, a PDF version can be found on my blog using this link.

Screen Shot 2019-08-14 at 5.59.24 AM

A Denomination’s Debacle

This book is an indictment of the leadership elite who have driven the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), or PCUSA, into an utter debacle.

The most visible aspect of this debacle is the unprecedented loss of membership and churches that occurred between 2011 and 2017. Over that time span the PCUSA experienced a net loss of 601,000 members and 1146 churches, which is almost 30% of its membership and almost 12% of its churches. But these numbers don’t capture the human cost in broken trust, lost faith and shattered relationships that has occurred behind the scenes.

What remains is a denomination dominated by a post-Christian elite who use their power to advance a social gospel that is virtually indistinguishable from the secular Progressive political project. To some readers this charge against the PCUSA leadership will seem to be not just extraordinary, but also unbelievable. This book contains the extraordinary evidence that justifies the charge.

Preface Excerpt

The reader may well ask why I feel compelled to tell this story. I do so for three reasons.

First, the elite denominational leadership has obtained this end under the cloak of purposeful deception. This deception is not found in their policy and theological positions. No, they have aggressively advanced their cause with general honesty. The deception is that they claim to have been doing so as a legitimate expression of orthodox Reformed Christianity. By so doing they have preyed with premeditation and malice upon the trust of the denomination’s parishioners. We will never recover from this spell unless the truth is exposed.

Second, there are still many faithful members and churches in the PCUSA. However, unless they fully understand the forces arrayed against them they will likely eventually succumb. Only if they understand that their presence in the denomination is as a light shining in the darkness can they be protected from the apostasy and heresy that surrounds them. That understanding is what sustained the Apostles and early Christians as they proclaimed the Gospel as isolated individuals and churches in the pagan Roman Empire. The challenge we face is far less extreme. Yet, if we prioritize the comfort and peace of our lives over our responsibilities as followers of Christ even the small courage required will elude us.

Finally, the forces that have corrupted the PCUSA act upon our general culture and thus are not unique to this denomination. Therefore, we can expect that other churches and denominations are struggling under the same theological onslaught as has laid the PCUSA low. Thus this book attempts to explain these forces and how a corrupt leadership can by deception and seduction smuggle false theology into an otherwise orthodox Christian fellowship.

Table of Contents


Page 1 of 3



Page 2 of 3



Page 3 of 3


Dispassionate Meditations on Mass Shootings (6)

Are White Men Disproportionally Likely to be Mass Shooters?

The New York Times published an article titled “Mass Shooters Are All Different. Except for One Thing: Most Are Men.”  The leading paragraphs are as follows (emphasis added).

As convenient as it would be, there is no one-size-fits-all profile of who carries out mass shootings in the United States.

About the only thing almost all of them have in common is that they are men.

But those men come from varying backgrounds, with different mental health diagnoses and criminal histories. Examining past New York Times coverage of mass shootings reveals some shared tendencies of the gunmen, including the fact that they are most commonly white, but such traits also describe thousands of law-abiding Americans who don’t become murderous.

The Chicago Tribune recently published a column that pointedly singled out white men for this sin.

As the toll from mass shootings this year already approaches the total for all of last year, more people are openly asking a question that has lurked mostly in the shadows: Why are the shooters so often white men?

Taken at face value these articles appear to be an obvious indictment of “white male toxicity.”  However, in reality they are open windows into the ignorance that saturates our supposedly elite media.

Let’s start by adding up all of the mass shooter numbers by race for the post-leading figure, resulting in a total of 113.  I have divided this total onto each racial category and expressed the result as a percent.  Next, I have plotted the percent by race from the most recent Census results and plotted this in the same figure, as shown below.


What we find is that there are the most white mass shooters because they are the largest race group in the United States.  In general the percentage of mass shooters tracks the population percentage.  Interestingly Latinos are less likely to be mass shooters.

The fact that our most elite journalists were apparently unable to understand this obvious and simple fact speaks poorly of their education and/or intelligence.  Or, they do know better and this result is an accurate measure of the intellectual contempt that they have for their readers.

So, no, there is no reason to consider white men to be disproportionally likely to be mass shooters.

