Wednesday, August 26, 2015

My Bully, Not Yours

5and they said to him, "Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations." 6But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." And Samuel prayed to the LORD. 7The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.…

Conservatives have had policy asinine bullying mashed in their faces for 8 years mostly without opposition from their representatives in congress.  There have been zero prosecutions for Obama administration officials who are caught red handed breaking federal laws.  National pushback in the press cannot be counted as prosecution especially when the Obama administration know they can count on the press to cover for their mishaps, mistakes, indiscretions, so long as they hold to the socialist agenda. 

Liberals had the powers of government mashed in their face for 8 years with congressional support even from their own representatives including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  I can hear the liberals response already; "but Bush... but Bush.  To them I say, Bush wasn't a king and didn't seek kingship unlike Clinton and Obama.  Clinton was reigned in by congress on several occasions.  Bush sought and got congressional approval for his anti-constitutional policies.  That doesn't mean Bush and congress was right, it does mean they were elitist and progressive.  Clinton would have assumed kingly powers and Obama HAS assumed kingly powers.  Congress has steadfastly refused to reign Obama's extra-constitutional exercise of powers.  The Supreme Court has acted more to reign in Obama's abuse of authority and that was never the intended purpose of the Supreme Court according to the founders' instructions in their structuring of our government.  So the Supreme Court is another office the Congress has steadfastly refused to hold to their limited function.

I abhor the idea of Donald Trump assuming the top spot.  He is Obama in drag.  His arrogance is not different than Obama's and his stated intentions are just as extra-constitutional as are Obama's.  So what does that make conservatives who are packing into the Trump camp?  You are no better than your opponents.  Your religious fervor for Trump is no different than Obama supporters.  You do remember how insane they sounded, don't you?  Obama was going to pay their bills.  Obama was going to heal the oceans.  Obama was regularly displayed haloed on news magazines and campaign posters.  They sang worship songs and prayed to him.  No criticism, justified or not mattered to them.  The Donald has much criticism justified and you care not so long as he is YOUR bully, your king, your tyrant.

I am as anti-GOP establishment as any of you, but choose any candidate besides Jeb or the Donald.  They are not different.  They are both anti-constitutional and abusive to the rights of the people.  They are both tyrants in waiting.

TEA party, you are disappointing me again.  Last round it was Newt Gingrich, the self described Wilsonian Republican.  You never bothered to look up Wilson and his policies to know your candidate and his self identifying descriptor.  Wilson was THE worst progressive the U.S. has ever had as leader.  Now you fall into the same trap again.  The Donald is openly abusive to the constitution, to YOUR rights, not just those of your opponents.  The Donald is regularly caught in self conflicting policy statements.  The Donald regularly runs his mouth with gaffes and offenses no other candidate get's away with from the right or the left.  The Donald clearly relates policy intentions in direct opposition to the Constitution.  What are you going to do when the luster wears off and his tyranny shines through on your stolen freedom?  Nothing!  Because you are continuing the same behavior that got us Barack Obama, you are sitting on your hands and demanding a king take YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES out of your hands along with the rights necessary to meet them JUST LIKE LIBERALS.

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Race Relations

This week, two young men were fired from their job for a racial dispute. Neither needed to be fired until they were called in to speak with their boss and settle their differences and began threatening and justifying their behavior. I happened to be present when the original offense went down. I have worked side by side with both these young men for a couple weeks, so had a chance to get to know each of them a little on a personal level.

First allow me to describe the environment because race relations vary widely from inner city to outlaying rural areas and the black experience in America varies by their environment. In Western Arkansas, true racial hatred for blacks exists to this day albeit much more rarely and much more hidden than in living memory when a couple of passers through stopped at a gas station to fill up and ask for the fastest way out of a local small town. As a white, you still feel the stiffening of a room full of black people when you enter a business who's patronage is primarily black people. I hate it. It breaks my heart to feel unjustly feared by virtue of my skin tone.

Greg is a charming black man with the customary American black experience chip on his shoulder. What I mean is, when he first arrived on the scene in this work environment, an environment which gives him legal preference, his first social action was to feel out his immediate supervisor's racial preference by accusatory inquisition. She happened to be divorced from a black man and prefers to date black men, thus he was rapidly set at ease in the work place.

I cannot and would not pretend to know any black's personal experience with prejudice, but I can identify to a degree with prejudiced treatment. Forty years ago my parents divorced when it was still shameful, and was jerked from a very small rural Eastern Oklahoma town to land in Aneheim, California. We were poor, carried a very strong Southern twang in our speech and I hit a growth spurt so none of my clothes fit. I stood out like a sore thumb at school at a time when the full effects of Socialism had gripped the school administrators so that corporal punishment was unheard of and the students ruled the schools while teachers went in fear of losing their jobs. On any given day I could expect to be insulted, punched, kicked, shamed, tricked, etc., This went on for two years but the first one was the worst. So when I say these young black men don't know real prejudice, please understand my perspective is at the very least experiential though I am not black. Prejudice light as in hurtful words are enough to justify anger. However, anger must be measured against the offense.

Brent is a veteran and a charming white man. He'd been at this job about three months. He and Greg both were favored by the night shift supervisors. They seemed to get along well with one another, laughing and engaging in mental jousting, even seemingly becoming fast friends. That night, the pressure was on to get an order out and each of us were doing our best to get it done fast and get it 100% right. But something went wrong. Something was out of order and Greg was struggling to get it back in order and commented to Brent and myself that it was wrong. The supervisor sees we're talking rather than producing and orders me and Brent back to work. Brent defends himself by explaining he would be working except he's being criticized by 'the black guy.' It was an attempt at humor and it was inappropriate on purpose as one of the tools of humor but poorly thought out, and poorly employed. For one thing it was all but shouted across the shop and for another, it was couched in a greater criticism. The same kind of humor had previously been used in their mental jousting and Greg had not been offended then, so for Brent in an off the cuff comment, it didn't register as potentially offensive. Brent did not exhibit true racism, but a poor exercise in humor under stress. A few minutes later the supervisor came over and quietly explained to Brent that though he probably didn't mean it to be, the comment was offensive and to refrain from references to Greg's race.

I was a little late clocking out that night, so I happened to overhear Greg pressing the issue further as I was passing by to get out of there. The particular comment I'd overheard was one threatening potential violence. The next day neither Greg nor Brent are present and it didn't take long to hear they'd both been fired. Later the manager comes in and calls the whole place to a halt to explain why neither would be retained on staff. Threats were made, and justification for their behavior... I suspect Brent could have saved both their jobs maybe if he'd simply acknowledged it was a stupid attempt at humor and not meant as a slur, that he liked Greg personally and truly did not mean to be offensive. "I'm very sorry to have offended you for any reason much less to degrade your entire race." Apparently, this is not what he did.

Last night, two days after this event, we learned Brent committed suicide. Losing the job was not the only contributing factor to Brent's choice. It was the final contributing factor. A side note on suicide. I hold very little remorse for the supremely selfish actors of suicide. The thought processes which lead to suicide go along the lines of; it would serve them right to have to deal with their guilt over my death. The survivors of suicide perpetrators do have to deal with their feelings of guilt over his choice to self destruct in self involved drama. This is me dealing with mine. I knew he'd broken up with his girlfriend. I knew how much he wanted to get on permenantly with this company. I was there when all this happened and I did not follow up with him to mentor, to check on how he was dealing with these losses. I did not know he was this unstable. Such a waste of potential. Such a loss of amiable knowledge and ability. Such a tragedy. Such an unnecessary loss. This weekend, I have repeatedly broken down in tears over this. Last night the manager came in and assessed the emotional situation. I'll have to post another article on this piece of work later, but with half the staff breaking down emotionally, he didn't release us for the night. Instead he gave us the weekend off as we've been working long shifts 7 days a week. So, for five hours we continued to attempt to work while emotions kept overcoming one and then another.  (update Monday night/Tuesday morning; my supervisor confessed she'd made the call to keep us on for the completion of our shift and she apologized to me and thanked us for hanging in there with her.)

