Science and Religion (2)

Hydrogen atomic orbitals

Hydrogen atomic orbitals represented as probability density plots. The darker the regional orbital, the higher the probability of finding an electron in that area. (Figure adopted from Hawking & Mlodinow 2010 ).

Embracing the Nonsensical

Counter to your immediate impression this title is not intended to be pejorative in the slightest.  In fact, it is only by the willingness of scientists led by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg to abandon a “sensible” (as in accessible to our human senses) but defective theory of the atom for a “nonsensical” (as in inaccessible to our human senses) but brilliantly successful theory of the atom.  That “nonsensical” theory is named “quantum mechanics,” and has both been proved correct by a massive number of practical observations and led the way into understanding of our universe that would have been impossible without it.

Screen Shot 2019-10-20 at 7.10.39 AM

I don’t have either the training or experience to comment on this theory.  Nor is that my purpose here.  What I will do is meditate on the radical departure in scientific thinking that this theory spearheaded.

That radical departure occurred after a monumental controversy in the 1920’s between scientific traditionalists led by Erwin Schrödinger and Albert Einstein and the radicals led by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg.  Their debate over how to capture the properties of the atom pitted those who insisted that any valid theory had to enable scientists to visualize its behavior (the traditionalists) against those who claimed that the application of pure mathematics (the radicals) was the correct path forward.

Up to this point in time scientific theories, even the most complex and difficult, when understood allowed a visualization of the natural world even if the level of abstract thinking exceeded that to which most humans are capable.  What Bohr and Heisenberg claimed was that the atom exists so outside the realm of human experience and intuition that its behavior could only be described by “quantum mathematics,” which give results that are not just utterly foreign to out intuitive understanding but that are also utterly “nonsensical” in every sense of the word.  The following figure shows underlying mathematical equations that describe (examples, not complete descriptions) these two scientific theories of the atom.


Two radically different equations both attempting to describe and predict one physical reality

These two equations, both claiming to describe an atom, are obviously very different from one another.  It’s critical to note that both are mathematically correct.  That is, neither one violates the rules of mathematical logic.  However, it is Heisenberg’s equations (and the theories that they describe) that ultimately were accepted as the basis for scientific understanding of the atom and upon which the theory of quantum mechanics has been based since the late 1920’s.

As a consequence of this victory scientific inquiry into the fundamental nature of the universe ceased to be limited by human intuition and expectations.  Rather the application of pure mathematics combined with practical physical measurements created the path forward.  And this path yielded absolutely amazing advances in our ability to predict and describe the physical world’s behavior.  In particular, the purely mathematical predictions of quantum mechanics were again and again proved correct by physical measurements.  It was as if by some inconceivable miracle the physical world was constituted to behave exactly as predicted by an abstract system of mathematical logic.

Scientists have been following quantum mechanics further down the rabbit hole, yielding predictions and theories that violate all ideas of common sense and yet are proved correct by physical measurement.  But as they descend deeper and deeper into the intricacies of quantum mechanics they scandalously find themselves approaching a “thin place,” where the barrier between God and creation becomes virtually nonexistent.

thin place

Is science moving towards a “thin place?”

Science and Religion (1)

Screen Shot 2019-10-19 at 11.29.10 AM

Image from National Geographic: Dark Matter and Dark Energy

The Scandalous State of Science

I am no enemy of science.  Without science my rewarding career as an electrical engineer in wireless communications would never have existed.  That’s because engineers are in the business of transforming the truths about our natural world discovered by science into practical human applications.

If you read my “About Mark Birchler” page you will find that science is a primary concept with which I define myself.  However, you will also find that I place limits on the scope of science’s ability to discover and convey truth.  It is at this boundary that my criticism of science originates.

There can be no doubt that the practice of science over the past four centuries has delivered a miraculous bounty of understanding and comfort to humanity. We today live in warmth in the winter and cool in the summer, move across local and continental areas with speed and ease, explore our solar system and universe, communicate massive amounts of information almost instantaneously, are diagnosed and often successfully treated for bodily illness and have access almost anywhere to all the world’s art, music, literature, philosophy and opinions on a handheld device.  These are just the few areas that immediately come to mind.

Because of this amazing success science has come to claim for itself a reach of authority that far exceeds its actual grasp.  And more importantly, the general public has granted it a scope of authority that often becomes religious.  This transference of belief from religion to science is well summarized in this excerpt from The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski.