Dispassionate Meditations on Mass Shootings (5)

Screen Shot 2019-08-14 at 7.26.21 AM

Screen Shot 2019-08-14 at 7.22.22 AM

Video screenshots from the Yahoo News story “Beto O’Rourke says Trump ‘is in large part to blame’ for El Paso shooting”

Is President Trump Responsible for Recent Mass Shootings?

The Democrat Party has decided to blame President Trump for the recent El Paso mass shooting, with Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke as their primary spokesman.  Their “case” against the President is that the manifesto allegedly published by the shooter uses words that have also been used by the President.  In particular the word “invasion” as applied to mass illegal immigration at our southern border.

You don’t need to dig far to find manifesto text that counters this thin reed of logic.  In particular, this insane, evil person specifically rejected the idea that his deeds were tied to President Trump.  Note also that the shooter also disavows potential blame of “certain presidential candidates” for his actions, which can only refer at this point to Democrat candidates.

Crusius ended the manifesto by saying he expected to be killed in the attack he would allegedly carry out on Saturday. As it turned out, the shooter was not, and he is now behind bars, charged with killing 22 people and wounding 26 others. He said his actions would be misunderstood as being tied to Trump.

“My ideology has not changed for several years,” Crusius wrote. “My opinions on automation, immigration, and the rest predate Trump and his campaign for president. I [am] putting this here because some people will blame the President or certain presidential candidates for the attack. This is not the case. I know that the media will probably call me a white supremacist anyway and blame Trump’s rhetoric. The media is infamous for fake news. Their reaction to this attack will likely just confirm that.”

That was the only time Trump appeared in the manifesto, and it appears clear that Crusius borrowed his “fake news” characterization of the news media from the president. But that is not what Trump’s critics have charged. They have charged that Trump inspired Crusius to kill. They have charged it so often in the last few days that it has hardened into a general perception that Crusius was inspired by the president. But read the manifesto. It’s just not there.

*The word “invasion” has been used in connection with illegal immigration since long before the president ran for office. In the 1990s, for example, the state of California unsuccessfully sued the federal government, claiming the government did not protect states from an “invasion” of illegal immigrants. In 2010, the state of Arizona also unsuccessfully challenged the federal government over a similar “invasion.” The word was also used, well before Trump, in general commentary, usually by those who sought to restrict immigration levels into the United States. And more generally, too: Bobby Jindal, the son of immigrants and governor of Louisiana who ended his 2016 presidential campaign with a bitter attack on Trump, used to say that “immigration without assimilation is invasion.”

Why would the vile, evil killer mention Democrat candidates in his comments?  Probably because he uses the same eco-dystopian future ideas as numerous of them.

After all, these misanthropic ideas, this green miserabilism, this anti-modern guff about humanity being a plague on poor Mother Earth, is a central feature of the El Paso killer’s manifesto. And if Trump can be held responsible for the shootings on the basis that the manifesto echoes his Mexican-bashing, why shouldn’t greens, who pollute public debate with the kind of anti-humanist ideology that clearly moved and enraged the El Paso murderer, shoulder some responsibility, too?  …

… In his alleged manifesto, the killer, alongside his racist rants about Hispanic people and the ‘replacement’ of whites, attacks modern society for being eco-unfriendly. Westerners’ lifestyles are ‘destroying the environment’ and ‘creating a massive burden for future generations’, he says. He seems obsessed with the core element of green thinking – the idea that mankind is overusing limited natural resources. We are ‘shamelessly overharvesting resources’, apparently.

As with green ideology in general, there is a strong streak of anti-humanism in his eco-obsessions. He attacks ‘urban sprawl’ – also known as human habitation – and the way it ‘destroys millions of acres of land’. As for ‘consumer culture’ with its production of ‘thousands of tonnes of unnecessary plastic waste and electronic waste’ – he slams that as another part of humankind’s ‘decimation of our environment’. The solution? Surprise, surprise: population control. Echoing the numerous eco-Malthusians who have spent decades calling for a restrictions on human natality in order to save the planet, he says we need to ‘decrease the number of people in America using resources’.   …

… somehow in recent years, this backward, anti-modern obsession with cleansing nature of foul mankind’s uncaring, destructive behaviour has morphed into a supposedly progressive, leftish outlook. And it is now utterly mainstream, being promoted by virtually every public and political institution.