Young black man or woman, I don't know your experience in prejudices, neither do you know mine from the black community. I've heard black people tell me because I'm white, I cannot know prejudice. They are wrong. That statement is evidence in itself of racial prejudice. The definition of racial prejudice is prejudgement based on race. In that statement, they have judged my experience and first hand knowledge based on my race. The violent prejudice I experienced was not based on race, but it was violent prejudice none the less. The racial prejudice I experienced was and is from the black community, from the hispanic community, from the Middle East communities, from every ethnicity other than Slavic European and even that is not entirely excluded, and I suspect as frequent as your experience from the white community and others. So please don't assume you know anything about my handle on prejudice. In fact, try not judging me at all based on my race. After you've tried this for a month or two and found how impossible this call for an end to prejudice is on you when you consider an ill timed joke to be prejudice, perhaps you'll learn to measure your anger in context to the offense. Hateful slurs and violence against you and yours are another matter.

Given that you must prejudge me based on my age and race, expect the same from me. You represent your race to me as much as I represent mine to you. So, when your first act in the workplace is to feel out the supervisor's racial preferences, when you walk around expecting me to hold ill will toward you and search out any possible inference which might be construed as a slur against your race, when you believe all whites are prejudiced to one degree or another, you must also know that you are adding to the racial divide rather than helping to heal it. I honestly don't want to walk into another establishment where men stiffen because I am visually different. Not as one to be abused and certainly not as one to be feared. Not anywhere in this great land. That does not mean we are excused from using our judgment or the tools of judgment like generalities of race, age, gender. Statistical evidence indicates whites are more at risk in a black community than blacks are in a white community. In Western Arkansas, blacks are in a predominantly white community and in Western Arkansas whites are still more at risk from blacks than blacks are from whites. Both races are at greater risk from their own than from any other race. The reasons behind these statistics are the young blacks' assumption of victimization on a personal and group think level however justified, and the popularization of intentional ignorance. According to Jayzee, you're trying to be white if you seek an education and that is meant as a criticism! How racist is that? To be white is wrong AND to be educated is wrong!?!

This tragedy does not sit squarely on the shoulders of reverse racism, it was only a contributing factor to the poor choices of a supremely selfish couple of young and charming men. I miss both of them and I'm angry with both of them. I'll never get the chance to express either sentiment with one of them.

Thursday, February 16, 2012



: the act or process or an instance of narrating


1 a : of, relating to, or constituting the grammatical mood that expresses the will to influence the behavior of another
b: expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation
c : having power to restrain, control, and direct

2: not to be avoided or evaded : necessary <an imperativeduty>

Let us acknowledge our own stink...
Here, let me turn my podium around for one sermon and preach this one to the choir.  Right as we are, ain't none of us being real right or completely real with ourselves, never mind being real with the Left.  I aim to join the fight to write a new national narrative.  One based on facts in evidence rather than scares and emotional responses to them.  Because we on the right claim the nanny government is killing individual self determination and self preservation, we should be aware and vigilant to prevent this reliance on nannying within ourselves.  I find we are neither aware nor vigilant.  In fact we squeal just as loudly and just as foolishly as our opponents when one of our entitlements is targeted for elimination or reform.  This is an appeal to get the right behind the cure to Liberal imperatives for the faith community to pay for abortion on demand.  This is an appeal to re-establish the moral authority to demand value of life for the unborn and elderly and disabled.

You who know me, know I have intimate experience with the cost of recreational drug use on a family.  I have lost relationships with immediate family members and nearly lost two more.  Most telling, I could have been lost to drug addiction and culture myself.  I mention this to preface my take on one issue in the discussion here, that I do not speak without compassion for the drug addicts and their spouses, children, siblings, parents, and friends.

While researching the success of Marxist ideology infiltrating our culture, I had a discussion with someone near and dear to me and I thought to demonstrate a right ideology to her.  She agrees with my conservative principles completely, and she agrees with the detrimental effects of nanny governing on the black community in the inner cities.  She agrees with me on the comparison of Democrat controlled cities and states with Republican controlled cities and states and their respective levels of peace and prosperity.  She agrees with me on the detrimental effects on our ability to self preserve via nanny government's war on poverty.  She agrees with me on the right and need to have access to weapons for self preservation.  However, she cannot see the detrimental effects of the nanny state on our ability to self preserve via the war on drugs.

I have compared it to the legalization of alcohol with all that reasoning.  I have described with evidence and reason the results of legalizing drugs in the Dutch culture.  I show the statistics that drug use has fallen and the quality of drug through standardization has risen making them safer to use.  The effects of drug use on the greater culture has greatly improved with fewer drug related deaths by infectious disease, overdose and automobile accidents plus the crime rate has fallen due to the reduced prices of recreational drugs and the elimination of profit to the street dealer.  The facts that kids have greater access to illegal drugs than legal alcohol, that criminals are rewarded with extreme profit for criminality, that law enforcement along with everyone else lose respect for the rule of law due to unreasonable dictates; do not matter.  No amount of information is going to affect her opinion.  Even though I know her to be a reasonable person willing to consider the evidence and evaluate the value of each policy, she 'knows' drug use will increase and crime will increase because 'everybody' will start doing it.  She is an ideologue.  If I press at all, I can expect an emotional explosion.  I'd rather keep our relationship than continue the discussion with her.  You on the other hand, I want to win over at all costs.

Ann Coulter is sitting in the same pew and just as vehemently argues for the drug war without investigating the actual statistics and consequences.  She was a guest on John Stossel's show when John presented these same statistics and this is one of the few times, perhaps the only time I've seen, Ann could not back her arguments by quoting off the top of her head the supporting studies, reports and stats for her position on any issue.  Ann, I think we can all agree (in the choir room) is reflective, thoughtful, and knowledgable on the most controversial issues of our day, yet here she stubbornly and blindly clings to the 'facts she knows' which just aren't true.  Enough conservatives are as much ideologues on this topic that it was established and remains law for 40 years when it is neither supported by the constitution nor the studies' data, nor the consequences.  We are as much ideologues on legislating our morality as the Liberals are on legislating fairness which is their morality.
[By the way, Ann is going to be in San Luis Obispo at Cal Poly Feb 28, 2012 and I intend to be there.  I love to watch her argue a red streak through the blue territory that is California's college campus.]

God help the politician who dares eyeball the Social Security boondoggle for reformative action. It may have been born on Liberal agenda, but it's now populated by both Democrats and Republicans and neither party has the political capital nor will to address it.  President Bush attempted to by designing a progressive move to real investments, but the outcry from all sides shut him down rather decidedly.  Which recipient of benefits who is ready to tear his head off, would not have done a better job with this responsibility were he left to his own devices?  Nanny government underpays him the return on his investment because they decided to spend that investment (rewarding further poverty culture via welfare) and count on future generations entering the system to pay the return on the older accounts.  Exactly the same scheme Bernie Madoff was convicted on.