It is odd to imagine that intellectual structures so singular could carry a general burden of belief, one often expressed in religious terms. Nonetheless, as others were once prepared to say that they believed in God, a great many men and women are prepared to affirm that they believe in science. It is widely considered inappropriate not to.

If you almost physically shuddered at the prospect of scientific heresy associated with a denial of Darwin then you have experienced the emotional power that science now holds over our lives.  I can tell you for a fact that no one in Mainline Christianity has the visceral fear of theological heresy that almost everyone now has of scientific heresy.

All of these comments would be relevant and appropriate even were the field of science at an unassailable peak of credibility and success.  However, in point of fact the field of science has been experiencing a series of shocks and failures that has reached scandalous proportions.  The practitioners of science and those who rely on their authority are prone to paper over this situation.

But is some cases the issues are unavoidable.  As this post’s leading image says, scientists must admit that “only five percent of the universe is visible.”  The scandal is that they have no idea what constitutes the other 95% of the universe.  They call these unknown components “dark matter” and “dark energy,” but must admit that they have no idea what they actually are, how to measure them or why they exist.

Most scientists would contend that situations such as this are to be expected as our knowledge expands.  It is true that with every new quantum of knowledge comes new


Hamlet, Act 1 Scene 5

and often unexpected questions.  However, for a field of activity that has come to claim the mantle of ever expanding progress towards human enlightenment the fact that the scope of our actual knowledge of the universe’s constituent parts has gone from 100% to 5% is more than a bit embarrassing.

It is at this and other places where the previously impregnable wall built between “science” and “religion” has began to show serious decay.  We do need clear boundaries between these two domains.  However, what we are finding as our scientific theories struggle to account for measured reality is that ““There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

To My Mother


A mother’s gift is sweet and strong,
it guides and comforts all life long.

There’s wisdom molded to each child’s life,
that guides each through both joy and strife.

A mother’s love a true foundation lays,
upon which life’s edifice is raised.

She loves us from before we’re born,
and holds us precious on each new morn.

Our mothers hold us close and safe,
then release us to find our place.

God’s Grace is taught by a mother’s love,
pointing towards our Savior who reigns above.

Psalm 9

psalm 9

God’s Power and Justice

To the choirmaster: according to Muth-labben. A Psalm of David.

If we would praise God acceptably, we must praise him in sincerity, with our whole heart. When we give thanks for some one particular mercy, we should remember former mercies. Our joy must not be in the gift, so much as in the Giver. The triumphs of the Redeemer ought to be the triumphs of the redeemed. The almighty power of God is that which the strongest and stoutest of his enemies are no way able to stand before. We are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth, and that with him there is no unrighteousness. His people may, by faith, flee to him as their Refuge, and may depend on his power and promise for their safety, so that no real hurt shall be done to them. Those who know him to be a God of truth and faithfulness, will rejoice in his word of promise, and rest upon that. Those who know him to be an everlasting Father, will trust him with their souls as their main care, and trust in him at all times, even to the end; and by constant care seek to approve themselves to him in the whole course of their lives. Who is there that would not seek him, who never hath forsaken those that seek Him?  (Matthew Henry’s Bible Commentary, Psalm 9:1-10)

I will give thanks to the Lord with my whole heart;
I will tell of all thy wonderful deeds.
I will be glad and exult in thee,
I will sing praise to thy name, O Most High.

Although each phrase begins with “I” each points away from self and towards God.  Yes, “I” exist, but my chief end is to “glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.”

When my enemies turned back,
they stumbled and perished before thee.
For thou hast maintained my just cause;
thou hast sat on the throne giving righteous judgment.
Thou hast rebuked the nations, thou hast destroyed the wicked;
thou hast blotted out their name for ever and ever.
The enemy have vanished in everlasting ruins;
their cities thou hast rooted out;
the very memory of them has perished.

These verses create discomfort to the post-modern reader (i.e., us).  This is because those spoken of we today most naturally understand to be victims.  And “victims” by definition occupy the highest positions of moral authority.  Thus when the Psalmist speaks of their complete destruction our natural response is to take offense.

To begin, when the Nation of Israel entered the Promised Land they did indeed fight and in some cases utterly destroy the people already living there.  However note that the Psalmist understands this consequence to be an act of God carried out by the people of Israel.  Deuteronomy 9:5 (NIV) provides essential information for our understanding.