Also, were the Democrats to apply their supposed logic consistently then they would have to blame Elizabeth Warren for the Dayton Ohio mass shooting.  In fact, the case is much stronger.  Here’s what the Dayton shooter allegedly had to say. got access to the shooter’s social media. Contrary to the media narrative currently boiling over, this shooter was not a Trump fan. In fact, he hated Trump, hated Republicans, was an avowed leftist, used antifa style language in his posts, and loved Elizabeth Warren. …

He used language often used by Antifa, exclaiming that he wants to “kill every fascist.” He also liked and commented on posts expressing support for the group.

“#2016ElectionIn3Words This is bad,” he wrote on Nov. 8, 2016. “You can’t kill 50+ people and injure 600(!) In 10 minutes with cigarettes my dude,” he wrote in 2017. In response to a Buzzfeed story that read, “Virginia has declared a state of emergency in anticipation of the “Unite the Right” rally anniversary in Charlottesville this weekend,” he wrote: “Kill every fascist.

Betts was a politically active socialist who supported Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

On the Twitter page, Connor Betts indicated he’d vote for Elizabeth Warren for president but not Kamala Harris, responding to a person’s tweet suggesting they be co-presidents. “Nahh, but only cuz Harris is a cop – Warren I’d happily vote for,” he wrote.

I don’t recall a single Democrat or MSM source drawing attention to this information in an accusatory manner with regard to Mrs. Warren.

Finally, recall from this previous post that the significant increase in mass shootings began and continued under President Obama.  What’s going on now is just the continuation of a process rather than something new under the Trump administration.  Were it my goal to “blame” President Obama for the significant increase in mass shootings that occurred on his watch I could dig up many quotes in support.  But that isn’t my goal. Yes, President Obama said many things that I believe to have coarsened our political dialogue and caused social turmoil.  However, I don’t blame him for the mass shootings that occurred during his Presidency, nor should anyone else.


If you blame President Trump but bestow innocence upon President Obama and the current crop of Democrat candidates then you are engaging in divisive politics.

But we should rather be looking at ourselves, at the culture and values that we have embraced for answers, not convenient scape-goats be they be Democrat or Republican presidents or candidates.

A Two-Tiered Moral Standard (2)

nazi-justice-demsNietzsche’s Superman Edition

The Problem

Screen Shot 2019-07-15 at 5.47.36 AM

“Proof” that V.P. Pence is a Nazi!

Is there any visible group in U.S. politics who more often and strenuously accuse their opponents of being “fascists” and “Nazis” than do the Justice Democrats?  I don’t think so. Were you to take their rhetoric at face value you’d think that they wouldn’t come within a King’s Mile of anyone who collaborated with Nazis.  But you would be completely wrong.

In point of fact, the Queen Priestess of the Justice Democrats, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY) recently identified with and favorably quoted the wife of a well known Nazi collaborator, Evita Peron (see the above figure, emphasis added to the following quote).

Mr. Peron helped many Nazis fleeing Europe after the Second World War to find a safe haven in Argentina, including Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele.
According to the new book: “It is still suspected that among her [Eva Peron’s] possessions, there were pieces of Nazi treasure, that came from rich Jewish families killed in concentration camps.

And, when confronted with this fact she doubled down and favorably re-

Screen Shot 2019-07-16 at 5.57.43 AM

AOC doubles down on quoting a Nazi collaborator.

quoted Peron.

Then there’s the curious case of AOC’s recent Chief of Staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, who regularly  wears a Subhas Chandra Bose t-shirt.  And who is Bose?  Here’s an enlightening summary of his close and enthusiastic collaboration with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan during WW2.

Screen Shot 2019-07-16 at 6.24.56 AMSubhas Chandra Bose, a dissident Indian nationalist recognized by Adolf Hitler as the leader of the Free India Government. In exchange, Bose enlisted tens of thousands of Indian men to support the Japanese invasion of British India in 1944 and help fight the British in Europe for Hitler. The Indian Legion Bose raised for Germany trained as a regiment of the SS.