Everyone knows this government sponsored 'Ponzi Scheme' is going to collapse, but nobody is willing to address it because it is a politician's instant career suicide.  It is the living illustration of centralized management sold to the people by the New Deal and Great Society presidents.  "You little people, don't worry your pretty little heads about your retirement, we'll take care of it for you."  And the vast majority of the liberty culture swallowed that promise hook, line and sinker.  Most never gave their retirement another thought until it came time to collect.  Practically, the entire nation went to sleep on this issue until someone said, "It's failing."  No matter how bad it is, nobody wants their benefits pulled or cut and nobody wants to protect new victims from being forced to pay for the old ones' present day benefits.  At some point, we have to acknowledge the victims of government are screwed and whatever happens to political Bernie Madoff types, nothing is going to bring back the squandered wealth.

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation."  John Adams
My point is, you don't know the level of your own indoctrination into the Marxist infiltration.  The Overton Window draws the Right to the left with the Left's extreme, inexorable movement into Marxism.  Everything we know as normal is far from reasonable or natural truth.  How many times have I mentioned, "Everything I thought I knew was a lie?  Everything I've been taught through education and main stream media and political speech is a manufactured narrative about the evil consequence of Christian morality and American imperialism."  The conservative may talk liberty, but in reality we are as addicted to the Nanny government as the entitlement culture screaming "Eat the rich" at Wall St.  The only difference is which nannying and based on what ideal.  We eat the wealth of our young.  OWS has some credibility based on 'what's good for the old is good for the young.'  That my friends is not the American value and spirit of liberty.

Whatever your position on the recreational drug use issue, you have to acknowledge we have used up to and including deadly force to eliminate this behavior.  In full knowledge of the failures of SSI and Welfare and thousands of other socially irresponsible programs implemented by force of law, we continue enrolling new victims into legislated moral imperatives.  You can't expect to be taken seriously if you spout "Leave us alone" in one breath and espouse, defend or ignore conscripting legislation in the next.  If you want to be credible on value of life and sexual deviance issues, you need the credibility which comes with consistency to carry the authority of real and honest morality.  You can't demand your share of 'the promise' while the program burns the next generation.

This is where the Liberal and the Libertarian choose representatives who oppose your ability and willingness to dictate their behaviors and announce their intention to legislate their own moral imperative over you.  You are only getting a tiny taste of left wing moral imperative with Obama's government arrangement to have national insurance pay for abortions and morning after pills with an unfunded mandate of your insurance premiums in direct opposition to your faith.  Our moral imperative to legislate our personal level of morality onto the broader culture is exactly what the founders sought to avoid.  They knew and spoke often on the greater restriction of immorality being the inner imperative rather than the fiercest, even deadliest outer imperative for a moral society.

Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness . . . it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof." Continental Congress, 1778 
"Men, in a word,must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet. Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the U. S. House 
"(T)he foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; ...the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained..."  George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789 
Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. NorthWest Ordinance 1787

Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity. . . and, in subordination to these great principles, the love of their country. . . . In short, of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.
Samuel Adams Letter to John Adams, 1790, who wrote back: "You and I agree."

History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion. . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.
Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin 1749, p.22

We have been a rich nation relatively speaking, for a very long time and most people do not relate to real poverty.  This point is especially true due to the fact the authorities keep informing us the poverty level is somewhere between 'can't afford a new car every year' and can't afford my over valued house payment.'  Real poverty is known as 'can't buy my baby treatment for colic or whooping cough,  can't buy my near naked 10 year old girl clothes, can't buy myself a meal today or this week or this month.'  Never mind the folks marching on Wall St. expecting corporations to abide by their standards.  Standards which include severely limiting the amount of money successful people keep from their earnings in a year and diverting anything over that amount to people who will not work.  Now imagine if their morality is forced on the greater American culture.  All liberty is lost.  The foundations of our great society will have been shattered.  All merit and reward will have been eliminated reducing the founders' dream to a failure at last.

All of these programs which are designed to take our self concern and assure our personal security for food safety, car safety, drug safety, alcohol safety, play safety, work safety, education, health care, self defense, retirement, endless etc's., work at putting to sleep the awareness of life's many dangers.  They teach the culture government is responsible to guarantee you safety and health and success, even happiness.  These ideas are the exact opposite of our founding fathers' vision.  Is this our vision for America?  If not, what is and how can we reach it?  If so, how can we get back to it?  I'm assuming the founders happened on something unique in history and we should be taking every drastic measure to preserve it.

There is only one moral authority to demonstrate right over wrong, good over bad, wisdom over folly.  The founding fathers did it and they paid the price for it.  We have to choose for ourselves the same kind of sacrifice they demonstrated for our own moral authority to fix the ills of our culture as they chose to fix the ills of theirs.  I have little faith in the culture I observe to join me in this quest because it requires deep sacrifice.  Few in history are willing to pledge their lives, their wealth, and their sacred honor together for a cause few can envision much less live out.  The Black Robe Brigade are missing in action. The ability to articulate the vision, the need, and the reward is a rare commodity in a culture spiritually napping being fattened on licentiousness and ease.

The cure to immorality is awareness of the consequence of immorality.  Step between a fool and his folly and the fool hates you and when he drives you away goes right back to his folly.  Allow the full weight of his consequences to rain down on him, maybe he will self correct and maybe not.  However, you see to the education and council of your child in observance of the fool and your child is saved by witness.  As a culture people learn quickly the value of self preservation with minimal council and learn a fresh value for the best sources of wisdom.  What we have such a hard time accepting is the inability of government legislating morality.

Yes, laws against murder and theft are legislating morality.  Don't miss the forest for the trees.  You couldn't legislate away alcohol use or abuse and you can't legislate away drug use or abuse.  We tried it and got the mafia and international gangs and street wars for our efforts.  You can legislate value for life if you have moral authority that comes with consistency.  You can legislate the moral imperative to value gender identity if you have moral authority.  What you can't legislate is whether people will choose to participate in unhealthy, self destructive, risky, shaming behavior on an individual basis.  Allow the culture to deal with 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' behaviors.  If the individual, self aware and responsible for his own welfare, is not deterred there, they will not be deterred by law.  So what is the point in making them wards of the state?  Save your state funds, you won't need as many police, as many jails, as many hospitals, on and on it goes.  Instead, use the unspent wealth on free councilors, clinics, recovery programs when the self destructive fool grabs a momentis lucidity and decides he needs reprogramming.

Are you receiving a government check?  You are the problem.  Are you advocating government do anything?  You are the problem.  Are you unprepared or unwilling to volunteer your skills, time and wealth to wean any willing soul off the government tit?  You are the problem.  That does not equal the sacrifice of our founding fathers.  Yours is an easy sacrifice by comparison.  If you have one demand to make of government, it should be consistent.  It should be 'stop.'  Stop spending what isn't yours, stop mandating responsibilities, stop criminalizing personal choices.  If you tax it, repeal the tax.  If you regulate it, repeal the regulation as far back as is functionally possible.  Leave the people to their own devices, their own wits, their own compassion for one another, and their own self determination.  If authority to act isn't mandated in the Constitution the founders gave us, DON'T ACT!!  If authority to act is mandated, act ONLY WITHIN THE STATED BOUNDS!!!