It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the Lord your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Even so, the thought of so extreme a judgement causes great distress.  Our conception of God has become so dominated by the truth that “God is love” that the truth of “God is our judge” has been almost obliterated in many Christian minds.  And yet, when Adam and Eve fell it was God’s judgement that (Genesis 3:19, NIV):

“By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

Thus by God’s judgement we all will die in recompense for our sin.  No-one is outside of this judgement, although as individuals and communities we meet this end in various and sundry ways according to God’s providential purposes.  In this case it was God’s purpose to transfer the Promised Land to the people of Israel and to prevent the wickedness of the peoples already living there to influence God’s chosen people.

It would be a grave error to generalize from this specific instance to any nation’s contemporary situation.  Yes, there are cases where warfare is a legitimate national policy.  But this passage from the Psalms shouldn’t be used to justify warfare.  Rather it should make us quake before the judgement of a holy God and ask what we do that is wicked in His sight.

But the Lord sits enthroned for ever,
he has established his throne for judgment;
and he judges the world with righteousness,
he judges the peoples with equity.

This passage makes it absolutely clear that it is God the sovereign judge that is here being discussed.  But our post-modern mindset turns this situation on its head and presumes that it is we who are sovereign and God who receives our judgement.  And the judgement of many, including many Christians, is that God has failed to live up to our moral standards!  The pathetic, appalling arrogance that Christians should take this position vis-a-vis God is almost beyond belief.  And yet, throughout the contemporary Western world this would appear to be the default position of Christianity.

The Lord is a stronghold for the oppressed,
a stronghold in times of trouble.
And those who know thy name put their trust in thee,
for thou, O Lord, hast not forsaken those who seek thee.

In what possible way can those Christians who see themselves as God’s judge “put their trust in thee” or “seek thee“?  No, their trust is in their human selves, in their ideologies and their feelings.  In their ideology it is the God of the Bible who is the oppressor.  It is only in their ideology and feelings that any “stronghold for the oppressed” exists.  But they are the pathetic deceived, and the end of their “kindness” is a totalitarian hell-state.

The silence of those of us who know better is in effect to be an ally of this wickedness.

Sing praises to the Lord, who dwells in Zion!
Tell among the peoples his deeds!
For he who avenges blood is mindful of them;
he does not forget the cry of the afflicted.
Be gracious to me, O Lord!
Behold what I suffer from those who hate me,
O thou who liftest me up from the gates of death,
that I may recount all thy praises,
that in the gates of the daughter of Zion
I may rejoice in thy deliverance.

The Psalmist doesn’t enjoy God’s blessings and protection because he is sinless.  Rather, it is because he lives in right relationship to God, worshiping Him as the ultimate sovereign and source of righteous judgement upon His creation.

The nations have sunk in the pit which they made;
in the net which they hid has their own foot been caught.
The Lord has made himself known, he has executed judgment;
the wicked are snared in the work of their own hands.      Higgaion.    Selah
The wicked shall depart to Sheol,
all the nations that forget God.

How can we but remember the soul-destroying, mass-murdering 20th century totalitarian regimes of Soviet Russia, Communist China and Cambodia, and Nazi Germany among others when reading these words?  And how can we but point to the 21st century ideologues who pretend that these ideologies have been reconstituted to be the best path forward for human society as those breathing new life into ultimate wickedness?

For the needy shall not always be forgotten,
and the hope of the poor shall not perish for ever.
Arise, O Lord! Let not man prevail;
let the nations be judged before thee!
Put them in fear, O Lord!
Let the nations know that they are but men!   Selah

Here is the answer to and judgement of the godless, grasping, vainglorious and greedy ideologues who demand our allegiance.  They who have brought utter poverty of soul and hearth, who have sought for themselves worldly power and riches based on state organized terror, may our faith in the One Sovereign God “put them in fear” and testify that “they are but men!


Our Bloody-Minded Betters (4)


Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue

Drawing Conclusions

I contend that the behavior of the Obama ex-officials and the current Democrat leadership is bloody-minded because they all have shown shameless willingness to tear this nation apart.  Their monomaniacal drive to overturn the 2016 Presidential election by extra-Constitutional/democratic means has set into motion a cold civil war with the potential to become hot.  Had they rather focused their energies on building support for a winning 2020 Presidential election our nation would not now be in a state of polarized hatred.

There are likely hidden agendas behind this abhorrent behavior that may come to light when the Justice Department Inspector General’s report and results of the Barr/Durham investigation become public.

