Old Hickory Lake yesterday afternoon


Re-thinking the political spectrum

My friend the rifleman wrote something this morning that falls right into some thoughts I’ve been having about American politics and whether President Trump’s election was the cause or the effect of a realignment that has taken place in our political spectrum.

Does the traditional concept of left and right still apply? Perhaps not.

Writes my friend, “[I]t’s not right vs left anymore. It’s not liberals vs conservatives. It’s globalists vs nationalists.”

During the past couple of years, Rush Limbaugh, whom I listen to daily (every single minute of every single podcast, in fact), has pointed out that the real political gap isn’t between Democrats & Republicans anymore, but between entrenched politicians and the people they are supposed to represent.

By-and-large, the entrenched politicians are globalists. Those of us out here in “flyover country,” who are viewed by the establishment as hicks and hayseeds, are the nationalists. We’re the ones who stand for the National Anthem, insist on rule of law, mind our own business, and don’t want to see our great nation pillaged by those who come here to take and to destroy. For this, we are called “racists” and “white nationalists/supremacists.”

But this shift in tide isn’t just endemic to the U.S. Look at Europe. Most of Europe is being overrun by Muslims who aren’t seeking a better life, but to take over and rule. As a result, nations like France, England, Sweden, Germany (and others) are losing their national identity, even their safety. Globalism is destroying these countries. And those who refuse to go along with the suicide pact, such as the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland, are sharply criticized by the EU nations that are slitting their own wrists.

So, yes, I’ve said before that I’m less of a Republican than I have ever been, because the GOP has been infiltrated with globalists, too. I’m an American. I’m a Trumpist. I’m a nationalist. You can (falsely) call me a racist if you’ve got no other arrows in your quiver, but “American” is not a race.

More quotes from Nixon’s biography

I’m closing in on President Nixon’s resignation in August, 1974. I’m already dreading getting to that part. It is going to be depressing. I’ve learned a great deal about the Watergate scandal, and it is my conclusion that it was greatly overblown. I’m not saying that Richard Nixon was a saint and did nothing wrong. But it was definitely the cover-up of the Watergate break-in that became Nixon’s undoing and not the break-in itself. The scandals perpetrated by Barack Obama and his administration (fast-and-furious, using the IRS to harass political opponents), and also by Hillary Clinton (Benghazi, selling foreign influence via the Clinton Foundation, e-mail server) make Nixon look like a piker. He could only dream of doing what the Obama administration actually did. At any rate, I have highlighted a few excerpts from the text. Some are quotes by Nixon. Some are about Nixon or the American political system in general.

[T]he ultimate power in the American system resides with the legislative branch. Congress can remove the President from office, but the President cannot remove the Congress or individual congressmen. In that stark sense, the American system is a parliamentary one.

You can’t incriminate a man for what he says. It has to be something he does.

Republicans, ‘like conservatives generally, are responsible and play with Marquis of Queensberry rules, whereas the liberals go just the other way.’

He proposed solutions to intractable problems that were simultaneously subtle and just plain common sense. They held great promise. The world would be much better off today had they been adopted.

Never had a President, not even Wilson, been so honored abroad, so hounded at home. Seldom had a President done more for world peace.

Don’t let fat people ruin your football experience

This year I purchased a football season ticket for the Memphis Tigers. Last year I purchased individual game tickets because I was only able to attend 4 out of 7 home games. This year I have resolved to attend all 7. So I picked out what I thought would be a great seat on the front row in one of the end zones. There are 5 seats in the row, and mine is the middle one. I thought it was a little odd that there would be one open seat in the middle of a row of 5, and Saturday I discovered why it was open.

The owners of seats 4 and 5, as it turns out, are a man and wife who are grossly obese. I would estimate that they each weigh over 300 pounds. So when they sit down, the two of them take up three seats completely. The “3” that marks my seat is totally obscured by the woman’s ample rear end. Of course, seats 1 and 2 in my row are also occupied by season ticket holders (normal size), so my assigned seat is unavailable to me without some sort of (probably ugly) confrontation.

What’s a bit strange is that there was never any acknowledgment by the fat couple that they take up too much room. When it was obvious that we had a conflict over seating, the woman — and I estimate both of them to be in their late 30’s — turned to me and said, “It looks like they sold you a bad seat.” Bad seat? It’s not a bad seat. It’s the same as all the other tens of thousands of bleacher seats in the Liberty Bowl. I didn’t say anything to this. What was I supposed to say? Apparently, the fat couple was unwilling to state the obvious — the obvious thing being that in all fairness, they should purchase three season tickets for the two of them. (Don’t airlines force obese passengers to pay for two seats?)

Also, the implication on her part was that it’s somehow the athletic department’s fault for not knowing that a pair of 300-pounders occupy seats 4 and 5 and to avoid selling seat 3 to anyone. I mean, there wasn’t a single acknowledgement from either of them, not even a “Sorry, I know we sorta take up a little more room than most.” Nothing. And what’s more, she made it a point to tell me that she and her husband have had those seats “for over 13 years.” In other words, they weren’t moving or making the slightest accommodation to account for their size.