As painful as it might be, we must begin to pull the wooly rug out from under the welfare, grant, subsidy, SSI, aid, unemployment, disabled, government check recipient.  More to the point, we must begin to pull the wooly blanket from off the eyes of America's entitlement class.  We must unite the TEA Party and the OWS mob under one agenda to cram government back in it's limiting box under the authority of the Constitution via the Enumerated Powers Act.  If we stop eating the youth, perhaps they'll stop threatening to eat the successful.  If they'll stop marauding thuggery, perhaps we'll stop dismissing their voice.  They are angry because they are without hope.  You should be angry too, but your anger should be used to guide their anger, rather than making them the target of your anger.  They didn't enter Marxism by choice.  You sent them into the lion's den.  You agree with Marx more than you know.  They're your national progeny.

If you want a city, county or state to disallow drugs, alcohol, or tobacco - fine, do it at the local level and allow people to go where it is legal if they want it and illegal if they don't want to be near it.  Between the lesser powers, they can experiment and find out the level of freedom the people are willing to live with or without.  However, at the federal level, we have to stuff government back under the constraints of the Constitution.  If OWS and the TEA party can agree on anything, it should be this much.  If you wish to continue the moral wars via legislature, be prepared for a U.S.S.R. style black market and criminal underclass.  Be prepared for their police state and be prepared for an Arab Spring style collapse because our spoiled butts are not willing to live under a morality mandate from the Right or the Left.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012


Narrative Part II
What is the narrative?


  [nar-uh-tiv]  Show IPA
a story or account of events, experiences, orthe like, whether true or fictitious.
a book, literary work, etc., containing such astory.
the arttechnique, or process of narrating:Somerset Maugham was a master of narrative.

Politically Correct

Before investigating the roots of communism in our culture and especially in our colleges, I presumed the dissidents were working very slowly to remain undiscovered, but that assumption proved why assumptions can get you killed.  In fact, from 1967, this counter culture morphed within two years and grew like a metastasized cancer of revolutionary violence from the education industry onto the broader culture.  Those entering the institutions of higher learning are predominantly impressionable young adults still pliable from parenting. (which is the instillation of discipline and virtue)  Twenty years after the close of WWII, parents were astonished to discover their kids were filled with horrific ideals upon returning home from college.  They went to college Christians and came home not just unbelieving, but atheist antagonists toward all religions but especially Christianity.  Went patriotic, came back anti-American.  Went dependent on church and local community for compassionate outreach and came home making demands on government for compassion programs, making passionate arguments for Socialism.  Went ready to join the productive community and returned prepared to collapse the economy and grind down American values.

In many circumstances the graduates are not made aware of these ideas' origins.  They are simply sold and believe in the communist principles without knowing or having questioned their consequences.  So they take these values with them into their workplaces and social circles and apply them as their default choice to correct perceived problems or even contrive problems to correct capitalism's weaknesses.  Later on, they may hear a charismatic define Communism then become an overt advocate of this failed system, otherwise they remain a silent advocate.

Many intelligent voices on the right are former Democrats who say their party moved away from their values.  The extreme Left moved the Democrat Party from promoting self preservation and self determination to government protection and dependence.  That is only the 'change' recognizable to the average citizen eventually (30 years in the making) enraging them enough to get into the fray and oppose their agenda push through the TEA party demonstrations.  That visible change is what drove me to investigate the 'movement' further.  Now that I'm looking deeper, the 'change' is terrifying.

We recognize it by the business management of personell including diversity training and affirmative action hiring policy, by the transmogrified Democrat Party and among the supposedly conservative Republican party, many representatives who act and advocate for government intervention through sweeping policy, programs and regulation sometimes crossing party lines, sometimes writing their own version of centralizing powers and always in complete disregard of the limited powers prescribed by the founders in the founding document.

What began as compassion motivation, (leg up programs) morphed into the dependence motivation, (handout programs) which attract huge campaign donations and special interest PAC (Political Action Committee) activist support.  You will never hear a Democrat politician today, call for the people to "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." of earlier Democrats.  The right have their share of massive program defenders as well, though they mouth the smaller government sentiments of the conservative core.  When conservative president, George W. Bush asked Congress to move Social Security Insurance from government management to private sector investment under strict guidelines, the conservative base matched the left in cries against the move as too risky despite the glaring facts proving the present system is due to bankrupt and collapse within our present retirement community's lifetime.

See if you can find a tax payer subsidized college with a U.S. history program emulating this kind of pride in our heritage from 1924.  Find one which is even willing to mention our form of government is the longest lasting in all of history.

Our Ten Contributions to Civilization

A native of Ohio and a graduate of Ohio State, ARTHUR M. SCHLESINGER was appointed to his professorship at Harvard in 1924. As a teacher and author he is internationally respected for his knowledge of American history, and in the paper that follows he reminds us that over the years this nation has made its weight felt more by ideas than by wealth.


The United States is often considered a young nation, but in fact it is next to the oldest continuous government in the world. The reason is that the spirit of its people has always been empirical and pragmatic, dedicated to equalitarian ends but willing to realize them by flexible means. In the European sense of the term, America's major political parties are not parties at all, because they do not divide over basic ideologies. Neither wishes to overturn or replace the existing political and economic order; they merely desire to alter it at slower or faster rates of speed.
One of our proudest achievements has been the creation of a system of controlled capitalism that yields the highest living standards on earth and has made possible a society as nearly classless as man has ever known. The profit system as it has developed in America is a multiprofit system, sharing its benefits with all segments of society: capital, labor, and the consuming masses. Yet even this was not due to a preconceived blueprint; it too was the result of trial and error. Unprincipled businessmen had first to be brought to heel by government restraints and the growing power of organized labor before they came to learn that they must serve the general good in pursuing their selfish interests. Now labor is feeling the restraint.

The Power of Critical Theory

The after affects of a culture losing it's foundation of morals (through the communist ideal in the institutions of higher learning mocking and shaming students who profess any faith) is accepting the idea that the ends justify the means.  Any unjust action can be justified as long as their 'intention' is to improve the general welfare of that society.  (The very same ideal which produced the killing fields of Polpot, the Gulags, the Holocaust, and every Socialist violent revolution in the last century all over the world.)  Providers of the news and information services have, on a personal level opted to use their positions to advocate agendas against their own stated industrial set of ideals.  In effect, they create and repeat a national narrative, a cloaked criticism (by highlighting the worst of virtue encouraging individuals, organizations, and events while highlighting the best of their opposites) of Christianity, U.S. involvement in foreign affairs, and of the spread of Western values in Eastern cultures.  In this way they are shifting the Overton Window so the general populace accepts the new 'normal' perspective.
What we would have considered taboo and a fatal nominee flaw a few years ago, is suddenly okay evidently. Sex in the White House? Not a problem… Cheated on your wife and divorced? Not a problem… Buddy around with known radicals and Marxists? Definitely not a problem… And the Overton Window slides inexorably to the left.
This dramatic movement from a culture of independence and self preservation to foolish, self destructive dependence does not happen in a free and open society without a massive, all encompassing propaganda program.  Once planted in the fertile soil of inexperienced youth, the communist agenda took root and in short order no longer needed the instigators and funding of the collapsed foreign influence.  The indoctrinated began authoring their own propaganda and strategizing their local interests.  This group continues the original intent to 'grind America's values down' and function as a fifth column using our values of individual liberty and virtue to turn us into the self hating fools you now observe on the evening news agitating for selfish concerns.  Those guys are only the visible agitation to manufacture and get their issues noticed.  The next level is the news agencies who pick up the narrative and project it into the national discussion.  Another group use our laws and courts to force the issue into the decision process.  Finally, still another group uses Political Action Committees to elect and lobby individual and party politicians.