He also broadcast propaganda for Hitler on a radio network set up by Bose to encourage Indians to fight for freedom. Bose met with Hitler in Germany in 1942.

If you find this information credible, then you’re also likely pretty confused.  For in the normal world populated by mere humans the contradiction between their stated beliefs (We’re anti-fascists!) and their behavior (We positively identify with fascist collaborators!) is insurmountable.

A Possible Explanation

What you must understand is that people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Saikat Chakrabarti likely don’t consider themselves to be living in a “normal” moral world.  Nor do they likely consider themselves to be “mere humans.”  No, they apparently believe themselves to be something like Nietzsche’s Supermen: beings that transcend normal human morality, who’s will to power justifies their existence.


Nietzsche’s “Superman”

Superman, German Übermensch, in philosophy, the superior man, who justifies the existence of the human race. “Superman” is a term significantly used by Friedrich Nietzsche… This superior man would not be a product of long evolution; rather, he would emerge when any man with superior potential completely masters himself and strikes off conventional Christian “herd morality” to create his own values, which are completely rooted in life on this earth.

You see, since they live on plane far above that defined by “Christian herd morality,” anything that they conclude will advance their “will to power” is not just permissible, but actually proper for use.  This is a key reason that you will never see these Justice Democrats apologize for any lie, any moral failure, or any intellectual contradiction.  For since they are pursuing ends that are obviously perfect, they are freed to utilize any and all means necessary.

It takes a shocking combination of ignorance AND immorality to occupy this presumed higher moral plane.  May God have mercy on us if they ever achieve the totalitarian power which they pursue.  They have warned us by openly identifying with the 20th century’s fascist collaborators.  If that is permitted by their “superior morality” then what isn’t?

Dispassionate Meditations on Mass Shootings (4)


The Lott study results (right) contradict the Lankford results…why?

Does the United States Have the Most Mass Shootings (2)?

Lankford’s Credibility Challenged

Given the publicity given to the Lankford study it was certain that attempts to review and replicate the results would be made.  However, from the beginning of this coverage in 2016 to well into 2019 Dr. Lankford absolutely refused to release the data upon which his conclusions rested or to engage in substantive dialogue with other researchers.  Therefore, anyone attempting to assess his results was completely on their own.  And, given Lankford’s striking and highly publicized results, John R. Lott, Jr., President of the Crime Prevention Research Center took on the challenge.

Given the previously discussed uncertainty about terms and definitions combined with Lankford’s refusal to share his definition or data, the Lott study used a widely accepted definition of “mass shooting.”  The following definition was used by the Congressional Research Service in their 2015 study titled “Mass Murder with Firearms: Incidents and Victims, 1999-2013,” which is similar to that used by Mother Jones.

… a “mass shooting” could be defined as a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms—not including the offender(s)—within one event, and in one or more locations relatively near one another.

Using this definition and a comprehensive review of foreign news sources (including non-English language sources), the Lott study came to a contradictory conclusion, that being (emphasis added):

Lankford’s study reported that from 1966 to 2012, there were 90 public mass shooters in the United States and 202 in the rest of world. We find that Lankford’s data represent a gross undercount of foreign attacks. Our list contains 1,448 attacks and at least 3,081 shooters outside the United States over just the last 15 years of the period that Lankford examined. We find at least fifteen times more mass public shooters than Lankford in less than a third the number of years.

Coding these events sometimes involves subjectivity. But even when we use coding choices that are most charitable to Lankford, his 31 percent estimate of the US’s share of world mass public shooters is cut by over 95 percent. By our count, the US makes up less than 1.43% of the mass public shooters, 2.11% of their murders, and 2.88% of their attacks. All these are much less than the US’s 4.6% share of the world population. Attacks in the US are not only less frequent than other countries, they are also much less deadly on average.