In a fortuitous twist of fate, there was apparently a wasp’s nest somewhere near our seats. When I left, the oversized couple were being harassed by a pair (and possibly more) of wasps. Trying to fight them off, the husband fussed, “These wasps are starting to p*** me off.” I certainly hope the wasps were just as unwilling to give up their place, too.

Now I’m not a mean person. I’m a peaceful, quiet guy. (Although I was yelling my head off during the game.) I’m not going to get into a confrontation over a stadium seat, especially in front of other people. So I found other places to sit throughout the game. And the obese couple are Memphis fans, too. Saturday was too happy a day to be arguing amongst ourselves.

What I have done is email the athletic department (pasted below) regarding my dilemma. If they are willing to resolve it, great. If not, then I believe I’ll upgrade my seat myself and find someplace to sit on or near the 50-yard line for all remaining games. We’re never completely sold out, so there will be a premium seat for me somewhere every game.

And when I decide to renew my season ticket for next year, it will definitely be for a different seat.

Dear UofM Athletics,

This year I purchased a football season ticket for a seat in the end zone I have never occupied before this season. There are 5 seats in my row. I have the 3rd seat. And I have a problem. The occupants of seats 4 & 5 are, shall I say, very large people. Combined, the two of them completely take up 3 seats. Normally, I would just scoot over to seat 2, but seats 1 & 2 are also occupied by season ticket holders. So I have literally been squeezed out of my seat. Is there any way you can assign me a different seat in the same section for the remaining 5 home football games? Otherwise, I’m a man without a home.

Thank you.

Beware of wolves (2 Peter 2:20-22)

Today we come to the end of chapter 2, which deals entirely with false teachers and those who follow their nonsense. As a result of this, many have fallen from the faith.

1. Only the gospel can deliver us from the corruption in the world. We have escaped the “pollutions of the world” through the knowledge of Jesus Christ. You can try to be a good Christian as much as you want but you will only be saved by Christ. Performance-based faith does not work.

There was a time in our lives when we were sinking. We were going to drown. But we called on God because no matter how hard we tried, we were not going to climb out of that pit on our own.

2. Weak believers that return to their former lives are severely warned by God. Those who understand redemption and go back to the very things Jesus Christ delivered them from are told that it would better if they had never even understood the concept of Jesus.

If you don’t know your Bible you are going to be a weak believer. That’s why it’s so important to go to a church that actually preaches the Bible. Man’s teachings will not change your heart. Behavior modification by itself does not make you a strong Christian.

The closer we get to the end times, the more scoffers and mockers will reveal themselves.

There’s no way we would ever physically spit in the face of Jesus, but we do this spiritually when we run back to the world. You see, we have nowhere else to go. Jesus has the words of life, and going back to the world should never be an option for believers.

Conviction is not a bad thing. It will lead you either to repentance or anger.

We all struggle and have hardships. We’re not bothered by the ones who are bothered by their sin. We’re bothered by the ones who are not bothered by their sin.

3. The difference between a profession and a possession is a true change of your nature. There are those who profess to love Jesus but their nature is filled with disgusting mannerisms. The only thing that changes your nature is a supernatural God. We keep going back to the same things if our nature hasn’t been changed.

Others will know you by your fruits.

One of the greatest scourges of modern-day churches is that they are filled by those who have never been genuinely transformed. If there is a difference inside of you, then you have been transformed.

 Your life should be a living proof of your salvation. You are supposed to grow when you get saved, not go back to the things God redeemed you from.

God changes your nature. He changes your “want to.” If you are genuinely redeeemd then it will show. If there is no genuine transformation in your nature, then perhaps you have a false assurance, a false hope of salvation that you really don’t have.

How #fakenews tries to separate President Trump from his base

President Trump made a deal earlier this week with Chuck & Nancy. The Democrat tag-team and #fakenews happily reported that President Trump had made an amnesty deal on DACA that did not include the wall. So that meant Trump’s base was burning their MAGA hats.

Except none of it was true. And Chuck & Nancy were forced to admit there was no such deal, but the #fakenews was already out there. And once it’s out there, it can’t be recalled. Fortunately, I can report from inside the base that no one has gone anywhere. We’re a little too smart for the liars.

All President Trump has is his base — the ones who elected him. He does not have the support of the Democrats & #fakenews media, obviously. He is opposed by the Deep State. There is even significant opposition within his own party. But the base is broad enough and informed enough to decide an entire election. The Democrats & #fakenews know that the only way to bring down President Trump is to separate him from his base (re: Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals”).

So they’ll dig around, and through polling or some other means, the Democrats & #fakenews have found out the catalyst for President Trump’s base stampeding off is if The Donald caves on amnesty and doesn’t follow through on the wall. So guess what the fake headlines are going to be?

Most of us in Trump’s base are politically astute enough to immediately write off as #fakenews any headline which is critical of our president. We know what they’re up to and they just aren’t going to get away with it. We also know that we elected a deal-maker and a master negotiator, and are content to let President Trump do what we elected him to do.

