Wednesday, December 31, 2014



EPISODE ONE: (2010 to 2014) Tea Party Movement wins many seats in the Congress and at the state houses in the greatest series of GOP victories in the 20th and 21st centuries and begin Republican Star Wars.


The Tea Party Rebel Movement will respond, so stay tune for EPISODE THREE where the rebels attack the GOP DEATH STAR in Washington, D.C.


First it was the Boston Globe. Then came the New York Then Politico and Bloomberg – and now CNN.
The Jurassic media is on the march, and their goal is to help the Republicans nominate Jeb Bush in 2016. In order to achieve this goal, they have started to soften the battlefield of ideas with their stockpile of shallow psychological tactics.
This is just the same old psy-ops the left always tries. And why not? It almost always works on the Republican establishment in Washington. Inside the GOP-e in DC, reality does not matter -- only polls and media opinions do. It’s Orwellian, as we can tune in and watch polls and media opinion work it’s voodoo on elected officials like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, not to mention wizards like Karl Rove and other clueless Republican “strategists.”
You’ve probably seen this. It’s fairly obvious. We remember that the mainstream media helped John McCain get nominated in 2008 and then Mitt Romney in 2012 -- and immediately made sure both got crushed in the General Elections. Of course, McCain and Romney were favored by the media in the first place because neither could expose the inherent problems of liberal big government or espouse a clear vision.
And this media narrative -- which all too often this includes so-called conservatives like Brit Hume, Charles Krauthammer, and George Will -- is always the same. It goes like this:
Republicans must appeal to moderates and independents… Republican brand in trouble so must not seem too Republican… fake right in the primary and then go middle for the general…. cannot criticize the black guy, or the girl, etc, because soccer moms in Ohio will hate you… blah blah blah.
It’s the conventional wisdom, but it’s not wise at all. It fails the test of history, and this should not be any secret. A glance back shows us that one undeniable truth explains almost every election result -- midterm and general -- for the last 35 years. The truth is this: when the perceived ideological gap between the parties is large, the Republicans triumph.
When that gap is perceived to be small, then the Democrats win. When it’s neither large nor small, elections can swing either way and are always close. The key word here may be perceived, as sometimes it is real and sometimes not.
Consider some history:
In 1980 and ‘84, Ronald Reagan’s campaign message created a massive ideological contrast with both Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. The result? Two colossal wins, the second one including a 49-state sweep. In 1988, under the perception that he was going to give us four more years of Reagan, and with far left Michael Dukakis on the other side, George H.W. Bush rolled to an easy win. The perceived gap was wide in all three cases.
In 1992, after Bush had been outed as a moderate – and with Bill Clinton’s Southern good ole boy accent and Ross Perot obfuscating the ideological climate, the Republican incumbent limped into the ash heap of history with but 38% of the popular vote. It was a crushing defeat. Things were muddy.
In 1994, however, with Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America recreating an enormous philosophical chasm versus the Democrats and HillaryCare, the Republicans won 54 seats in the House and took over control of both chambers of Congress. It was historic. In 1996, however, the disastrous ticket of Bob Dole and a neutered latter-day Jack Kemp was not able to draw any distinctions with Clinton and Perot -- and the result was another Democrat blowout.
Are we spotting a trend here yet? Well yes, we are, but it’s probably escaped Mr. Rove’s notice.
There was no coherent message from the GOP in the ‘98 midterms, and they lost pretty badly, considering it was the second-term midterm for Clinton. The only hard-core conservative message in the country was the successful third-party campaign of Jesse Ventura, who never realized it, and thus governed like a moderate and saw his administration end in disaster. The point is, when conservatism was shown as an alternative, it succeeded. Even from Ventura, who happened onto conservatism by accident and unknowingly.
In 2000 and 2004, the leftward bent of both the Gore/Lieberman and especially Kerry/Edwards tickets created just enough ideological space for Republican victories for the philosophically nondescript Bush/Cheney Campaigns. In the 2002 midterms, the Paul Wellstone memorial service uncovered the radical nature of the Democrats in Congress on national TV just days before the election -- and this led to another Republican success that defied pre-election polling -- by exposing the ideological gap.
What happened in 2006 was a GOP disaster -- caused by many things -- chief among them the weight of six years of squishy leadership from W and Congress, including during the campaign. (Yes, Foleygate was a factor too). Of course, we know that 2008 and 2012 produced two Republican disasters, as neither McCain nor Romney were willing and/or able to draw the sharp distinctions ideologically.On the other hand, ideology was very distinct in 2010 and 2014 -- albeit without the RNC’s help in 2014 -- and both of those midterms were historic wins for the GOP again.
The math is clear: for over 34 years. When there is a big gap, Republicans win. Period. The opposite is true when the gap is very fuzzy and perceived as small. End of discussion.
And I submit that the Jurassic media and some in the Democrat establishment know this. This is why they were carrying out psychological operations in 2011 about how much the Democrats “feared” Jon Huntsman. Yeah, right. The same thing was going on to an extent in 2007 about John McCain.
So today, of course, it’s all about Jeb Bush, and how inevitable he is and how formidable and of course “reasonable” he is. They tell us to nominate him if we want a chance to beat Hillary.
Conversely, they warn us we are destroying our party when someone like Ted Cruz shuts down the government. Even the out-of-touch Wall Street Journal chimed in on that one, calling Cruz “the minority maker.” Perhaps they should check the scoreboard from November.
They also warn us not to pay attention to Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin or Sarah Palin or the Tea Party. They warn us not to oppose amnesty or ObamaCare. They do all this, of course, because luminaries like Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin, not to mention the media establishment, care so deeply about our sustainability as a party, you know.
And yet, it continues to vex and scare the Republican establishment. (But that’s another column). In the meantime, keep an eye out for more Jurassic media love for Jeb Bush. This time, I don’t think it will work. 