That, my friends, is why the (political center) Libertarian advocacy against promoting morality in education and culture is untenable.  Our founders knew the nation could not survive without morals and they stated the best and almost only source of cultural morality is the Christian church in our culture.  Those same founders ensured rights and freedoms to all religions based on their experiences with the Crown of England, but you have to face some realities.  Not all religions are peace and order loving or even life loving.  Without morality liberty cannot exist.  In a national and generational sense, one cannot exist without the other.  The closer the values, not necessarily the religion, the more cohesive and stronger the national identity.  Very few cultures value true liberty.  Most value and respect authoritarianism manifested in various degrees of socialist nations.  When the people tire of the abuses that go along with such systems, they revolt and prop up a new authoritarian.  This style of governance has no demonstration of lasting more than five generations under one form of government regulated by one Constitution and identified by one name.  Either they die with their charismatic or strong leader or they replace him through violence.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012


Introducing the Narrator.
Part I
Noah Webster's original dictionary defines

Narrator: n. One that narrates; One that relates a series of events or transactions.
Narrative: a.

1. Relating the particulars of an event or transaction; giving a particular or continued account.
2. Apt or inclined to relate stories, or to tell particulars of events; story-telling.
But wise through time and narrative with age.

Mr Webster had a different understanding of story telling than is recognized today.  He presented a narrative as a factual telling of events while today the definition includes incorporation of the teller's perspective a.k.a. advocate or prejudiced.

McMillan Thesaurus
A story or an account of something that has happened.


In the late 1800's, the communist experiment began to gain notoriety in nations around the world, mostly through revolutionary dissidents.  Marx' book had been studied in think tanks and institutions of higher education of the day and was seriously debated.  Having no track record to evaluate, it was considered a viable alternative to the nobility class rule and capitalist societies imitating the success of the United States.  The U.S. was itself a
"grand experiment" in new forms of governance and enjoyed a rapid growth in popularity among commoners due to it's liberty guaranties and to the ruling class due to it's property rights guaranties as well as economic, military, technological and political success in it's first 120 years.

Even so, as all governments do, it has it's warts and abuses and being a free society with plenty of internal criticism, the faults were on prominent display for the whole world to see.  These faults stood out in a time criticism wasn't allowed in most countries still under kings and emperors and had never been a part of their traditions of governance.  This was the environment which bred the rise of communism and fascism in the early 20th century everywhere but would find fertile ground in Germany, Italy, Russia, and China along with many less consequential countries.
Note:  There is little difference between nationalists and Marxists as both always wind up under totalitarian rule.  Communists dispute this as an ideology but the requirement for a popular or charismatic leader and the oligarchic regimes they wind up under demonstrate their uniform nature.  The only difference being whether the winners of the prize of rule were the instigators or their opponents, generally an agent from the overthrown government's military or national police force.
These Marxists appeared to be agitators and instigators of violence with stated goals of overthrowing their own rulers and governments.    The rulers were literally observing the effects of communism on foreign soils as well as hearing the dissident elements in their own people.  Obviously, this worried the powers that were and should worry the powers that are.

The Bolshevik Russian revolution of 1917 and Lenin's crew of 6 worked diligently to fill the power vacuum with centralized power and centralized management down to individual thought.  Ironically, Lenin absorbed many of his methods and ideals by translating The Theory and Practice of Trade Unionism from American class warfare in labor struggles.  As a fledgling government, Russia called for international communists to volunteer in the Spanish Civil war to defeat the internationally sponsored Nationalists.  Spain's civil struggle served as a proving ground for Germany and Italy on the fascist side and Russia along with many communist societies from 53 free states in Europe and the Americas on the other side.  Russia rewarded some 2800 survivors of the George Washington Brigade and the Abraham Lincoln Brigade with funds and materials they could use in their own country (U.S.) as dissidents once their service was completed in Spain.  This occurred between the two world wars 1936-1940.  While the allies worked alongside Russia against Germany in the second world war, the commie hunt in the U.S. was laid aside.  At the end of WWII, the cold war began and the commie hunt was on again bigger than before.

From the earliest days of the cold war with the U.S.S.R. the K.G.B. (their spy agency) were planting dissidents in our midst at key points to influence our culture and advance communist ideals in our society.  They weren't the first communist influence on U.S. soil but they were the more strategic effort.  These plants managed to initiate and inflate the already present communist counter culture in our entertainment and education industries as well as labor and crime syndicates.

Everyone with any knowledge of American history knows some part or version of the story of Senator Joe McCarthy who charged a list of State Dept. public servants with anti-American activities.  These people were brought before Congress and interrogated on live TV with very little evidence being substantiated.  McCarthy earned scorn for his efforts because he used intimidation and rumor to ruin innocent peoples' careers and finally failed when his attention turned toward members of the U.S. military.  Three years before McCarthy gave his infamous 6 hour speech on the Senate floor, the HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee) investigated and called for 324 film industry professionals to be banned from film production based on their affiliation and/or activities with Communists.  Similarly, at least five universities dismissed an unnumbered cast of university professors based on their refusal to testify before Congress' HUAC prior to McCarthy's stint.  By 1952, 47 states introduced and passed anti-subversion legislation, most of which still stand.  Ultimately unsuccessful, these attempts to cleanse the culture of communist inculcation essentially died through McCarthy's infamy bringing down a somewhat justified pillory of the Republican party.

From the AAUP's own website I found this revelation.  The sequence of events marking the turn around allowing university professors unaccountable free reign to subvert American culture in our tax money subsidized lecture theaters were a series of Supreme Court decisions reversing prior Supreme Court decisions.

"In a series of important decisions, the Supreme Court reversed itself on several anti-Communist decisions to reaffirm First Amendment principles, and the AAUP issued vocal “Friend of the Court” statements to help the Justices make the right decision. The first of these was Sweezy vs. New Hampshire in 1957, where it was decided that University of New Hampshire lecturer was well within his rights of academic freedom to refuse to answer state attorneys questions regarding the content of his lectures. In 1964, another important case, Baggitt vs. Bullitt, declaring loyalty oaths unconstitutional, involved the University of Washington, once more at the forefront of a national trend, this time in the right direction. The final significant reversal of Red Scare policies on the part of the Supreme Court came in 1967 in Keyishian v. Board of Regents which essentially declared it unconstitutional to prevent the hiring of university faculty as a consequence of their political views."

This makes me wonder who placed these Justices on the court.  Shock and surprise, 6 of the first 9 to contribute to these decisions were placed by Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt who is the only president to serve 3 terms in office, (sparking bipartisan Congressional legislative intervention to limit the number of terms a president may serve)  The Supreme Court was capitol L Liberal dominated beginning with Roosevelt's court packing 6 Justice placements (sparking bipartisan intervention Congressional legislation.) then followed by Harry S. Truman Democrat who placed another 3 followed by Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican who placed 4 then John F. Kennedy Democrat placed 2 then Lyndon B. Johnson Democrat who placed 2.  One Republican in the lot placed only 4 justices throughout this series of decisions.  At the time of this decision there was one justice on the bench who would have been considered a hardline ideologue, William O. Douglas, and he was liberal.  Five others were moderate liberal, two more were moderate conservative and one was centrist.  FDR would have assumed a kingly role had the Congress not blocked him on two major fronts including limited terms and court packing.  He was the very definition of the leader the founding fathers feared would assume the office and the prime example of what they attempted to preempt by separating the powers of government.  FDR fought tooth and nail to overcome these designed limitations attempting to centralize power in a national fascist fashion.