I refer, of course, to the imminent exposure — at least we hope it is coming — of the predicates of the Russia probe, easily the most despicable and seditious attempt to unseat a president in American history. This attempt to impeach or, at that point, to interdict began on or not long after June 16, 2015, the day Donald Trump announced his candidacy.

What is happening now is merely a continuation of a process that started then.

Until then we are left to speculate on more philosophical aspects of their motivations.  In what follows I will discuss two end-points that likely encompass the reality behind this behavior, one being the more benign and the other the more sinister.

A More Benign Explanation

A more benign explanation can be found in the Quillette article titled “From Homophobia to Anti-Bigotry: How Did Christians Become the New Pariahs?” by Douglas Murray.  This excerpted passage is generalizable to the issue at hand.

Do you allow arguments that worked for you to work for others? Are reciprocity and tolerance principles or fig-leaves?

And that would be to trample all over one of the bases of political tolerance. It would be to award yourself the right not just to come to your own conclusions about people, but to attribute motives to others that you cannot see but which you suspect. Which leads to a question that everybody in genuinely diverse and pluralistic societies must at some point ask: “Do we take other people at face value, or do we try to read behind their words and actions, claim to see into their hearts and there divine the true motives which their speech and actions have not yet revealed?”


The President viewed through the Progressive “They Live” sunglasses.

This could be a compelling explanation for the bizarre fantasy-behaviors that have been previously discussed.  In particular, it could be that these ex-officials and current politicians actually believe that they can “see” behind events and statements by President Trump, his administration and his supporters to their “real” motives.  In this case when they accuse the President of “treason” that can’t be found by the Mueller investigative team or “demands for dirt” that aren’t in the actual transcript, they are saying with Joe Biden that “We choose truth over facts.


A More Sinister Explanation

A more sinister explanation can be found in The New Criterion article titled “Leninthink” by Gary Saul Morson.  In this case these ex-officials and current politicians are acting from within the anti-morality of the (perhaps neo) Marxist ideology, which is directly related to its most influential practitioner, Vladimir Lenin.  The following excerpts describe both the Leninist moral framework and the author’s contention that this mindset is at work in contemporary politics.

Vladimir Lenin

“When we are reproached with cruelty, we wonder how people can forget the most elementary Marxism.”

Lenin regarded all interactions as zero-sum. To use the phrase he made famous, the fundamental question is always “Who Whom?”—who dominates whom, who does what to whom, ultimately who annihilates whom. To the extent that we gain, you lose. …

Basic books on negotiation teach that you can often do better than split the difference, since people have different concerns. Both sides can come out ahead—but not for the Soviets, whose negotiating stance John F. Kennedy once paraphrased as: what’s mine is mine; and what’s yours is negotiable. For us, the word “politics” means a process of give and take, but for Lenin it’s we take, and you give. From this it follows that one must take maximum advantage of one’s position. If the enemy is weak enough to be destroyed, and one stops simply at one’s initial demands, one is objectively helping the enemy, which makes one a traitor.

When I detect Leninist ways of thinking today, people respond: surely you don’t think all those social justice warriors are Leninists! Of course not. The whole point of Leninism is that only a few people must understand what is going on. That was the key insight of his tract What Is to Be Done? When Leninism is significant, there will always be a spectrum going from those who really understand, to those who just practice the appropriate responses, to those who are entirely innocent. The real questions are: Is there such a spectrum now, and how do we locate people on it? And if there is such a spectrum, what do we do about it?

Although all of these bloody-minded players are clearly card-carrying Progressives, the extent (if any) of their adherence to (neo) Marxism can only be speculated upon.  Except, that is, for John Brennan, who by his own admission voted for the Communist Presidential candidate in 1976.  This was at the height of the Cold War when the Communist U.S.S.R. was credibly threatening to destroy Western Civilization!  We also must admit that the Democrat Party is currently dominated by those calling themselves Democratic Socialists, but whose proposals have a familiar totalitarian ring.

Closing Thoughts

To believe that these high ex-Obama Administration officials and current high Democrat politicians are simply insane as described by the more benign explanation is incredible.  No, regardless of if they are operating under explicit (neo) Marxism or not, their behavior is clearly within the Leninthink model.  That is, they are pursuing raw, unaccountable power without the limitations of moral decency as understood by the history of our Republic.  In this they have richly earned the contempt of tens-of-millions of their fellow citizens.  The only question remaining is will they succeed or fail at fundamentally transforming our Republic from an experiment in human freedom and dignity into a nation of serfs and masters.


