AM I THE ONLY ONE

On the way home today I heard the close-out song (lyrics below) of a talk-radio host…this was his last show of the year that he would be hosting; no, he’s not going anywhere just yet, guest hosts will fill in for him until after the New Year holiday. Personally, I think he’s one of the best and most knowledgeable talk-show host on the radio…his arguments cannot be broken (And I’ll attest to that; no one has done it yet!).  The song has a certain patriotic beat and I’ve heard parts of it before but never did I listen to the entire song until today.  It made me think, “Am I the only one?”

Our country is divided today…more than it ever has been since 1860.  Oh, I could have said, “Since the Civil War.”  But what difference would it make when almost half the country has no idea what the Civil War was or when it started.  They don’t teach history today, the powers to be change history…and they’re being pretty successful at it. And if you don’t believe that, you might be the only one. So we are divided, and not just by political parties (Democrat and Republican) but by association. By association, yes!  A much better system than the two-party domineering power seekers we have today.  Two quotes that back up my philosophy follow:

            There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution. – John Adams (2^nd President of the United States)

Among the laws that rule human societies there is one that seems more precise and clearer than all the others. In order that men remain civilized or become so, the art of associating must be developed and perfected among them in the same ratio as equality of conditions increases. - Democracy in America (1835) by Alexis de Tocqueville

While we’re on deTocqueville let me add this:

Tocqueville fell out of fashion during the late nineteenth century, perhaps because Germany, not America, seemed to have caught the wave of the future. German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck embraced socialism and established the first modern welfare state, and people everywhere looked to Germany for leadership.

But socialism triggered communism, fascism, Nazism, and other brutal tyrannies that slaughtered tens of millions during the twentieth century. The welfare state shackled hundreds of millions more with taxes and regulations.  Then after World War II, America emerged as the world’s brightest hope. Tocqueville predicted it all.

Less I stray too far off my topic let’s get back to the song; Am I The Only One.  Yes, that’s the title, “Am I The Only One.”  Because we are so divided I have often felt like I am the only one wanting to do something about it but obviously I’m not…the words are in the lyrics and they’re being sung over the radio.  And without too many calculations I could come up with at least seventy million more people to answer the question, “Am I the only one?”  But right now I am the only one who has stated, “I’m willing to fight this division, but I’m damn sure not going to do it alone,” – Norman Hooben

P.S. Does the above commentary and the lyrics below sound like a prelude to something unimaginable?  Yeah! And it’s called war.  This division cannot go on without one!

 

Am I The Only One

Aaron Lewis

Am I the only one here tonight
Shakin' my head and thinkin' somethin' ain't right
Is it just me? Am I losin' my mind?
Am I standin' on the edge of the end of time?
Am I the only one? Tell me I'm not
Who thinks they're takin' all the good we got
And turnin' it bad, hell, I'll be damned
I think I'm turnin' into my old man

Am I the only one, willin' to bleed
Or take a bullet for bein' free
Screamin', "What the fuck" at my TV
For tellin' me, yeah, are you tellin' me?
That I'm the only one, willin' to fight
For my love of the red and white
And the blue, burnin' on the ground
Another statue comin' down in a town near you
Watchin' the threads of Old Glory come undone

Am I the only one not brainwashed?
Makin' my way through the land of the lost
Who still gives a shit and worries 'bout his kids
As they try to undo all the things he did?

Am I the only one who can't take no more
Screamin', "If you don't like it, there's the fuckin' door"
This ain't the freedom we've been fightin' for
It was somethin' more, yeah, it was somethin' more
Am I the only one, willin' to fight
For my love of the red and white
And the blue, burnin' on the ground
Another statue comin' down in a town near you
Watchin' the threads of Old Glory come undone

I'm not the only one
I can't be the only one

Am I the only one who quits singin' along
Every time they play a Springsteen song?

Am I the only one sittin' here
Still holdin' on, holdin' back my tears
For the ones who paid with the lives they gave
God bless the U.S.A
I'm not the only one, willin' to fight
For my love of the red and white
And the blue, burnin' on the ground
Another statue comin' down in a town near you
Watchin' the threads of Old Glory come undone

I'm not the only one
I can't be the only one

Source: LyricFind

Songwriters: Aaron Lewis / Ira Dean / Jeffrey Steele

Am I The Only One lyrics © Warner Chappell Music, Inc, 3 Ring Circus Music LLC

 

https://youtu.be/SDx59j2yck0

WE STILL HAVE SOME HEROES

I was at that gathering in which Lt. Col. Long spoke. After her speech a number of us went up to shake her hand. I was second in line with a prepared comment but the person in front of me took so long that I totally forgot what I was going to say. Suddenly I was confronted with her outstretched hand and has I reached forward to shake her hand this is what I spontaneously said: "My dad bragged about shaking the hand of Buffalo Bill and I bragged about shaking the hand of Johnny Cash and Johnny Carson but now I get to shake the hand of a real hero." She stepped forward and gave me a hug and said, "How sweet..." I'll never forget that moment. (By the way, my comment was authentic.)