While I am the first to recognize the importance of keeping an environment safe for the arena of ideas, especially for a discussion of best policy options, this important principle is currently being employed as the defense for anti-American brainwashing techniques (not hyperbole, actual COMMUNIST propaganda from self professed Communists and now includes their marriage to Islamic propagandists) for which the government and the private citizen pays vast sums of wealth.  The college campus is uniquely servile to their methods because the students are committed to being there financially as well as having the family authoritarian pressing them to do well with their very special opportunity, essentially making them a captive audience.  Similarly, Public Broadcasting is engaged in the same operation obviously scaled back because their audience is not captive and their ratings demonstrate their success and failure. (until last March, also on the taxpayers' dime)

Back on topic.

Fifty years from graduation, their generation have infiltrated every part of our culture including all careers requiring a higher education level.  However, the evidence is nowhere more apparent than the Marx controlled news and information industry.  These are big business corporations and their service is run as a business.  In other words they choose their stories and present them in a way that attracts the consumer.  So they are more a form of entertainment industry than an information provider.  Ergo the newsy phrase, "If it bleeds, it leads."  The editors, anchors and producers cannot present every news worthy current event, thus they are required to pick and choose among the offerings presented by their reporters.  As a corporation, they focus on the melodramatic entries to attract the consumer which rewards the reporter who focuses on and presents the melodrama.  Corporations have always been held in low esteem since the inculcation of propaganda in corporate strategy.  In other words, they lead our opinions to convince us we cannot be happy or even survive without their product or service just to increase their profit margins.

This is different than the abdication of personal virtue and morality.  News and information corporations depend on the product of the communist ideologue infiltrated institutions of higher learning for their new staff.  The industry must hire professionally trained people to present the current events to the consumer in a precise and clear way the consumer can quickly grasp and understand and digest.   The indoctrinated college graduates become indoctrinating news industry staffers.  Similarly, law offices need researchers and other staffers to write and review legal documents which meet the exacting standards of the legal industry.  Again, the current educators are required to have teaching degrees before they can be hired on to a school.  Hollywood is a different animal but the dissidents have also been planted in this industry and they also have many graduates from the indoctrinating colleges sufficient that these two industries reflect one another's beliefs and values.  Between these four industries, an impressive number of dissidents have been placed in control of all our information services as well as a major political party and many higher courts including the Supreme Court.

Therefor, you must evaluate what is the most successful form of government and which form you prefer to live under.  If you have any awareness of actual history rather than what you've been indoctrinated with you will value the original American form.  If you then care to preserve or reform it then investigate the historical record for yourself, and do it well enough that you can defend it's principles anywhere and at anytime.  You must know 1. what is the root of American culture 2. what is the majority of American culture 3. how has that majority's rule treated other religions 4. what are America's real faults, 5. what are her virtues and accomplishments 6. the values of other religions differ from the majority's (in some cases diametrically opposed) and you are going to lose even the possibility to maintain peace and liberty without setting some guidelines for which values are profitable for our culture.  Know how to articulate this information and how to describe your reasoning for the new requirements and standards for Americans.

I am not suggesting we attempt to eliminate other faiths.  What I am suggesting is national and legal venues to encourage our own religion as well as the religions who's values are nearest our own and discourage those with values opposed to the American ideal of peace, respect for life, and freedom.  The absolute necessity of preserving the only bastion of liberty in the world based on rights (not assigned or given by man and therefor not adjustable or susceptible to opinion) requires every man and woman to proactively promote the injection of moral discipline everywhere in our culture.  Every other constitutional government is based on rights assigned or decided by man and are subject to the malleable opinions of generations.  With regard to the theo-political phenomenon of Islam, the onus is on them.  If they cannot self correct, if they are unwilling to correct the radical elements within their own ranks, then deportation, incarceration, and execution for violent crime in the name of their faith is in order.  By the way, this is the exact same treatment we have exercised with Christians' offenses.

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Under construction see below for links to articles, above for links to topics.

 Please be patient, this site is under construction.  It should much easier to study the topic you're interested in when it's done.  See buttons above to search archived articles by topic and see links below to see articles chronologically.

Monday, January 23, 2012

The Folly of Fools

A while back, Glenn Beck authored a book called, "Arguing with Idiots."  In it, he quotes the arguments (talking points) of the extreme left, right, and other ideologues and then responds to them with what he considered reason and logic.  Focusing as much on the 'funny' as the truth as he understands it, he employed a great deal of condescension for the 'idiots.'  It could be argued the 'idiots' provide the fodder for their own character assassination.  I don't think Glenn is proficient at or even concerned about arguing with 'idiots' in a way that comes off as (agapeo) loving as described in my "Other Centered" article, 'making knowledge acceptable' but his intention IS for the betterment of society and of the 'idiot's' own welfare.  However, he has hit on the one correct tactical response to a fool's argument.  With all the authority of an adult caretaker of an undisciplined child, insist on right, good, reason, truth speaking and accountability.

For my part, the Christian is cautioned not to use the term 'fool' in condemnation of a person.  Matthew 5:22  "Rhacca" or 'worthless' could be translated into 'dangerous' and 'deadly.'  That being the case, charges of 'fool' interpreted as dangerous to our culture could literally wind up with death penalties for ignorance and honest mistakes and anyway, God never intended we clean the culture by death penalty for ordinary folly.  Everyone is foolish.  It must be so, because all sin is foolish self destruction and yet, everybody sins.  Literally, every person on earth is deserving of the death penalty in that case and what did He hang on the cross for?  Therefore, Christ told us we would be in danger of hellfire for character assassination.  

In the circumstance of arguing with a fool, if one is not able to be authoritative, he appears as foolish as the fool.  However, if he is able to be authoritative, whatever remains of the fool's good reputation is destroyed by his own mouth in comparison to the authority of truth.  

Our Lord did not condemn the assessment of a person’s character, but the assassination of one’s character.  We're supposed to assess who is and is not a fool for several reasons, but again with the caution not to go around charging fools and condemning them, justly or not.  The first reason we must assess the recipient's condition is for self preservation.  Fools are dangerous critters.  They hate and lie and slander and worse, frequently with no more incentive than an inherent blood lust.  
The second reason is to measure our answer according to their ability to receive it.  The more immature and undisciplined the mind, the more care required in presenting the truth to make it acceptable or palatable.  It's literally like gaining the trust and respect of a child and leading them to reason out truth for themselves.  "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him" Proverbs (22:15).  The opening of a closed mind is usually a matter of respect and eventually, trust.  Some of the reasons a mind is closed is based on prejudice or judging in advance of investigation.  Some prejudice is based on real experience of abusive authority.  Still other prejudice is unwarranted, self serving wickedness.  
The third reason we must assess the recipient's spiritual condition is to further meet them in the area of their need.  A drug addict needs assistance in kicking his habit while an Anarchist ideologue needs a swift kick in the pants.  No? Okay, maybe its life coaching, but the kick would make ME feel better.  (that wasn't other centered was it?)