And therefore our bloody-minded “betters”

Our Bloody-Minded Betters (3)


Shameless Deception

There’s another dimension to the current Progressive bloody-mindedness, that being the


The source of unaccountability.

absolutely shameless lies of the highest Democrat leadership.  I’ve previously touched on the lack of any mainstream media (MSM) accountability that has enabled this pathetic situation.  However, even though this is the case, human beings with even a shred of morality or decency would hesitate to take full advantage.  This is clearly not the case for the two top House of Representative members who are driving the Trump impeachment effort, those being Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Chair Adam Schiff.

Chairman Adam Schiff

Just for starters, this is the man who for over two years appeared on every MSM news show that would have him claiming that there is “ample evidence” that the Trump campaign colluded with Russians.

Schiff said there is evidence — heard by the committee behind closed doors —that he can’t talk about publicly because it remains classified.

And yet, when the Mueller Report cleared the President, his campaign (and any American citizen for that matter) of “collusion” with the Russians Mr. Schiff didn’t admit that he had been lying all along.  Rather he simply moved on the the Ukraine “collusion” claim.

However, with the benefit of recent revelations is appears most likely that Mr. Schiff and his staff “colluded” with a partisan Democrat CIA bureaucrat to manufacture a “whistleblower” complaint against the President based entirely on hearsay evidence.  They assumed that the President would refuse, due to Executive Privilege, to release the transcript of his call with the new Ukrainian President, thus allowing the “whistleblower’s” unfounded claims to characterize the President’s behavior.

When the President blew this plan out of the water by releasing both the transcript and the “whistleblower” complaint to the public, Chairman Schiff was placed in an impossible position.  That is, by release of both documents the public could compare the claims of the complaint against the actual conversation.  And thus the entire “whistleblower” complaint was shown to be untrue.

Screen Shot 2019-10-04 at 7.20.44 PM

But all in order to defend and uphold our Constitution, of course!

So, what is a partisan Democrat to do?  Well, in Adan Schiff’s case lie through his teeth.  Chairman Schiff sat down in the House Intelligence Committee’s leadership chair and made up out of thin air a rendition of the President’s conversation.  The made up “transcript” quoted by Chairman Schiff “confirmed” all of the “whistleblower’s” claims.

When Mr. Schiff was called on his lies to the public from the Intelligence Committee’s Chairman chair he admitted the lie (there was no other way out) but claimed that his comments had been “parody.”  I challenge anyone to view the video and claim that this is so.  I also challenge anyone to show another example of the Chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee being used as a platform to disseminate parody to the American public.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Now, you might think that the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, would be a bit more circumspect than a mere Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.  Boy would you be wrong.  In fact, Speaker Pelosi, after Rep. Schiff had admitted his “parody” lie, claimed on national television that it wasn’t a lie at all!

Screen Shot 2019-10-05 at 6.26.54 AMHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi falsely claimed in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s fabrication of the transcript between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky was actually real.  …

“I know you support Chairman Schiff, but was it right for him to have that dramatic interpretation of the president’s transcript of the phone call at the hearing last week?” Stephanopoulos asked.

“I want the American people to know what that phone call was about. I want them to hear, it. So yeah it’s fair,” Pelosi said Thursday on “Good Morning America.”

“It’s sad, but it’s using the president’s own words,” she added.

“But those weren’t the president’s words, it was an interpretation of the president’s words. They’re saying he made this up,” he replied.

“He did not make it up,” Pelosi insisted.

Speaker Pelosi has also attempted to wrap her impeachment obsession in the lie that she and her party are “defending the Constitution.”

Screen Shot 2019-10-04 at 7.23.41 PMThere is no mistaking that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to wrap the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump in the Constitution, but in reality she is undermining it.

In announcing her decision last week to go forward with the inquiry, she referenced the Constitution multiple times.

During a joint news conference with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff on Wednesday, Pelosi took it to the next level, saying “Constitution” dozens of times.

One of the more ironic and troubling instances came near the end of the 30-minute session when the speaker said, “We have to be worthy of the Constitution as we go forward. We have to be fair to the president, and that’s why this is an inquiry and not an outright impeachment, and we have to give the president his chance to exonerate himself.”

Did you catch that? “Exonerate himself.”