When Amazon Erased My Book

 

Forward commentary by Norman E. Hooben

Some people burn books in an attempt to change history and the mindset of the next generation solely to gain power over the populace. To do this they also have to do away with any religion that stands in the way of their ideology.

Obama was not the first person to attempt to change history.
Someone by the name of Adolph Hitler did in 1933.

Video by Norman E. Hooben

But there's some who in keeping with their religious beliefs will burn books that they feel is offensive to their doctrine.

Catholic priests in northern Poland have burned books

they consider to be blasphemous, including ones from the Harry Potter series and Twilight. The act has sparked outrage as the photos were shared on social media.

The Polish evangelical group, called the SMS from 

Heaven Foundation, said they burned these books because the fictional depiction of witchcraft is ‘against the word of God’.

Then there's the kind of person who would do away with all forms of religious concepts that upset their political ambitions. 

 
Video by Norman E. Hooben

Now the once trusted media (including distributers) have amassed their strength as if they themselves are the imprimaturs of all forms information.  They have determined that which America once knew as good and moral Our Founding Fathers declared came from God is no longer fit for dissemination. 

Could the distributer mentioned in the editorial that follows become the next Adolph Hitler?

When Amazon Erased My Book by Ryan T. Anderson
Published in First Things on February 23, 2021

Ryan T. Anderson

      My book When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment was released exactly three years ago. It was attacked twice on the New York Times op-ed page. 

The Washington Post ran a hit piece on it that was riddled with errors. It was obvious the critics hadn’t read the book. But they were threatened by it and wanted to discredit it lest anyone pick it up and learn from it.

Now, three years after publication, in the same week that the House of Representatives plans to ram through the Equality Act—a radical transgender bill amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964—Amazon has erased my book opposing gender ideology from its cyber shelves.

The people who did read the book discovered that it is an accurate and accessible presentation of the scientific, medical, philosophical, and legal debates surrounding the trans phenomenon. Yes, it advances an argument against transgender ideology from a viewpoint. But it doesn’t get any facts wrong, and it doesn’t engage in heated rhetoric.

Moreover, it was praised by experts: the former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, a longtime psychology professor at NYU, a professor of medical ethics at Columbia Medical School, a professor of psychological and brain sciences at Boston University, a professor of neurobiology at the University of Utah, a distinguished professor at Harvard Law School, an eminent legal philosopher at Oxford, and a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton.

But for a heretic-hunting Left, none of that matters. It’s not about how you say it, or how rigorously you argue it, or how charitably you present it. It’s about whether you affirm or dissent from the new orthodoxy of gender ideology.

Amazon never informed me or my publisher that it was removing my book. And Amazon’s representatives haven’t responded to our inquiries about it. Perhaps they’re citing a religious objection to selling my book? Or maybe they only sell books with which they agree? (If so, they have a lot of explaining to do about why they carry Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.) If there’s a religious or speech objection, let’s hear it. But if it’s just an attempt to skew the conversation in the public square with an attempt to discredit one of the Equality Act’s most prominent critics, that’s a different matter.

So first, a caveat: If you fear what Big Tech can do if you dissent from gender ideology, just wait to see what Big Government will do if the so-called Equality Act becomes law. Second, a lesson: If you fear Big Government, don’t turn a blind eye to Big Tech. Conservatives need to get over the misguided belief that private businesses can do whatever they want. That isn’t true. And it’s never been the American law on the issue. Nor is it what the natural law supports.

From a natural law perspective, both the liberal and libertarian approaches to economics and property rights are inadequate. By now, conservatives know well the criticisms of left-liberal approaches. But too many conservative thinkers assume that the classical liberal and libertarian approaches are in fact the conservative approach. They aren’t. They contain important truths, but they omit others. The conservative approach comes out of the natural law tradition.

In the natural law tradition, there is no single correct economic system. There are, however, certain systems—such as radically individualist philosophical libertarianism and radically collectivist socialism—that are incompatible with the flourishing of human beings and their communities. But between these extremes lie many permissible regimes of property and market relations. Decent governments create and structure various systems of ownership rights and obligations with an eye to what will best serve the common good of their societies, with their particular histories, traditions, and circumstances. Thus, government regulation of the market isn’t inherently wrong. If a particular instance of regulation is wrong, it will be wrong for some other, more specific reason, which has to be identified on a case-by-case basis.