Tuesday, December 30, 2014



Muslim cleric: Even black men who smell bad get into Paradise

For years, Muslim Brotherhood groups and Islamic supremacists have worked feverishly to co-opt the race narrative from civil rights groups here in America. Seeing the success of “white guilt” pushback, Muslim groups have long mythologized imaginary “islamophobia” as “racist,” despite the fact that Islam is not a race. Further, there is no ideology more racist […]READ MORE




White privilege caused this riot...But don't ask me how.


"And thus I clothe my naked villany
With odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ,
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil."




Since Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu were assassinated in their patrol car on December 20 there have been more than 50 incidents of reported threats against NYPD officers. But the targeting of police is happening all across the country.

On Sunday, officers patrolling in Los Angeles and Pasco County, Florida were shot at in unprovoked attacks, and on Thursday, Durham, North Carolina police officer J.T. West successfully thwarted an assassination attempt eerily similar to the NYPD attack earlier this month.

A department spokesperson said Officer J.T. West was sitting in his marked patrol car working on a report when he saw two suspicious men coming up from behind his car near an abandoned apartment building.

West got out of his car to speak to the men, but before he could say a word, one of them pulled a handgun from his waistband and fired six shots at the officer. One of the bullets struck the police vehicle.
West returned fire, getting off two shots as he ran for cover across the street. West dove behind a staircase in the abandoned apartment complex, injuring his wrist as he fell. […]

The man who fired the gun was described as a black male, 18 to 25 years old, approximately 6 feet tall with a skinny build. He was wearing an oversized black hoodie. The second suspect was described as a black male, 18 to 25 years old, 5 feet 8 inches to 6 feet tall and weighing 180 to 200 pounds. He was wearing a light-colored jacket.

Had Officer West not noticed the men approaching the rear of his vehicle, things would have ended very differently. And despite the fact that the incident mirrored the NYPD assassination, my colleague Bob Owens over at notes that the attack has been largely ignored by the mainstream media:

The obvious copycat nature of the attack and its near success was simply ignored by WRAL and wasonly noted in passing by ABC 11. The RaleighNews & Observer—infamous for their support of eugenics and backing the Ku Klux Klanin the only successful coup against an elected government in American history—likewise failed to mentionthe obvious similarities to the assassination of the two NYPD officers.

The national news media has not mentioned the attempted assassination at all, though it continues to fawn over the “social justice” revolutionaries using the mythologies of “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” and “I Can’t Breathe” as they disrupt lawful commerce, attack police officers, riot, and loot private businesses.

It’s open season on police, and, sadly, there’s no end in sight.