In other words, in her mind and Schiff’s too, as I will show in a moment, Trump is guilty of an impeachable offense until he proves himself innocent.

It doesn’t take a law degree to know that this statement is unconstitutional.

Not only did Speaker Pelosi directly contradict the constitution in her above statement, but she is leading a party that is on the record (at the Presidential candidate level) of opposing it and demanding it be subverted or destroyed in service of their political goals.

Screen Shot 2019-10-04 at 7.12.44 PM

Hey, Ms. Clinton, you can update this to the 21st-century by changing from “paper shredder” to “BleachBit“!

Screen Shot 2019-10-04 at 7.16.19 PM

Rep. Tlaib: Arrest WH Officials Who Don’t Comply With Subpoenas

Thus Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff claim to be “defending” a Constitution that their party is openly seeking to undermine and destroy.

This is another shameless, pathetic and bloody-minded lie by our supposed “betters”.

The Hong Kong Crisis (1)


Initial Thoughts

I’ve delayed commentary on the crisis in Hong Kong due to a felt lack of knowledge on my part.  I’ve slowly learned the lesson over a lifetime of hard knocks that it’s better to remain silent and let people think you’re a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.  So, I’m going to continue avoiding commentary on the political and social situation in Hong Kong (although others are doing a great job in this area).

However, over the past couple months it has become clear that the future of the United States as a free society is powerfully tied to the fate of Hong Kong.  For we have witnessed the extent and depth of Communist China’s influence over major U.S. companies such as Apple and the NBA (among others), leading them to kowtow before this vicious, evil regime.  The extent to which Communist China has corrupted our government’s top officials has also been exposed in the Hunter Biden scandal.

hong-kong-us-flagsIt has also become clear that the Hong Kong protesters look to the United States as a beacon of freedom and a hoped for protector.  Unfortunately this hope is threatened by the U.S. elite class.  For they have been unmasked as those who will gladly use their precious freedoms to spew hatred for the own country while simultaneously fawning at the feet of China’s dictators.

And yet there is reason for hope.  I recently discussed the Hong Kong crisis with a group of Progressives.  Their initial position was that Hong Kong had been taken from China by Great Britain and thus we shouldn’t oppose China’s actions to take it back.  I responded by pointing out that China had pledged to maintain Hong Kong’s essential nature as “one country, two systems” until 2047.  I then pointed out that the people of Hong Kong are simply attempting to maintain the freedoms promised to them, and that in this they are our natural allies.

To my surprise these Progressives were not just disarmed by this argument, but even affirmed its truth!  It’s been a long time since I’ve seen this type of response by Progressives.

We must begin openly supporting the brave freedom demonstrators in Hong Kong.  At the same time we must begin opposing the anti-freedom cowardice of our multinational corporations, politicians and cultural icons.  They must be exposed and shamed for their craven behavior, and, where there is actual illegal corruption, prosecuted for their crimes.

It’s a sad fact that the people of Hong Kong could be crushed by the Chinese Communist government if they decided to do so.  Our job is to make that possibility so painful that they allow Hong Kong’s culture to remain until the promised 2047.  We can then hope and pray that other fundamental changes occur in the world and within China that prevent Hong Kong’s absorption into the vile and evil communist system that now threatens them.

Our Bloody-Minded Betters (2)


The Party Line Tell

How can we know that we are living through a “different in kind” political moment?  After all, political acrimony is the norm in our nation.  So, isn’t what we’re now experiencing just a “difference in degree” as opposed to “in kind?”

My first inkling of this state-transition from “degree” to “kind” occurred while observing the behavior of Democrat senior leaders after the 2016 election.  Recall that, prior to the election when the polls claimed that Hillary Clinton was the overwhelming favorite to win, the entire Democrat establishment from President Obama on down were all on the “party line” that it would be un-American if not treasonous for Mr. Trump to reject the election results.  Here’s what President Obama had to say on this issue.

“That is not a joking matter,” Obama said. “No, no, no. I want everyone to pay attention here.”  …  “when you try to sow the seeds of doubt in people’s minds about the legitimacy of our elections, that undermines our democracy.”  “Then you are doing the work of our adversaries for them,” “Because our democracy depends on people knowing their vote matters.”

Dear reader, please pause to carefully consider these words.  President Obama was not here making a conditional statement (e.g., IF my party wins THEN the election results must be accepted.).  No, President Obama was making a statement of principle, independent of results, about the seriousness of maintaining legitimacy for our elections.  The fact that Hillary Clinton happened to be considered the prohibitive favorite to win this particular election was irrelevant.

