As I reflect on 2015 and some of the significant events that occurred, I think the Bruce Jenner story sticks out. I know, terrorism and mayhem have dominated the news. The Donald is a political phenomenon, and there are at least a dozen other very important and headline grabbing milestone events that happened in 2015.
I don't see the Bruce-to-Caitlyn transformation itself as the big story. I see something far more substantial, and illustrative than that. The story of a world famous, gold medal Olympic athlete, a man who dominated several sports for over a decade, and then went on to be a giant of advertising and reality TV, is not the story.
Bruce Jenner's gender transformation is just the symptom of something much bigger...
The Real Story is how his issue of gender confusion, his moral struggle with his identity, with hiding his internal war from not only his immediate family, but from an eager and intrusive media for the majority of his life, is the more important lesson. Because, like our own cultural deconstruction, our internal cultural struggle to redefine what America stands for, who we are in relation to our world community, and what we want to achieve for the next generation, Jenner's story is the story of our current cultural illness.
For lack of a better term, I will call it American Identity Dilemma Syndrome. America has AIDS. Bruce's battle parallels our modern American cultural clash.
Our beloved country is at a crossroads. We have raised a couple of generations of young leaders to believe everything my generation was taught about America is a myth. That it's history is a fraud perpetrated by selfish white, male slave owners who never gave up their privilege, and still manage to dominate the world through misrepresentation of history and international corporate control over all major assets and our government military industrial complex.
Many believe, after years of institutional indoctrination, that it is time for America to get brought down to the most common denominator of other European and African continent countries. To give up our privilege, our implicit preference for western popular culture, for control of the earth's resources and white male oriented big businesses.
President Obama has stated similar sentiments many times. He developed his resentment towards the America I know after years of exposure to the Reverend Wright, and his political mentor, Saul Alinsky, and from earning a degree at Harvard.
As much as the War On Women, the War On Drugs, Poverty, Climate Change, Intolerance and Violence are indigenous to the news, our children are being conscripted, knowingly or not, into a worldwide, multi generational war of another kind.
The Bruce-to-Caitlyn Story is a caricature of a worldwide battle to redefine the nature of American power, and Judeo-Christian based morality and culture. It is, as it has been for Bruce, a painful turning point in American History, and I believe is only the beginning of a lifetime long War On The American Way.
"I wonder if it’s possible to be a Republican and a Christian at the same time."
- Hillary Clinton
I have often wondered why Hillary has such a visceral hate for Republicans. When she goes on a political tirade she saves her most vitriolic verbal firepower for Republicans. Her irrational anger at such a generalized group is in stark contrast with her so often stated desire to 'bring people together,' that I think there is something much deeper going on than just political rhetoric.
I think she has a 'Daddy' problem.
Why would a candidate for the office of President of a country with deep Christian roots, make such an insulting and inflammatory suggestion? Her political handlers either failed to control her, or she simply doesn't care because she can't control the urge to expel her pent-up anger at the memory of her Republican dad. If she really believes her statement, what does that say about half the population of the country? Is she trashing Christians or Republicans, because you can't have it both ways, can you?
Remember, her dad Hugh was a rock-ribbed Taft-era Republican that railed against taxes, unions and government aid programs. Historic documents, and to some degree even Hillary's own biography, indicate Hugh was also abusive. As a young high school and early college student, Hillary was also a Republican. At some point in college, she went the other way. Big time.
Could that have been a direct rejection of her father?
She is definitely an overachiever, sometimes an indicator of some childhood conflict. She never misses the chance to point out that she is, in case you missed it, a women. The kind of gender insecurity often displayed by victims of childhood abuse.
She is considered a student of Saul Alinsky, author of the handbook for leftist activists, 'Rules for Radicals.'. He was the inspiration for her Senior Thesis (the one she suppressed for many years). While in college, she showed immense anger at the 'status quo' while participating in campus campaigns for student and minority rights in the late 60's. One of Alinsky's primary rules for political mobilization was the need to have 'an enemy.' It wasn't enough to represent people's problems and demands for government action. According to Alinsky, to properly activate the populace, to achieve real political power, one must have an enemy to play, to use to create an emotional fervor from the electorate. To mobilize and to radicalize, leaders need a straw dog to beat.
Hillary wrote, “Alinsky argues that those who wish to change circumstances must develop a mass-based organization and be prepared for conflict….for him, conflict is the route to power.”
As she again runs for the Presidency, Hillary is making right leaning conservatives, overwhelmingly religious, the target of her assault on perceived injustice and repression, especially against women. Hillary, when she addresses her familiar and sycophantic base, rails against Republicans, sometimes in an unrestrained and over the top rant. She speaks of them with the kind of anger and fervor her opponents save for terrorists. Or abusive men.
Is it possible Hillary uses her resentment of her Father as motivation?