(VIDEO-AT-LINK) Townhall ^ |




By Alan Caruba
You don’t have to be a soldier or diplomat to ask whether President Obama’s withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan on December 31 is a good idea or not. Consider what happened when he withdrew our troops from Iraq in 2011. The answer to that is the Islamic State which filled the vacuum left behind.

On December 25, Obama addressed troops stationed at Marine Corps Base in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. He told them that their service had given Afghanistan a chance “to rebuild its own country” whatever that means. Having been invaded over and over again for centuries, one wonders what country Obama was referring to.
“We are safer,” said Obama, “It’s not going to be a source of terrorist attacks again.” This is an illusion. Obama cannot make such predictions anymore than the Afghans can. So far, when it comes to foreign policy, Obama has a nearly unbroken record of failure

Leaving Afghanistan, Repeating Iraq


As we take stock of 2014, I come to two conclusions:
1) It was the year of the Obama devaluation.  His currency, prestige, and standing suffered a great deal.  It's hard to see how he recovers and finishes strong, like President Reagan or President Clinton.  His job approval may go up, but he is too divisive and toxic to turn things around.
2) Liberal ideas had a very bad time, specially in the 2nd term.  Liberal ideas are not gaining traction anymore, as Kurt Schlichter wrote:
2014 was the year when the rest of America saw the truth. And the truth will force normal Americans to choose sides.
Do they stand with a president who lies to them about his health scheme, or with conservatives who seek to dismantle it?

Will they stand with liberal feminist radicals who want to ruin their sons’ lives to score political points, or with conservatives who demand due process for all?

Will they stand with the cop-hating, anti-American degenerates, or with those of us who support the men and women who ran into the burning World Trade Center?   
It’s an easy call. We saw a preview last November, but the real precursors were 1968 and 1972. Will the Silent Majority stand with the flag-burners, the looters, and the bums, or again choose those who love this country and believe in self-sufficiency as well as self-determination?
Yes, it will be a very easy call in 2016 because liberals can no longer hide the truth.
We are not saying that liberals will stop promoting their ideas or stop using all of those despicable "cards" such as race, gender, or class warfare.  In fact, they may get more vicious as they see the handwriting on the wall.
The problem is that liberals have nothing to show for after six years of President Obama and a majority in the U.S. Senate.  Yes, they passed Obamacare, but it is very unpopular.  Yes, the 3rd-quarter GDP was good, but there are still concerns about wage growth or the number of people who've stopped looking for work.  And President Obama's foreign policy problems won't get any better, from ISIS to Russia to China.
The results aren't there, which is the main reason why many of their voters stayed home in 2014.  It's hard to see how Mrs. Clinton excites the Obama coalition to show up again.
Yes, 2014 was a terrible year for liberalism and liberals.  It is now up to conservatives to put their ideas on the table and start taking votes in Congress.


Sunday, December 28, 2014







Remember the old, "Girls Run Wild" television program?

We need a new weekly television show called, "Niggers Run Wild" with video of their latest riot.

Interesting that the biggest black race riots happens on holidays like the 4th of July, Memorial Day, etc.