Thus it is that I cautiously step up onto the soapbox to laud arguments with fools to expose their folly.  My own abilities to articulate the truth to fools is far from where it should be at my age or even at my spiritual age. (the point at which I began to accept and employ the precepts the Bible promotes until now.)  As noted again, in my "Other Centered" article, God provides the ability at the right time and any attempt outside of that supernatural embodiment of His power to love in Agape', is nothing if not getting in the way of His agenda.  At the same time, I am to be prepared to give every man an answer for the hope that is within me.  In that endeavor, I try to be keep up with current events and historical knowledge as well as studying the Bible under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit.

In the spirit of objective truth, lets examine what behaviors exemplify folly.  It isn't what we've been led to think of as folly by Hollywood movies and slapstick humorists.  That's simply a projection of imaginary well intentioned oafs.  The traits of the foolish are listed in the 26th Chapter of Proverbs and they ain't well intentioned or oafish in most cases.  In fact, many fools can argue a blue streak and with the current state of the state-run schools promoting anti-wisdom mantras like, "Don't judge people" and "Truth is subjective" fools are purposefully filled with pride and feel justified in loudly and obnoxiously projecting their foolish opinions on the rest of the culture.  In my mind, that means we Christians have a huge task ahead of us to combat the misinformation in the form of self deluded popular opinion presented every bit as authoritative as revealed objective truth.  If we're not too far behind the curve of mass delusion, perhaps we can pull our culture back from the brink of self destruction.  On that score, I agree whole-heartedly with Glenn Beck.  I also agree with Ayn Rand on at least one point.  Truth must be preached over and over again, constantly for the express purpose of defeating harmful ideas. eg. 'social justice'  Truth must be intellectually defended from the ravages of self delusion and evil manipulators.  Now lets dig in to the meat of revealed truth.

<< Proverbs 26 >>
New American Standard Bible

Similitudes, Instructions
1Like snow in summer and like rain in harvest,
         So honor is not fitting for a fool.
No one is prepared for a cold day in the summer, neither is anyone prepared to honor fools.  Rain on a crop ripe for harvest delays the harvest at best and ruins it entirely at worst (with mildew or stripping winds and hail)  So is the building up of a fool's pride harmful to the community.
2Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying,
         So a curse without cause does not alight.
Blessing and cursing require the employment of faith.  Curses require the addition of the believer's righteousness and evil deeds or unrighteousness on the part of the recipient.  Contrarily, the enemy curses the righteous and the unrighteous, the former any way he can and the latter with deceitful promises in an effort to get them to do his bidding.
3A whip is for the horse, a bridle for the donkey,
         And a rod for the back of fools.
To make any beneficial use of the animals, often they must be given an incentive to do as instructed.  Similarly, with fools an authority figure must find and provide immediate incentives to the fool to behave as necessary to benefit the community or even themselves.
4Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
         Or you will also be like him.
Emotional responses or arguments without forethought bring your character and reputation down to the level of the fool.   You wind up impressing no one and improving nothing.  Your behavior is indistinguishable from the fool's.
5Answer a fool as his folly deserves,
         That he not be wise in his own eyes.
There is nothing so destructive to a society as the pride of a fool.  He goes about spreading his fool's agenda until challenged by an authoritative speaker of the truth whereupon his foolishness is exposed and his agenda scrapped.
6He cuts off his own feet and drinks violence
         Who sends a message by the hand of a fool.
The author didn't have a word like 'handicaps' so he described a literal handicap (self inflicted) and compares this self destruction and public danger by his willingness to place responsibility and trust in the hands of a fool.
7Like the legs which are useless to the lame,
         So is a proverb in the mouth of fools.
A fool is incapable of discerning wisdom and truth.  He will misinterpret the proverb and thus the proverb being misapplied is comparable to dead weight as opposed to useful appendages.
8Like one who binds a stone in a sling,
         So is he who gives honor to a fool.
A stone swung in a sling that does not release it's load will continue it's round until it collides with the wielder.  In other words, "you'll knock your eye out, kid!"  No society can afford the presence of a proud fool.  Honoring him will increase his pride and empower him to spread his folly into others.
9Like a thorn which falls into the hand of a drunkard,
         So is a proverb in the mouth of fools.
A drunk is more susceptible to auto responses and one such natural reaction to something touching the skin of the hand is to automatically close the hand on the object that strikes it.  Closing the hand on a thorn is going to force that thorn to pierce the skin.  That's what a proverb does to the fool's character and reputation through his repeating it out of proper context.
10Like an archer who wounds everyone,
         So is he who hires a fool or who hires those who pass by.
This proverb reminds me of the old cartoon with Injun Joe in which one of his compatriots would always be behind another Indian during battles.  When he let fly his arrow it always conked his friend in the back of the head.  The employer is charged with choosing industrious and virtuous people to hire.  Without foreknowledge of their character, he is taking a great chance in hiring a foolish character.  The foolish character is dangerous to be near, especially in a work environment where people are focusing their attentions on their own duties instead of the dangers created by the fool.
11Like a dog that returns to its vomit
         Is a fool who repeats his folly.
Yes, dogs actually do eat their vomit and yes, fools actually do repeat the same mistakes over and over again as if without memory or reason.
12Do you see a man wise in his own eyes?
         There is more hope for a fool than for him.
Troubling information that fools are not the worst society has to offer.  Worse is a man unable or unwilling to seek or even accept correction in his behavior and purpose.
13The sluggard says, “There is a lion in the road!
         A lion is in the open square!”
Note the terms switch from fool to sluggard but the theme continues.  He will lie to make excuses for not doing what he knows he should be doing.
14As the door turns on its hinges,
         So does the sluggard on his bed.
He quite literally groans as he rolls over just like a door on squeaky hinges.
15The sluggard buries his hand in the dish;
         He is weary of bringing it to his mouth again.
It's a pretty extreme case when a person cannot be bothered to feed himself.  These few sluggard proverbs are meant to exaggerate the case so the sluggard can laugh at his own ways and therefore accept correction.
16The sluggard is wiser in his own eyes
         Than seven men who can give a discreet answer.
Again, but this time not for humor but for force to point out his unwillingness to be corrected.  The seven men wise enough to provide discretion are able to measure their answers to make knowledge acceptable to the recipient.
17Like one who takes a dog by the ears
         Is he who passes by and meddles with strife not belonging to him.
You have to be blind to the consequences, self destructive, looking for a fight, or supernaturally tasked and empowered to insert yourself into another's self destruction.
18Like a madman who throws
         Firebrands, arrows and death,
Ever heard the phrase, "Looking for trouble?"  This seeker will find his goal in short order.  A prime example comes to mind that has lately made the news.  "Suicide by cop."  A perpetrator of crimes is relentless and unswerving in his attempt to challenge the police with deadly force until they're forced to act in preservation of innocent life, their own or bystanders.
19So is the man who deceives his neighbor,
         And says, “Was I not joking?”
A poor disguise or a thinly veiled ill intention.  This phrase is so prevalent in present day culture it needs no further interpretation.  "It was a joke!  Don't get mad!"
20For lack of wood the fire goes out,
         And where there is no whisperer, contention quiets down.
Contention is not the normal state of relationships.  It requires the fuel of an evil spirit to keep stirring up relational problems.
21Like charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire,
         So is a contentious man to kindle strife.
Compares the fuel and the fire to evil spirits and unwitting people.  The wicked want to destroy relationships.
22The words of a whisperer are like dainty morsels,
         And they go down into the innermost parts of the body.
Tempting is the drama of contention to boredom and the strife of contention easily finds the core of our relationships.
23Like an earthen vessel overlaid with silver dross
         Are burning lips and a wicked heart.
Once one becomes attracted to drama, they are unworthy to keep company with, for seeking harm to the community.
24He who hates disguises it with his lips,
         But he lays up deceit in his heart.
The malcontent knows their character is unattractive so they attempt to hide it while simultaneously planning and acting out wickedness.
25When he speaks graciously, do not believe him,
         For there are seven abominations in his heart.
Once you recognize this character, just know their intention is to do harm to your relationships and murder your character and reputation.
26Though his hatred covers itself with guile,
         His wickedness will be revealed before the assembly.
Eventually, the truth always comes out and it does so in a public way no matter how well camouflaged.
27He who digs a pit will fall into it,
         And he who rolls a stone, it will come back on him.
Evil people get caught in their own traps.  They cannot discern their self destruction nor it's cause frequently blaming the innocent, but the discerning spirit recognizes the handiwork as being their own.
28A lying tongue hates those it crushes,
         And a flattering mouth works ruin.
Helps to define hatred as ill intentioned.  Flattery undeserved, has an agenda and it is never set for wholly beneficial purposes.  It is designed to win the favor of one who can be used to do evil by proxy.