I know from personal experience that some people harbor deep seated anger, resentment and fear from childhood abuse patterns. They can suppress these anxieties during most everyday activities, but they occasionally surface in times of emotional or psychological stress. Sometimes the symptoms are exposed in subtle, unintended phrases that imply irrational hostility towards a person or thing that is perceived as a substitute or equivalent to the source of the anger.
And they can sometimes channel that emotion for inspiration.
But to suggest Republicans can't be Christians? Why, because of the stereotype of Republicans as mostly angry white men, who beat their wives and girlfriends, who drive gasoline eating pick-up trucks with shotgun racks, that hate blacks and homosexuals, fit conveniently with her repressed anger over the dismissive attitude and absence of love she felt from her dad?
I know what she is implying, that Republicans have no heart, and Christians do. But doesn't that trivialize the core beliefs of Republicans? That God has given all people the tools to be self sufficient, to help one another, to not rely on government or any other force to provide for the family. That freedom is God-given but comes with responsibilities, to both the individual and to society. The Republican platform that government is owned by and should forever remain subservient to the citizen, and that marriage and the family is the foundation for the continuation of the human race...
And that Human Life is sacrosanct.
Uh oh, that might just explain everything, because unlike her earlier years in the public limelight, she is now Pro Choice! She claims that she has had an awakening, that she is now the champion of choice because women should be in complete control of what happens with their bodies.
I can sympathize with women who were abused as children by their father. It definitely leaves scars, and it is not their fault. Childhood abuse robs kids of their innocence, and can affect their entire lives negatively. It is a real affliction and I don't mean to marginalize the impact, but as a national leader, it is incumbent upon her to recognize that nearly half of the country, no matter what the issue is, is not going to be in complete harmony with her perception of the problem or the solution. And that nearly half of the voters are men. Mostly good men. Men who work hard, who sacrifice to provide for, protect and cherish their families and their wives. Men who do not abuse children, or relegate women to a second class position in their life.
So it would behoove Hillary to recognize that though men and women do have differences, as do people of religion, they are all Americans too.
It is the job of our leaders to reconcile those conflicts, not to exacerbate them. It is hard to take her claim to be 'Everyday American's Champion' seriously when she so indifferently dismisses the fundamental belief systems of nearly half of the United States population.
Hillary got run over by The Trumpster
On her way to the White House Christmas Eve.
You can say there's no such thing as Santa
But as for me and Grandpa,
She'd been drinkin' too much Cool Aid
Liberals urged her to 'Go-Girl-Go!'
She tripped over her own misstatements
Now The Donald's puttin' on 'The Show.'
Will we find Hillary Christmas Morning
At the scene of a campaign train wreck?
Will she have The Trump Logo on her forehead
And a pile of Bubba's baggage on her back?
We are so proud of Bill, he's been taking this so well.
See him on the Sunday talk shows
Talking highly about 'Hil'
And their marriage made in Hell.
It's not a fair race without Hillary,
But our Country is cloaked in black.
Voters just can't help but wonder:
Should we put her in the Oval Office,
Or should we send her back?
(Will Bill take her back?)
I've warned all my Friends and Neighbors
My buddies at the Bar
Never give the Presidency
To someone who can't tell the Truth
Or drive her own car.…
Hillary got run over by The Trumpster
On her way to the White House Christmas Eve
You can say there's no such thing as Santa
But as for me and Grandpa,
Apologies to Elmo Shropshire
In July of 2015 a EU poll claims that 70% of Europeans believe Israel is the single biggest threat to world peace. If this is a valid poll (maybe, maybe not) it only confirms the idea that Anti-semitism is alive and well.
Oh, and one other factor. The more 'educated' the person responding to the poll was, the more likely they were to agree. Why is that?
There is only one way anyone would take such a poll, or the sentiment, seriously, and that is if that person has been subjected to years of Academic Indoctrination. Before I spend one second discussing the history of Israel and the war of attrition her neighbors have conducted against Israel's existence, I would like to ask one question:
Is the existence of Planet Earth threatened by ants?
How on Earth can anyone with half a brain really think that a little country in the middle of nowhere is the 'single most threatening force to peace' is beyond comprehension. A country whose very existence was a result of the worst episode of genocide in human history. Israel was set up by the UN to offer a respite for millions of persecuted Jews after Hitler nearly murdered them into extinction. Now, those people who were complicit in helping him and his hordes of anti-semites are, 67 years later, still complaining that Jews commit crimes against humanity.
Really? What a crock.
The truth is, Academic faculties around the globe continue to promote the anti-zionist propaganda on college campuses as though it were fact. They teach that Jews are running all over the world (like Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists actually are) causing mayhem, murdering and stealing the dignity of all non-Jews on the planet. Our American college community is a major accessory to the crime of twisting the truth, and promulgating anti-semitism.