Never have liberal ideas been so firmly entrenched within America’s core elite institutions. Never have those institutions been so weak and uninfluential.
These are frustrating times for the American left. Legislative power has slipped from its hands; the states are more Republican than at just about any time in living memory, and as President Obama nears the end of his term, it seems far more likely than otherwise that, Republican or Democrat, his successor will stand well to the right of the incumbent. As I noted in the first essay in the series, the foreign policy disasters and the financial crash of the George W. Bush administration opened a path to the White House for the most liberal President in history and gave Democrats overwhelming majorities in the Senate and the House back in 2008. Jubilant liberals believed that a new era had dawned, and when they weren’t comparing Obama to Lincoln, they were calling him the “Democratic Reagan” who would reset politics for the left just as Reagan once did for the right.
Six years later, the dream is looking shopworn. President Obama is deeply unpopular, the Democratic majorities are gone with the wind, and poll after poll after poll demonstrates that Obamacare, the Democrats’ signature legislative accomplishment in the Age of Obama, is more of an albatross around the party’s neck than a star in its crown.
Some of this could change. The slow but persistent improvement in economic conditions has finally begun to register with voters; consumer confidence is up and, if the economy continues to improve through 2016, President Obama’s poll numbers should strengthen. The racial polarization that so tragically spiked in the last three months could gradually fade away. And the concatenation of foreign policy and security disasters from the Libyan anarchy to the series of Syria and Iraq fiascoes to the Russian invasion of Ukraine could look less frightening and less like an implosion of America’s world position in two year’s time. The lame duck could still swagger off the stage in the end.
But right now that doesn’t look probable, even to liberals. Eric Alterman, one of the left’s most articulate advocates, summarizes the situation with his customary frankness in the Nation:
The Obama presidency has been a devil’s bargain for Democrats. Despite the considerable policy accomplishments to its credit, the administration’s political impact has been virtually catastrophic. Since Obama’s victory in 2008, Democrats are down seventy seats in the House and fifteen in the Senate, giving an increasingly reactionary Republican Party the power to stymie most if not all of the Democrats’ agenda. But this actually understates the damage. Democrats are now the minority in over two-thirds of the nation’s partisan state legislative chambers, their worst showing in history. In twenty-three of these, Republicans will control the governor’s office, too. (The corresponding number for Democrats is just seven.)
Alterman cites two core reasons for the disaster. On the one hand, Democrats haven’t recognized that many of the policies they like on “good government” grounds are political poison. In particular, Obamacare and the immigration amnesty are alienating voters:
The Affordable Care Act and the executive order expanding the rights of undocumented immigrants were certainly the right thing to do from the perspective of Democratic values, but both are politically poisonous at present. Obamacare undermines a key Democratic constituency badly in need of help: labor unions. The immigration order fires up anti-immigrant passion among working-class voters while benefiting an ethnic group—Latinos—whose voter-participation levels remain anemic, even allowing for the restrictive election laws passed by Republicans. 
Beyond that, Alterman argues, the Democrats’ turn to social rather than economic issues (gentry liberalism vs. populism) hasn’t been helpful. Focusing on “immigration, reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, gun control, etc.” at a time when real wages are stagnant or declining for most Americans is a recipe for political failure.
But this analysis, cogent as it is, raises another question: why were liberals so feckless in power? Why did they blow the historic opportunity that the Bush implosion gave them?
What liberals are struggling to come to grips with today is the enormous gap between the dominant ideas and discourse in the liberal worlds of journalism, the foundations, and the academy on the one hand, and the wider realities of American life on the other. Within the magic circle, liberal ideas have never been more firmly entrenched and less contested. Increasingly, liberals live in a world in which certain ideas are becoming ever more axiomatic and unquestioned even if, outside the walls, those same ideas often seem outlandish.
Modern American liberalism does its best to suppress dissent and critique (except from the left) at the institutions and milieus that it controls. Dissent is not only misguided; it is morally wrong. Bad thoughts create bad actions, and so the heretics must be silenced or expelled. “Hurtful” speech is not allowed, and so the eccentricities of conventional liberal piety pile up into ever more improbable, ever more unsustainable forms.
To openly support “torture”, for example, is close to unthinkable in the academy or in the world of serious journalism. For a university professor or a New Yorker writer to say that torture is acceptable under any circumstances is to court marginalization. A great many liberals don’t know anybody who openly supports torture, and a great many liberals are convinced that the concept of torture is so heinous that simply to name and document incidents will lead an aroused public to rally against the practice—and against the political party that allowed it.