The Democrats and #fakenews are going to continue to assault the president and also us in the base in an effort to drive a wedge between us. But the only one who can drive away the base is The Donald himself. And that just isn’t going to happen.

Quote du jour (Jurassic Democrats)

This is Rush Limbaugh from Wednesday’s show discussing Mrs. Clinton’s new blame-everyone-but-herself book:

Didn’t Spielberg direct Jurassic Park? You would think that the guy who directed Jurassic Park would have been able to do something with Hillary Clinton. If you make dinosaurs come to life and even make them kind of lovable and likable. I mean, admit it. Didn’t you kind of like the Velociraptors in the lab, and didn’t you kind of want one for a pet? Should have been able to do something with Hillary to make her more likable or more exciting.


refectory (n.) — a room used for communal meals, especially in an educational or religious institution

curio (n.) — a rare, unusual, or intriguing object

farrago (n.) — a confused mixture

sidereal (adj.) — of or with respect to the distant stars (i.e., the constellations or fixed stars, not the sun or planets)

moribund (adj.) — (of a person) at the point of death

athanor (n.) — a type of furnace used by alchemists, able to maintain a steady heat for long periods

indecorum (n.) — failure to conform to good taste, propriety, or etiquette

cenotaph (n.) — a tomblike monument to someone buried elsewhere, especially one commemorating people who died in a war

irruption (n.) — a forced or sudden entrance

tetchily (adj.) — bad-tempered and irritable

dialectical (adj.) — relating to the logical discussion of ideas and opinions

tableau (n.) — a group of models or motionless figures representing a scene from a story or from history

circumspect (adj.) — wary or unwilling to take risks

opprobrium (n.) — harsh criticism or censure

riposte (n.) — a quick clever reply to an insult or criticism

sciolist (n.) — a person who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed

dolour (n.) — a state of great sorrow or distress

fardel (n.) — a bundle

prosody (n.) — the patterns or rhythm and sound used in poetry

purblind (adj.) — slow or unable to understand; dimwitted

magdalen (n.) — a reformed prostitute

rhodomontade (n.) — a bragging speech

wassail (n.) — spiced ale or mulled wine drunk during celebrations for Twelfth Night and Christmas Eve

verisimilitude (n.) — the appearance of being true or real

Money: a Biblical look at finances (Luke 16:1-11)

We are often so messed up over money because we don’t understand where it comes from. Ultimately, we are stewards over what God has given us. When God can trust us He will bless us.

Money is not the root of all evil, but the love of money. If you love people, you’ll use money to reach more people. If you love money, you will use people to get more money.

Jesus spoke more about financial accountability than most other topics.

There is a very strange story in Luke 16. In this context, Jesus develops a story about a rich man who employs a manager who mishandled his financial books. He was fired, and in the process did something completely unethical. And yet he is Biblically commended for it.

The word “account” used in verse 2 is the same as the verbal “account” we will someday give to God.

God does not give me more so I can increase my standard of living. He gives me more so I can increase my standard of giving and I can help more people.

Giving is not about getting rich, but about enriching the lives of others with what God gave us.

The rich man had trusted his accountant, and his accountant had failed him as a steward, so he was fired. The accountant then begins to plot what he should do. He was too lazy to work and too proud to beg.

And so he hatches a plan that is highly unethical. He plans to endear himself to his former boss’s debtors that they may receive him into their homes.

The former accountant, who had just been fired, calls on these debtors, who don’t yet know he has lost his job. He writes off a portion of their debts so they will be endeared to him. He gains their favor that he doesn’t deserve with people he does not know with resources that are not his.

So the debtors are no longer endeared to the boss, but to the man who used to work for the boss.

But the story gets even stranger. The boss discovers his former accountant’s scheme and commends this unjust steward. And he commends him because he had acted wisely (or shrewdly).

But the Lord doesn’t commend evil, so why is the unjust steward portrayed this way?

It’s not that the Lord was amazed by the unethical practice, but the thought process that led to the unethical practice.

And then Jesus turns it around this way: lost people understand the value of money more than God’s people understand the value of money. So if we aren’t careful, the world will beat the church in its understanding of financial resources.

Jesus commands that we make friends of the “mammon” of unrighteousness. “Mammon” is simply materialism and wealth. In other words, He tells us to use money to make friends. On Christian terms, we use money to reach lost people. And whose money are we to use? We are to use God’s money to reach people.

(We cannot outgive God.)

In verse 9, Jesus explains that we use God’s money to reach people so that when we fail (die), the boss’s debtors (i.e., the souls we win) may receive us into “everlasting habitations.”

We are simply to use money without the unethical angle. Those we reach with God’s money will wait for us when we reach heaven.

This is why I no longer watch ESPN

I gave up watching ESPN a long time ago. And I am in my second year of boycotting the NFL. So when the NFL is on ESPN’s Monday Night Football, it earns a double-boycott. Thus, I didn’t find out about this until listening to yesterday’s Rush Limbaugh Show. ESPN has lost many viewers during the past couple or three years, owing, in large part, to its overt mixing of liberalism with its sports reporting. Yet ESPN responds by doubling-down on its liberalism. And this is what it looks like.