Fundamentally, anti Israeli hatred is all about anti-Americanism. It can all be traced to factions that have lost power to America and its allies since World War II. And as the most important supporter of Israeli democracy and self determination, America stands in the way of tyranny.
Sharona Silver, a UCSD student, writing as an advocate of the Stand With Us Emerson Fellowship, points out the virulent anti-Israel atmosphere on many UC campuses.
"The annual zenith of the (Anti-Israel Movement) campaigns is a series of well organized Israeli 'Apartheid' weeks across North America. These (demonstrations) include mock checkpoints, in which students portray Israeli soldiers abusing Palestinians, graphic depictions of Israelis as Nazis, and accusations of Israeli genocide, ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity."
Genocide? Ethnic cleansing? Crimes against humanity? Ask the Chinese, the Russians, anyone in the African Continent, the South and North American Continent, in Australia, or virtually anywhere on the planet, except the Middle East. Israel, and the Jewish Religion are non-factors. Yes, there are pockets of anti-semitism around the world, but there is no Worldwide effort to fight a war against Judaism, because Judaism is not at war with the World.
In the US, we talk about taking a closer look at Muslim mosques to root out extremism, but what about American Academia? If exempting American Academia from scrutiny for perpetuating anti-Americanism just because the campuses are mostly non-Muslim isn't a form of bigotry, I don't know what is.
Just what will it take to wake up Americans to expose those who would pervert our tolerance and respect for diverse opinions, to spout true 'hate speech' without consequence? While, on one hand spending vast amounts of resources pursuing and penalizing questionable student harassment cases, 'hate speech' about the LBGT and Muslim communities, our college administrators are, with the other hand, blatantly sanctioning anti-semitism.
It is this internal academic dyspepsia that is contributing to the insidious creep of Islamic Fundamentalist Radicalism around the planet, and weakening our resolve as a Nation to banish it forever.
The Academic Propaganda War on our youth is infuriating because it is going on right under our noses. It is time for Federal dollars to stop flowing to support the collegiate crock pot of crackpot ideologies.
Watching the Republican Debate, I couldn't help but be concerned with the obvious impression that none of the candidates are really ready to take down Jihadism. When talk show host Hugh Hewitt asked Dr. Carson the emotionally loaded question, "Are you ready to kill hundreds of thousands of people" in the War on Terror, I was outraged.
That is not a question that can be answered in the format that is allowed by the media managed debates. It is a big question with an even bigger answer. But to ask it in that fashion puts the candidate in a position of having to redefine the Rules of Engagement in War.
That may be needed, but it points out a whole bunch of much bigger issues: Is America willing to fight this war at all? Is this generation, who have been shielded from any exposure to the true carnage and human destruction of war, capable of authorizing an all out effort to bury the enemy in ruble?
It hasn't indicated that it is. The fact that Obama was reelected proves that. So the question should have been, "Do you believe the Country is ready to do what it takes to win a War? Is it ready to kill hundreds of thousands of the opposition if it is necessary, and if so, as Commander In Chief, would you direct our military to take such serious steps to end this reign of terror in the World?"
What we are doing now is not fighting. We are executing a worldwide media 'optic.' We are eating around the edges, making a lot of noise, taking out a few high ranking gang leaders, but you cannot call our efforts a war. Our military is so tied up with PC restrictions, they may as well have both arms tied behind their backs. If our military had been unleashed in Iraq, the Jihad Movement would have been cut off at the knees. And, unfortunately, a lot of innocent, or at least unarmed citizens would have died.
Just like in Germany and Nagasaki.
What worries me is that I am not sure any of the Republicans, or any Democrat, is ready to 'go to the mats.' And, ergo, I am concerned that our leaders, our Fools of Engagement, are simply incapable of persecuting a winning war strategy.
Standing in the security line at the airport, I watched as a young boy cried loudly. His mother trying to console him, but to no avail. His hoverboard had just been confiscated by the airline attendant. He was notified that the hoverboard was banned and would be kept for pickup in the lost and found. The attendant said that all airlines were banning hoverboards because of the possibility that their lithium-ion batteries might spontaneously burst into flames.
The nine or ten year old didn't understand the issue he just wanted to take the hoverboard to the Family reunion.
There have been a series of recent incidents where the sometimes poorly constructed batteries have short-circuited and the boards suddenly start burning. Imagine that happening in the cargo hold of a passenger plane, or even worse, a UPS cargo plane .
Some people have criticized the decision to ban the boards, but isn't prudent to avoid such a potential tragedy if possible?
After an investigation is performed and a determination is made about the particular manufacturer or battery type, maybe the boards can be allowed again. In the meantime, it would be foolish to risk a major airline disaster over such a innocuous but potentially dangerous toy. It wouldn't matter if it were a computer or a cellphone. If it has a history of spontaneous combustion it needs to be kept off the plane until it can be proved to be safe.
Kinda like Muslim immigrants coming into the US with little or no verifiable background information...