Thus a group of journalists, human rights activists, and others relentlessly pursued allegations of CIA use of torture, not only as an important moral duty but also as an effective political strategy. It flopped. As we’ve seen, the revelations about CIA methods left most Americans still telling pollsters that they favor torture when national security is in question. “Torture” may be unthinkable to well meaning academics and human rights activists, but the argument hasn’t been won—hasn’t really even been engaged—among the broader public. The left silenced and banished critics; it didn’t convert or refute them. The net result of the liberal campaign to “hold the CIA accountable” wasn’t to discredit the Bush administration; the campaign simply undercut claims by liberals that the left can safely be entrusted with security policy. A group of liberal journalists and politicos worked very hard to make Dick Cheney’s day.
Similarly, the liberal hothouses that so many university campuses are today encourage students to adopt approaches to real life problems that, to say the least, are counterproductive. Take, for example, the recent attempts by law students at Harvard, Georgetown, and Columbia to have their exams postponed due to the stress they suffered as a result of the Ferguson controversy. “This is more than a personal emergency. This is a national emergency,” said the anguished Harvardians asking for an extension. Said the fragile and delicate souls from Georgetown,“We, students of color, cannot breathe…. We charge you to acknowledge that Black Lives Matter.”
One thinks of the school beneath the sea in Alice in Wonderland, where students were taught “reeling, writhing, and fainting in coils.”
Fortunately for us all, liberalism didn’t use to be such a pallid and shrinking thing. People like Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Thurgood Marshall, and Martin Luther King were, thank goodness, made of sterner stuff than the frail flowers of the contemporary Ivy League. The people who actually helped black people in American history down through the centuries faced more injustice, brutality, and casual public racism than our delicately and tenderly raised hothouse elites could imagine in their wildest dreams. Serious people understand that the existence of injustice is a reason to get tougher and work harder, not a reason to whine to the dean about your emotional turmoil. Truth, Douglass, Marshall, King, and tens of thousands of others knew that the people who want to change the world need to be tougher, smarter, harder working, and stronger than the people who don’t care. This may not be fair, but having emotional meltdowns over it won’t help you or anybody else.
Are these shrinking violets and sensitive souls really preparing for careers in the law? If you are a lawyer and a grand jury returns an unjust indictment against your client, are you going to come down with a disabling attack of the vapors that keeps you from concentrating on your legal work as you struggle with the unfairness of it all? If so, the legal profession is not for you. You need another and less challenging profession, perhaps involving the preparation of fair trade herbal teas for elderly Quakers in a quiet suburb somewhere.
But liberals today face more problems than cocooning. They face the problem that, even as the ideas in liberal institutions become ever more elaborate, intricate, and unsuited to the actual political world, liberal institutions are losing more of their power to shape public opinion and national debate. Forty years ago, the key liberal institutions were both less distanced from the rest of American society and significantly more able to drive the national agenda. The essentially likeminded, mainstream liberals who wrote and produced the major network news shows more or less controlled the outlets from which a majority of Americans got the news. There was no Drudge Report or Fox News in those days, much less an army of pesky fact checkers on the internet. When liberal media types decided that something was news, it was news.
If the Sandy Hook massacre had taken place in 1975, it’s likely that the liberal take on gun violence would not have been challenged. But these days, an army of bloggers and a counter-establishment of policy wonks in right leaning think tanks are ready to respond to extreme events like Sandy Hook. After the 2014 midterm, Gaffy Gifford’s old congressional seat will be filled by a pro-gun rights Republican, and polls show support for “gun rights” at historic highs. Liberal strategies don’t work anymore in part because liberal institutions are losing their power.
Meanwhile, many liberals are in a tough emotional spot. They live in liberal cocoons, read cocooning news sources, and work in professions and milieus where liberal ideas are as prevalent and as uncontroversial as oxygen. They are certain that these ideas are necessary, important and just—and they can’t imagine that people have solid reasons for disagreeing with them. Yet these ideas are much less well accepted outside the bubble—and the bubbles seem to be shrinking. After the horrors of the George W. Bush administration, liberals believed that the nightmare of conservative governance had vanished, never to return. Aided by the immigration amnesty, an irresistible army of minority voters would enshrine liberal ideas into law and give Democrats a permanent lock on the machinery of an ever more powerful state.
That no longer looks likely; we can all look forward to eloquent laments, wringing of hands, impassioned statements of faith as the realization sinks in. There will be reeling, there will be writhing, and there will be fainting in coils. In the end, we can hope that liberalism will purge itself of the excesses and indulgences that come from life in the cocoon. The country needs a forward looking and level headed left; right now what we have is a mess. 
Living Large in a Shrinking Cocoon 