No less a natural law thinker and teacher than Pope Leo XIII—who was clear that “private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable”—emphasized that property rights come with corresponding duties, and are thus not absolute or unlimited. As George Will once observed, “the most important four words in politics are: ‘up to a point.’” Property rights and economic freedom are important, up to a point—where they cease to serve human flourishing. All liberties have limits. So do market liberties.

This doesn’t mean that the government should step in every time a person or business exercises ownership rights in ways that harm the common good. A government willing to do that will ultimately do more harm than good. Still, some regulations are justified. We cannot rule out in advance the possibility that some regulation of Big Tech’s power may be prudent.

I say “Big” Tech on purpose. No one would (or should) care if one brick-and-mortar shop decided over the weekend to no longer sell one of my books. The market would more than pick up the slack. But what would happen if all the booksellers in a locale got together and agreed to no longer carry the book? Or what would happen if one of the booksellers had, let’s say, an 83 percent market share of all book sales, and that seller memory-holed the book?

We regulate businesses all the time. We need not apply to Big Tech all the features of an existing form of regulation that was designed for other contexts—whether it be nondiscrimination law, antitrust and monopoly law, or legal rules for common carriers and utilities—but policy makers need to take seriously the question of what limits should be placed on the power of Big Tech. The point is that absolutism about market freedoms is untenable. Repeating the mantra “it’s a private business” doesn’t cut it anymore. It never did.

None of this is to downplay the importance of economic freedom and property rights. It is just to say that while those freedoms are important, so are other things. The common good is multifaceted. Promoting liberty as the highest good—libertarianism—improperly downplays other important facets. We want laws that take into account all the relevant factors.

This is why when Sherif Girgis and I wrote our chapters for Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination, we didn’t embrace the libertarian critique of all government regulation, including antidiscrimination laws. On the contrary, we outlined the kinds of cases in which market forces and market actors so systemically undermine human dignity and the common good that the government should respond.

To take another example: If all the bakers in Colorado refused to serve LGBT-identifying people, there might be justification for a law. But when all the bakers (including the conservative Christian ones) readily serve LGBT-identifying customers, and exactly one baker in the entire state objects to creating just one kind of product—a custom cake celebrating a same-sex wedding—there is no justification for the state to limit his property rights or to violate his religious liberty.

Again, I’ve heard nothing from Amazon regarding the decision to remove my book. Perhaps it’s a religious liberty or compelled speech concern. But I doubt it. I do know that there’s no reason to blindly believe that granting Big Tech unlimited liberties is how we best protect human flourishing and human dignity. Policy makers will need to address what sort of limits to place on Big Tech to protect the common good.

My prediction is that in the short run I’ll sell thousands more copies of the book thanks to Amazon’s censorship. In the medium run, things will get worse for those who hold to traditional American values. But in the long run, a people can struggle against the natural law for only so long. And that’s true for both economics and gender ideology.

Ryan T. Anderson, a former First Things assistant editor, is the President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the author of When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment.

Note from Norm: If you wish to purchase Mr. Anderson's book I was going to suggest to order it through your local library but I actually heard the author on a radio interview say, "Buy it direct from the publisher."  -  Thank you Andrew Wilkow on satellite radio channel 125.

CRITICAL MASS

I don't know how many people read my FB page but there have been warnings by many of us over the last several years about the dangerous direction our politicians are leading us into, so let it be known that I'm warning you we are approaching what I call "critical mass"... Our government is overwhelmingly infected with Communists sympathizers bribed and controlled by the Chinese (with possible cooperation by the Russians). These sympathizers are in senior positions in both political parties but the majority control is by the Democratic party. As we speak the Chinese are purchasing land in the Bahamas (just 50 miles off shore) and bringing in many workers (most likely trained military personnel)....they are also purchasing land here in the United States. Long story short... Joe Biden is well aware of the Chinese threat and in all indications approves of their actions. 

 “China has set its sights on The Bahamas and has invested billions of dollars in building new infrastructure and industry across the country. New roads, new businesses, new hotels, and booming Chinese immigration has led to many companies being staffed with more Chinese workers than local Bahamians.”Forbes 

The above is just one small reason Joe Biden should never be allowed to enter the White House.

 

Today I got on the White House website and sent a message to President Trump asking him to declare Marshall Law and arrest Biden, Obama and others because of the evidence coming in that proves beyond a reasonable doubt the election was stolen...etc., etc... 

I urge everyone to do this.