Other verses scattered around the book of Proverbs include:

Leave the presence of a fool, Or you will not discern words of knowledge (14:7).
The proactive Christian is tasked with pre-purposing his mind and will to be subject to one influence.  That of the Holy Spirit.  Prior to Jesus' ascension after having defeated death and Hades, the faithful did not have these tools.  Even so, to this day we are repeatedly cautioned to guard our hearts from wicked desires and evil temptations.
Let a man meet a bear robbed of her cubs, Rather than a fool in his folly (17:12).
If you have not prepared your heart for this fool's specific folly, you may be subject to his influence.  That one encounter can be enough to send you off track for the rest of your life affecting your family and everyone you ever rub shoulders with.
Drive out the scoffer, and contention will go out, Even strife and dishonor will cease (22:10).
Echoes 26:21-28 but most specifically 26:23 and provides the more proactive "Drive out" the fool, referred to in this case as the scoffer and in verse 9:7,8 counters the scoffer with the wise.
Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him (22:15).
The child is still open enough to respect and trust the loving righteous authority in their lives to be corrected.  It may frequently not seem so, but the consistent loving and righteous authority figure will inculcate a deep and lasting effect.
He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself, And he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself. Do not reprove a scoffer, lest he hate you, Reprove a wise man, and he will love you (9:7-8).
This is self preserving wisdom.  It prefers the open mind to the closed mind.  Jesus encouraged every believer to go to all the world with the Gospel.  He forewarned His disciples that they would be hated and persecuted for His name's sake.  This call to 'follow Him' specifically includes the examples He set on the cross, eg. death.  The dishonor stated above is lost at the point of 'other centeredness' and 'other concern' revealed in our personal sacrifice for the sake of the lost and self destructing fools.  Paul described himself as a 'fool' for Christ because the 'wisdom' of Christians is folly in the eyes of the secular world, not for lack of Christian reason or logic, but because of the fools' disregard of reason and logic.

Okay; enough.  If you want more, keep going but you're going to have to look them up and contemplate them under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit yourselves.  Let me just close by saying, the issue of folly and wisdom is one of the heart.  You cannot really reason folly out of the fool, neither can you teach him not to be a fool, you'd be hard pressed to beat the folly out of a fool.  No, in God's time, with loving kindness present the Good news of God's accomplishment on our behalf.  Until the fool is prepared to receive that fundamental truth, he will reject your proof and resent your insinuation that he is at fault for anything.  By the way, Christians are certainly not immune to folly, thus the warnings to avoid the fool in his folly.  Its contagious.  You are however, empowered by the Holy Spirit to discern truth and you should proactively use the time at hand to study the Bible for pre-confrontation preparation against the day you are stuck in an elevator for hours with a wicked fool, or faced with the folly of your teens on a cross-country drive.  I'll have to share the situation God put me in to give me the incentive to study the stuff He wanted me to study in His Word, someday.  Either of the above situations would have been preferable.

Desire realized is sweet to the soul, But it is an abomination to fools to depart from evil (13:19).
Doing wickedness is like sport to a fool; And so is wisdom to a man of understanding (10:23).
Fools mock at sin, But among the upright there is good will (14:9).
The lips of the righteous feed many, But fools die for lack of understanding (10:21)
Why is there a price in the hand of a fool to buy wisdom, When he has no sense? (17:16).
A scoffer seeks wisdom, and finds none, But knowledge is easy to him who has understanding (14:6).
Wisdom is too high for a fool, He will not open his mouth in the gate (24:7).
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction (1:7).
The mind of the intelligent seeks knowledge, But the mouth of fools feeds on folly (15:14).
A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind (18:2).
Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, For he will despise the wisdom of your words (23:9).
Wisdom is in the presence of the one who has understanding, But the eyes of a fool are on the ends of the earth (17:24).
There is precious treasure and oil in the dwelling of the wise, But a foolish man swallows it up (21:30).
A fool’s vexation is known at once, But a prudent man conceals dishonor (12:16).
A fool always loses his temper, But a wise man holds it back (29:11).
A prudent man conceals knowledge, But the heart of fools proclaims folly (12:23).
The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable, But the mouth of fools spouts folly (15:2).

He who conceals hatred has lying lips, And he who spreads slander is a fool (10:18).
The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way, But the folly of fools is deceit (14:8).
Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity Than he who is perverse in speech and is a fool (19:1).
The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable, But the mouth of fools spouts folly (15:2).
The lips of the wise spread knowledge, But the hearts of fools are not so (15:7)
Because they hated knowledge, And did not choose the fear of the Lord. They would not accept my counsel, They spurned all my reproof So they shall eat of the fruit of their own way, And be satiated with their own devices. For the waywardness of the naive shall kill them, And the complacency of fools shall destroy them (1:29-32).
A fool rejects his father’s discipline, But he who regards reproof is prudent (15:5).
A scoffer does not love one who reproves him, He will not go to the wise (15:12).
A rebuke goes deeper into one who has understanding Than a hundred blows into a fool (17:10).
Though you pound a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, Yet his folly will not depart from him (27:22).
Scorners set a city aflame, But wise men turn away anger (29:8).
The devising of folly is sin, And the scoffer is an abomination to men (24:9).
The way of the fool is right in his own eyes, But a wise man is he who listens to counsel (12:15).
He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, But he who walks wisely will be delivered (28:26).
Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight. Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the Lord and turn away from evil (3:5-7).
Leave the presence of a fool, Or you will not discern words of knowledge (14:7).
When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest (29:9).
In the mouth of the foolish is a rod for his back, But the lips of the wise will preserve them (14:3).
A fool’s lips bring strife, And his mouth calls for blows. A fool’s mouth is his ruin, And his lips are the snare of his soul (18:6-7).
Luxury is not fitting for a fool; Much less for a slave to rule over princes (19:10).
Strike a scoffer and the naive may become shrewd, But reprove one who has understanding and he will gain knowledge (19:25)
“How long, 0 naive ones, will you love simplicity? And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing, And fools hate knowledge? Turn to my reproof, Behold, I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you (1:22-24).
“Come, eat of my food, And drink of the wine I have mixed. Forsake your folly and live, And proceed in the way of understanding” (9:5-6).
A much more thorough dissertation on the topic of fools can be found at