Same Old Song & Dance.

Saturday, December 27, 2014


North Korea called President Barack Obama "a monkey" and blamed the US on Saturday for shutting down its internet services amid the hacking row over The Interview.
North Korea has denied involvement in a crippling cyberattack on Sony Pictures but has expressed fury over the comedy depicting an assassination of its leader Kim Jong-un. After Sony Pictures initially called off the release in a decision criticised by Obama, the movie has opened this week.
On Saturday, the North's powerful National Defence Commission, the country's top governing body led by Kim, said that Obama was behind the release of The Interview. It described the movie as illegal, dishonest and reactionary.
"Obama always goes reckless in words and deeds like a monkey in a tropical forest," an unidentified spokesman at the commission's policy department said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.
He also accused Washington for intermittent outages of North Korean websites this week, after the US had promised to respond to the Sony hack.


Nuthin' but...Feeeewings.

Friday, December 26, 2014



Paige Stalker might be alive today had she learned about R.A.T. - Routine Activity Theory.
But she is dead and two of her friends are critically wounded, the latest poster children for R.A.T.:  White people in black neighborhoods should expect to be the victims of racial violence.
Paige was one of five teenagers from an upscale neighborhood in nearby Grosse Point who were on their way to the movies three days before Christmas when they decided to pull over and smoke marijuana in Detroit.
While they were getting a high, a black man with a high-powered rifle approached their car and fired 30 rounds into it, killing Paige.
Paige and her friends learned the hard way what in 2012 became well known in a Chicago courtroom. The case revolved around a white woman who was released from jail into a black neighborhood. Hours later, she was thrown out of the seventh-story window of a local housing project.
Her parents sued the city of Chicago, saying the city should have known their white daughter would be a victim of violence in that black neighborhood.
That was the testimony of Harvard sociology professor Robert Sampson and what the judge said when he described R.A.T. The woman “was a white female in a predominantly black, poor neighborhood (and) she had a much higher risk of predatory victimization.”
The judge said the situation was so transparently dangerous that Chicago police “might as well have released her into the lions’ den at the Brookfield Zoo.”
The city’s lawyers claimed the professor was guilty of racial profiling and demanded the judge throw out his testimony. Judge Frank Easterbrook scorned that argument and approved a judgment against the city for $22.5 million.
While Paige and her friends were not aware of R.A.T., more and more teachers from around the country are required to teach its counterpart, Critical Race Theory: White racism is everywhere. White racism is permanent. White racism explains everything.
In San Francisco during one such training session, a teacher said she and her colleagues were required to close their eyes and feel shame because their ancestors owned slaves.
“We were told to put our heads down on the table, like little kids being punished,” the teacher said. “We were actually in a classroom, seated at kids' desks while they told us how we should be ashamed for the racism that created slavery and persists today.”
R.A.T. is not nearly as popular in high schools. But Assistant Police Chief Steve Dolunt of Detroit seems to know it pretty well, even if he does not call it that. Dolunt and his investigators are still trying to figure out how this crime happened. But this much he does know: Those upper-class rich kids did not have any business in that black neighborhood.
"The kids in Grosse Pointe -- they think it can't happen to them," Dolunt told the Detroit Free Press. ”People shouldn't blame the people in Detroit; your kids are buying drugs there.”
Colin Flaherty is an award winning reporter and author of the best selling book, White Girl Bleed a Lot: The return of racial violence to America and how the media ignore it. You can find many of the videos on racial violence mentioned in this article on his YouTube channel.


Robots can do the job for $9,400 24/7  and never get sick or join a greedy union that demands $15 an hour for minimum wage work.
Already robots have replaced human workers in a restaurant in China. Lu Dike, Owner of a family restaurant in the  northeast China provence of Zhejiang said he is opting to save on employee wages by foregoing traditional servers and using robots instead. Sound familiar?


Besides the savings Lu has experienced, the robots have become an enormous tourist attraction. The automated bots take orders and speak to customers with their forty phrase Mandarin Chinese vocabulary. Each bot navigates the restaurant by sensing magnetic strips in the floor and using optical sensing systems that keeps them from running into walls or people.
The robot costs over $9,400 each, but owner Lu Dike insists that he is still saving money over the long term, reports the Daily Mail. The robots have a lifespan of about five years and run on a rechargeable battery that lasts up to eight hours. Lu claims he is often asks if the bots are up for sale.
“I get asked at least once a day if I’m prepared to sell one of them.