Lankford Finally Responds

After almost three years of stonewalling by this public academic, Lankford finally respond to his critics and released his data in March of 2019.  He did so by publishing a paper titled “Confirmation That the United States Has Six Times Its Global Share of Public Mass Shooters, Courtesy of Lott and Moody’s Data.”  Though Lankford spun this paper as a devastating rebuttal of Lott’s work, in reality it amounted to an admission of professional malpractice (if not worse).

It turns out that Lankford had, without disclosure, limited his study to include only mass shooters who “acted alone.”  As was discussed in the previous post, the only definition that assumes a single perpetrator is that for an “active shooter,” and even there the FBI had extended it to include multiple shooters.  Even more devastating to Lankford’s position is the fact that he led his original paper using the 1999 Columbine attack which had two shooters.

One is also left to wonder why, if Lankford had such an easily available “devastating” riposte to Lott’s work, he waited so ling to respond.  The most likely answer is that Lankford had pulled a definitional trick in order to place the United States in a bad light.  For, by supposedly limiting (though he was not consistent, see above Columbine example) his study to lone active shooters Lankford was able to manufacture a statistic that appeared to show the United States to be a “mass shooter” negative outlier.

In order to better appreciate the gravity of this apparent deception, ask yourself if you would rather go to a nation that had 1.57 mass shooter attacks per 100,000 people (Northern Mariana Islands) or 0.015 (the United States)?  Would you really care if you were murdered in an event with only one person doing the mass shooting?  Of course not!

It is for this reason that Lankford most likely refused to explain his definitions, share details of his methodology or publish his data for almost three years.  Only when the pressure to explain himself became overwhelming did he finally come clean; and then in a manner that attempted to hide his malpractice behind a fog of accusations.

Lankford’s Open Admission of Bias

Lankford in his original paper made it absolutely clear that he was a deeply biased source.  Following is the first paragraph from his original paper (emphasis added, see end of post for information on H. Rap Brown).

Are public mass shooters predominantly an American problem? For years, people have wondered whether the dark side of American exceptionalism is a cultural propensity for violence. Political activist H. Rap Brown once claimed that “Violence is a part of America’s culture. It is as American as cherry pie” (Lehman, 2014). Similarly, Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Richard Hofstadter (1970b) concluded that the most notable thing “about American violence is its extraordinary frequency, its sheer commonplaceness in our history, its persistence into very recent and contemporary times, and its rather abrupt contrast with our pretensions to singular national virtue” (p. 7). Although United States history includes the killing of indigenous people, a revolutionary war, a civil war, many foreign wars, slavery, race riots, domestic terrorism, and high rates of homicide, perhaps no form of violence is seen as more uniquely American than public mass shootings.

This appears to be the work of a man on a mission to denigrate and discredit the United States.  I have read hundreds of research papers in my lifetime.  No researcher who desired to maintain a posture of disinterested inquiry would ever start a paper in this manner.  However, if your goal were to catch the eye of like-minded politicians and media organizations then this is an excellent opening paragraph.

Thus, this situation appears to be a glaring example of how a supposedly disinterested academic can distort research to support a predetermined outcome due to their personal bias.


H. Rap Brown: “I say violence is necessary.  It is as American as cherry pie.”

H. Rap Brown:

Rejecting the prosecution’s call for a death sentence, a jury sentenced the former ’60s radical known as H. Rap Brown to life in prison for killing a sheriff’s deputy in a shootout two years ago.
The jury deliberated for about five hours before deciding Wednesday to spare the life of the Muslim cleric now called Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin. He will not have a chance at parole.

So, a supposedly disinterested, public spirited criminology professor quoted a convicted murderer and Black Panther Party member as a credible source on the nature of violence in the United States.  This would be amazing had I not lived through the past ten or so years.

Dispassionate Meditations on Mass Shootings (3)


The Lankford study … is it credible?

Does the United States Have the Most Mass Shootings (1)?

In the previous post I confirmed that the incidents and associated death toll of mass shootings in the United States is on a precipitous increase.  Since we live here this turn of events is at top of mind (e.g., note the recent Times Square panic).  And, since most of our news is about the United States it’s not unreasonable to fear that there is something uniquely wrong here, resulting in a higher incidence of mass shootings than occur elsewhere in the world.