So, given this solemn statement of principle by the President whom they served, how did high Obama administration officials react when Donald Trump unexpectedly won the 2016 Presidential Election?  We all know the answer.  They responded by rejecting the legitimacy of the election and by declaring open, unremitting resistance to a Trump presidency!

In particular:

  • Ex-Attorney General Loretta Lynch made a video that was distributed by the Senate Democrats that claimed without a shred of evidence that “our rights are being assaulted” and the only remedy is street protest up to and including blood and death.

loretta-lynch“I know that this is a time of great fear and uncertainty for so many people,” Lynch says. “I know it’s a time of concern for people, who see our rights being assailed, being trampled on and even being rolled back. I know that this is difficult, but I remind you that this has never been easy. We have always had to work to move this country forward to achieve the great ideals of our Founding Fathers.”

“It has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came together and supported those ideals who have made the difference. They’ve marched, they’ve bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again.

John Brennan“Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors’,”  “It was nothing short of ‘treasonous’. Not only were Trump’s comments ‘imbecilic’, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???”

James ClapperCLAPPER: Well, it is to me. I think this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is. He knows how to handle an asset, and that’s what he’s doing with the president.

SCIUTTO: You’re saying that Russia is handling President Trump as an asset?

CLAPPER: That seems to be — that’s the appearance to me.

I could continue with other Obama ex-officials, but the point is made.

That point is top Obama Administration officials turned on a dime from the “party line” that election results must be honored to election results must be delegitimized and resisted when their party’s candidate lost.

This ability to, without shame or even embarrassment turn literally overnight from one party line to its exact opposite is characteristic of ideological apparatchiks.  Never before in my experience had high officials from a previous Presidential administration sought to openly delegitimize and oppose a new President, his administration and their voters.

This uniform denunciation and resistance moves from shocking to sinister when you consider that the underlying rationale was utterly debunked by the Mueller Report.  That is, they claimed that their access to information while serving in the Obama Administration justified their unprecedented charges of treason against the next sitting President.

What the Mueller Report actually revealed is that, after almost two years of investigation by an aggressive team of prosecutors, “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”  Therefore, it is logically impossible for these three and other ex-Obama high officials to have known credible incriminating information about President Trump and/or his campaign since said information was shown by the Mueller Report to be nonexistent!

Thus the motives for their vile behavior must have been a combination of ideological and personal.  As the Justice Department Inspector General’s report and the Barr / Durham investigations become available we may finally see the extent of personal corruption behind these behaviors.  We need not wait to understand that these and other ex-Obama officials were motivated by an ideological foundation that sees the holding and wielding of government power to be more important than any other good.  Even more important than the legitimacy of our nation’s elections.

Willingness to tear a nation apart in pursuit of raw, illegitimate power is well within the realm of bloody-mindedness.


ANTIFA in the streets, doing what needs to be done to oppose the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency.  After all, when our highest justice and intelligence officials say that the nation is being led by a “traitor” and “oppresser” what isn’t permissible to oppose him?

The Janus Award for Projection and Hypocrisy (1)


The Janus Award for Projection and Hypocrisy

The First Ever Winner!

I’ve decided to institute a new award: The Janus Award for Projection and Hypocrisy.  This surely to be coveted award’s description is as follows.

This award is bestowed upon an individual, group or organization that demonstrates such blazingly obvious public projection and/or hypocrisy in their behavior and/or beliefs that they become a role-model to which other moral frauds can aspire!

Now I understand that by virtue of their shameless practice of projection and hypocrisy Progressives will have an unfair advantage, yet I hold this honor open to any and all who achieve true greatness in these essential 21st century skills.


Heather: The Inaugural Winner!

Introducing the First Ever Winner!

You may be surprised to note that this award’s inaugural winner has demonstrated only one of the two defining categories: hypocrisy.  However, her 17 word and 3 hashtag tweet has created hypocrisy of such monumental density that it has achieved Neutron Star status.  Had she employed only one less word or hashtag the density would have created a Black Hole of hypocrisy that disappeared from our universe entirely!

Who but a 21st century woke genius could manage to engage in “virtue signaling” while encouraging a presidential assassination?  She also has connected the murder of another human being with the concept “kindness” through her text and hashtags!

Screen Shot 2019-10-15 at 5.22.54 AM

Progressives across the world must have fallen to their knees before this display of pure vile hatred packaged as a morally superior call for kindness!