 Who knows? Maybe it might be a good sideline.”
WATCH VIDEO: Robotic Restaurant Servers In Action


I love Christmas. It’s one of my very favorite holidays (the other being Easter). But it wasn’t always this way.
Truth be told, I detested Christmas for most of my life. I was a veritable Grinch. I started complaining bitterly around November about the incessant Christmas music blaring cheerfully in most stores and restaurants. How dare they impose their holiday on me? I’d fume. I’m embarrassed to admit that I once almost complained at a restaurant where I was dining with a friend, the day after Christmas. It was only because of my friend’s pleadings that I didn’t ask the manager to shut off those insufferable Christmas tunes.
But that’s all in the past. Now I am delighted by the first notes of a Christmas song played in my local supermarket or pharmacy. Everything changed for me a few years ago, my views on God and Christmas and everything else. Back then, I even went over to my local Barnes and Noble bookstore and sampled Christmas music and purchased a few CDs. I relish playing them this holiday season.
I love Christmas now for so many reasons. First and foremost, of course, is the birth of our Savior, the world’s Savior, Emmanuel among us. He came to rescue all of us lost sheep from sin and the Enemy and most of all from ourselves. 
He came to heal the wounds of nations, to bring everyone together, so there was no longer a separation among people, “Greeks or Jews or men and women,” but all united in the Mystical Body. In this time of horrifying racial strife and increasing tribalism, we need this teaching more than ever before.
I also cherish Christmas now because I’m no longer an outsider. I realize that my enmity towards Christmas wasn’t so much the lights and the candles and the sounds of, Silent Night. It was feeling left out, alone, different. I understand now why people desperately seek an identity, whether it’s Japanese American or African American or an Adult Child of an Alcoholic, or any of the other countless groupings and categories. But, ultimately, it is only through God that we can feel connected to each other and to ourselves.
Although I am now delighted by the whole season, there is also a sadness there for me. It’s grief, I think, of being separated from God for so long, for almost my whole life, and the unbearable suffering and loneliness that comes from this. It makes my heart go out to the countless others who live, as I used to, at such a far distance from God.
But if I can change so dramatically, even in my older years, anyone can. Because God is ever present, faithful, and patient.
All along He was waiting for me, He was there, even if I didn’t know it, even in my darkest moments. To find Him, we simply need to overcome our stubborn pride, face the sorrow of lost years and lost time, and ask for His love and mercy. 
I’d like to end here with some poignant lyrics of a song by Matt Maher, You Were on the Cross:
Pain, could you take away the pain?
If I find someone to blame, would it make my life seem easier?
Alone, all my friends are asleep
And I can’t find anyone to stay awake with me
Where were You when sin stole my innocence?
Where were You when I was ashamed?
Hiding in a life, I wish, I never made
You were on the cross, my God, my God, alone, alone
You were on the cross, You died for us, alone, alone
You were on the cross, victorious, alone, alone
You were there in all of my suffering
And You were there in doubt and in fear
I’m waiting on the dawn to reappear
Merry Christmas and love and blessings to you all.
Posted on by Robin


Sony releases photo of Kim Jong-un monitoring the NORK’s top notch hacker cell.
The FBI just last week confirmed what many Americans already assumed to be a forgone conclusion when they revealed there was conclusive evidence that North Korea’s government was behind the hacking of Sony, an attack the government bureau said was carried out as a way ‘to inflict significant harm on a U.S. business and suppress the right of American citizens to express themselves.’
Then, in a press conference on Friday, President Obama not only attacked North Korea and leader Kim Jong-un for their attempts to ‘intimidate’ Americans through their actions, but went so far as to warn the country that America would retaliate in response their actions.
Almost immediately the North Korean leader issued a statement denying involvement and demanding an apology from the United States for their ‘evil doings.’
And while that apology is probably never coming, it seems that Kim Jong-un may be right, at least according to numerous cybersecurity experts and hackers who have come forward to not only point out the flaws in the FBI’s investigation, but also possibly reveal the identity of the culprit.
The problems with the FBI’s investigation are best explained by Marc Rogers in an article he wrote for The Daily Beast.
Working as both the director of security operations for DEF CON, the world’s largest hacker conference, and the principal security researcher for the world’s leading mobile security company, Cloudflare, Rogers may be one of the foremost experts when it comes to hacking.

The first FBI claim that Rogers tears down also happens to be one the strongest that the FBI has, saying in their statement; ‘The malware used in this attack revealed links to other malware that the FBI knows North Korean actors previously developed.’

There are two problems with this according to Harris, and both have to do with the bureau basing their findings on assumptions as opposed to fact.
First,while a similar malware may have been used in a previous cyber attack that North Korea has been linked to, that does not serve as definitive proof that this attack was carried out by North Korea.