So, when an academic study by Adan Lankford  (University of Alabama) was published showing that the United States is indeed unique (in a bad way), many people’s emotional response was confirmation of their worst fears.  And, since that study was cited by major media organizations and politicians the presumed credibility of these results was confirmed.

But there was something strange about this study.  It turned out that Dr. Lankford’s paper was vague/inconsistent about key issues like definitions and methodology.  He also refused to release the data set upon which his conclusions were based.  This behavior is extremely odd for an academic who speaks on key public policy issues.  The generally expected behavior is clarity on definitions and methodology and complete transparency on the data set.  In this way other researchers have the opportunity to replicate or challenge the findings.

For example, the New York Times story based on the Lankford paper consistently refers to “mass shootings” as the topic under study.  Lankford’s paper uses multiple terms interchangeably, such as “mass shooters,” “rampage shooters” and “active shooters.”  The Lankford paper’s title uses the term “Mass Shooters.”  The New York Times article uses the term “mass shooting” twenty-four times but never mentions “active shooter.”

The definition of a “mass shooting” is uncertain and highly variable as discussed by the Washington Post.

But “mass shooting” is a term without a universally-accepted definition, which complicates news coverage of events such as Sunday’s massacre in Las Vegas.  …

The FBI does not officially define “mass shooting” and does not use the term in Uniform Crime Report records. In the 1980s, the FBI established a definition for “mass murder” as “four or more victims slain, in one event, in one location,” and the offender is not included in the victim count if the shooter committed suicide or was killed in a justifiable homicide, according to a Congressional Research Service report detailing the definitions.

After the 2012 shootings in Newtown, Conn., Congress defined “mass killings” to mean “three or more killings in a single incident.” Some media outlets and researchers still use the four-fatality definition, and have adopted the CRS definitions of “mass shooting” and “mass public shooting.” Other researchers include injuries in the victim count. Some researchers include acts of terrorism, drug deals gone wrong or gang conflict in their research. Others don’t.

Some media reports, such as those of our Wonkblog colleagues, and advocates use a broader definition used by the Mass Shooting Tracker maintained via Reddit, an online forum. In this case, mass shootings are incidents in which four or more people, including the gunman, are killed or injured by gunfire. By this count, the San Bernardino shooting is the 355th mass shooting this year. (In comparison, CRS counted 317 mass shooting incidents from 1999 to 2013.)

Note that none of these definitions place a limit on the number of shooters.  And, the San Bernardino incident in which there were two shooters is explicitly included under any definition of a “mass shooting.”  This distinction is, as we will see, central to assessment of Lankford’s results.

Well into the Lankford paper a definition for the data utilized is provided (emphasis added):

Data for this study were drawn first from the New York City Police Department’s (NYPD) 2012 Active Shooter report. This report employs the Department of Homeland Security’s definition of “active shooter”: “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area” (Kelly 2012, p. 1). More commonly, these offenders are referred to as rampage shooters or public mass shooters. According to the formal definition, their attacks must have (a) involved a firearm, (b) appeared to have struck random strangers or bystanders and not only specific targets, and (c) not occurred solely in domestic settings or have been primarily gang-related, drive-by shootings, hostage-taking incidents, or robberies (Kelly, 2012). For this study, attackers who struck outdoors were Public Mass Shooters and Firearms included; attackers who committed sponsored acts of genocide or terrorism were not. This is consistent with the criteria employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in its 2014 active shooter report (Blair & Schweit, 2014).

It turns out that even the FBI acknowledges that the definition of an “active shooter” is uncertain and open to interpretation (emphasis added).

The agreed-upon definition of an active shooter by U.S. government agencies … is “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.” Implicit in this definition is that the subject’s criminal actions involve the use of firearms. For purposes of its study, the FBI extended this definition to include individuals, because some incidents involved two or more shooters. Though the federal definition includes the word “confined,” the FBI excluded this word in its study, as the term confined could omit incidents that occurred outside a building. Whether inside or out, these incidents still posed a threat to both law enforcement and the citizens they seek to protect.