Heather, you will be a hard act to follow!

Our Bloody-Minded Betters (1)


A Terrible Difference

In two recent posts I have used the shorthand phrase “different in kind” to describe the ideas and behavior of our presumed Progressive betters.  In July I said:

My contention is that the behavior currently occurring in the Progressive camp is different in kind from simple hysteria. That is, prominent Progressives have entered the realm of conscious, unmediated hatred expressed as appalling, purposeful cruelty.

In an August post I provided additional detail on the why and what implied by this phrase.

So, yes, the Progressive behavior is generally different in kind to that of Conservatives. They can get away with it due to their dominance in the media and government bureaucracy, among other powerful institutions. They also benefit from the silence of Progressives who know better but are intimidated by the radical lunatic fringe of their movement. Behind this wall of institutional power and tribal loyalty a truly vile and vicious culture of cruelty has grown. If the near massacre of Congressional Republicans by a hate filled Progressive supporter of Bernie Sanders hasn’t sobered them up then nothing likely will.

So, while this “difference in kind” to past Progressive ideas and behavior has been introduced and discussed, I haven’t yet meditated in detail on its nature, which is the purpose of this series of posts.

After careful consideration I’ve concluded that the term “bloody-minded” best captures this contemporary Progressive mindset.  In modern times “bloody-minded” is a British phrase used to mean “stubbornly contrary or obstructive.”  While I can embrace this modern definition given the Progressive “resistance” movement, the original historic definition of “intent upon blood and warfare” is closer to the mark.

Shakespeare used this phrase in King Henry VI, Part III (1592):

Thy name affrights me, in whose sound is death.
A cunning man did calculate my birth
And told me that by water I should die:
Yet let not this make thee be bloody-minded;
Thy name is Gaultier, being rightly sounded.

Now breathe we, lords: good fortune bids us pause,
And smooth the frowns of war with peaceful looks.
Some troops pursue the bloody-minded queen,
That led calm Henry, though he were a king,
As doth a sail, fill’d with a fretting gust,
Command an argosy to stem the waves.

Without the slightest sense of shame or even embarrassment!

I particularly like the reference to the “bloody-minded queen,” as it captures the utter depravity of those who claim moral superiority by condemning Donald Trump while simultaneously supporting the most vile and corrupt woman in contemporary politics, Hillary Clinton.

The attempt by the Progressive ruling class to nullify the 2016 Presidential election by what amounts to a soft coup has driven this nation closer to the brink of a Constitutional crisis and open violence than anything since the 1960’s.  The fact that they do so without the slightest sense of shame or even mild embarrassment is a bright marker for the general “bloody-mindedness” of the Progressive movement.

Although he settled on “bloodlust,” Michael Goodwin in the New York Post has made this same point (emphasis added).


A natural consequence of Progressive bloodlust.  Note the virtue signaling while proposing an assassination, which could only happen in the post-2016 election Progressive moral breakdown.

But no president in modern times has also faced endless assaults on his right to even set foot in the Oval Office and exercise the powers of the presidency. Yet here we are, nearing the third anniversary of his election by a decisive margin, and still the resistance to his right to govern rages on.

The precedent is terrifying. If this is the start of losers always declaring election results invalid, America is doomed.

The dirty tricks in 2016, the flames of treason fanned by Hillary Clinton and top members of the Obama administration, the wild media scoops and whispered accusations — all of it had been considered and found to have no merit. The Russia, Russia, Russia charge was false and it was time to move on.

Instead, the left immediately began searching for another silver bullet. One way or another, they would bring down Donald Trump.

Thus was born Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine. In an instant replay, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff again declared the president guilty of impeachable ­offenses before they held a single hearing.

Their only evidence was the flawed, secondhand claim of an anonymous source with partisan ties. They don’t care. They are on a mission to destroy.

Clinton, incapable of shame and impervious to anything but self-interest, emerged again to declare Trump “an illegitimate president.”

The media, too, jumped on the Ukraine bandwagon, giddy with certainty that this time, they’ll get the president they hate.

To hear the fulminations, impeachment won’t be enough. Only a public hanging will satisfy their bloodlust.

There is no way to know how or when this madness ends. Only one thing is certain: it won’t end well.

I’ll examine this turn to Progressive bloody-mindedness and discuss why it poses a terrible threat to the peace and prosperity of our republic in future posts.