So, what we have is a confused situation in which terms with varying definitions are used interchangeably by the paper’s author (Lankford), with the term “mass shooting” used in the paper’s title and “mass shooting” used exclusively by the New York Times in its article based on this paper.

The consequences of this confusion and the author’s complete refusal to answer questions or simply share his data set significantly complicated the process of review and replication that normally occurs for academic research results.

This assessment continues with the next post.

Progressive Insanity (1)


For those of you who blessedly aren’t familiar with Progressive mob speech, the obscured words are mo***rf***er and

Ignoring the Real Top Story

I turned on the TV yesterday and came across a cable news show from the Wall Street Journal in which they were discussing some esoteric facet of government policy as if we are living in a sane nation.  What’s really going on of importance is that one of our two political parties has gone certifiably insane and is now stoking hate, division and outright violence against anyone who insufficiently supports (let alone opposes) their madness.

For one glaring example, a Progressive mob descended on Senate Majority Mitch McConnell’s home and threatened to murder him.  The did so after multiple Democrat presidential candidates accused President Trump and his supporters of being “white supremacists” who are directly responsible for the El Paso mass shooting.

FOX News reports:

Protesters gather outside McConnell’s Kentucky home, one calls for his stabbing ‘in the heart’

A group of protesters supporting gun control gathered outside the home of Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. where one expressed that someone should “stab the motherf—er in the heart.”

The protest took place on Sunday night in the wake of mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. McConnell is currently recovering from a fall he had over the weekend, leaving him with a fractured shoulder.

Approximately 25 demonstrators stood on the sidewalk near McConnell’s Louisville home, shouting “No Trump, no KKK, no Fascist USA!” while others called him names like “Murder Turtle” and made loud noises by banging objects and dragging a shovel back and forth on the ground as a group of security personnel stood between the protestors and the home, WLKY reported.

“The b—- is home — we keep seeing the lights go on and off,” another protester can be heard shouting. “This h– really thought he was going to get ready to be at home after he hurt his little punk ass shoulder. B—-, don’t nobody give a f—! F–k your thoughts and prayers, Mitch. F— you, f— your wife, f— everything you stand for.”

And what happened when McConnell’s media team posted a video of the mob and their threats on Twitter…wait for it…Twitter banned the McConnell account!



The Democrat Party has revealed itself to hate half of the country they claim the right to govern.  Their supporters in social media are silencing anyone, including the Senate Majority Leader, if they dare to push back against the hateful and violent rhetoric.

This is the top story.  And we are still almost 15 months away from the 2020 election.

A few brave liberals have joined the fray on the side of civilization in the face of this growing mob if violent insane Progressives (obscenity obscured from original).

Pretty soon, America might have to start asking: what exactly is “progressive” about going insane? I think we’re getting close to answering that, and the answer is: nothing. The Left has managed to drain the meaning from the word “progressive.” We will not be able to take it seriously for generations to come (if there are any generations to come). The Left has applied every possible gimmick from the bad faith trick-bag to disable thinking in this republic generally, and the language that serves thinking. But its contorted maledictions are working mainly against itself as one preposterous idea after another bursts out of its collective pie-hole and into the blue-checked Twitter windows.

Speaking of “stabbing mo***rfu****s in the heart,” why are the “progressives” who moiled outside Senator Mitch McConnell’s house the other night not cooling their heels in a federal lock-up for threatening to assassinate a public official? That’s the usual procedure. How difficult would it be to locate them? Nobody has even asked — a peculiar development.

Twitter boss Jack Dorsey took the predictable “progressive” action of banning Senator McConnell’s election campaign account for posting a video of the very mob looking to “stab mo***rfu****s in the heart” outside his house. That should be good, at least, for a hearty lawsuit against Twitter that might raise the consciousness of the 23-year-old wokester myrmidons Jack Dorsey hired to pretend that their diligent bannings of non-woke Tweeters are the work of supposed “algorithms” — as well as Mr. Dorsey himself

I could write a dozen more posts (and likely eventually will) about this growing violent insanity, but I hope this is enough to get you thinking about where our country could be headed, and about how to prevent something terrible from happening.