Death By A Thousand Cuts


black-and-white-branches-tree-high-mediumAmericans regularly lament the current state of affairs in our country. I hear about it, and see it written about daily. Their frustration is palpable. The longer it remains unchanged the more people are willing to believe in ambiguous platitudes from politicians like, “Hope and Change,” or “Make America Great Again,” or “Every Man A King.” Meanwhile, nothing changes and people are seeing their country go through death by a thousand cuts.

We want to think our government is supposed to save us from all evil. On public radio recently the shows guest was talking about the sense of hopelessness felt in different groups, and how for the first time in our country’s history, the white man has the greatest sense of hopelessness over all other groups. While I can’t verify this, the program’s guest and interviewer seemed to think that this is something the government should be concerned with, and find a solution to.

Think of our country like a tree. The roots and trunk provide freedom for all those who are native to the trunk or all those who are grafted in. Branches must reach out and send leaves skyward in search of nourishment from the sun. The act of that effort gives strength to the whole tree. It nourishes the branch and the trunk. Much like grafting is done with trees, the sap from this tree is capable of supporting huge numbers of branches, so long as they produce leaves and stretch themselves reaching for the sun; for nourishment.

Now think of every small branch that does not reach and produce; it becomes an insult to the overall health of the tree. Everything that prevents or discourages the branches from doing what they were designed to do is an insult to the overall organism. Every competing tree that shades us, is an insult to our overall health. Every crazy demand on our country from within or otherwise is an insult to our overall health. In today’s world, every branch is told it is entitled to something more than it is. Entitlements, excessive taxes, excessive regulations, laws so long that nobody has ever read them, a government that is no longer answerable to its people, etc. are all cuts in the tree. Cuts are places for the vital sap of the tree to leak out. From my perspective, we are dying a death by a thousand cuts, and it is torturous to watch. We have to stop thinking the government is our source and remember, we are the governments source. It is said that if you aren’t part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem. What can we do to do our part?

Death by a thousand cuts,” originally known as “Ling Chi,” “Leng Tch’e,” “slow slicing,” and various other names was a form of execution used in China from around 900 A.D. until around 1905 when it was banned. It was a form of torture or lingering death reserved for the worst crimes, such as treason, patricide, or matricide. The following links are interesting for reference.

One is a Wiki page on the subject while the other is a “song” by the title “Leng Tch’e.”





Experience Democracy


Recently, I chose to experience democracy in the first person by collecting nomination signatures for Jon Rygiewicz who wants to run for the Wisconsin state assembly. Here in Wisconsin, you have to get a certain number of signatures from your prospective constituents in order to get on the ballot.

He is a brave man. He is running as a Conservative Republican in an area known far and wide as the most liberal place in North America – Madison’s Isthmus. I admire his bravery. Besides, it’s impossible to affect change in a group if you aren’t part of the group. Well, he’s in the group and representing his values with his actions! Congratulations Jon!

I remember a fellow that came to my door wanting me to sign his petition to get on the ballot. We were in different political camps. I signed his petition, and thanked him for being willing to risk personal loss and humiliation. I told him that I didn’t like his politics, wouldn’t be voting for him, but that this is the USA and anyone should be able to run for public office, and let the best person win! I shook his hand and he was on his way. I believe it was a good experience for us both. I signed his petition because, no matter how misguided I felt his ideas were, he probably came about his ideas as honestly as I did mine, and if my sides ideas are as good as I feel they are, they will survive the arena of public scrutiny.

At each door, I explained that Jon was not asking for their endorsement or approval of his ideas; that it is a sort of permission for him to get on the ballot. What I found was people wanted literature and explanations of his positions, despite the fact that without enough signatures there would be no campaign or literature. Many seemed suspicious of me or what I was doing. Some were very rude. Most were just curt and said “I think I’ll pass.” I wondered how most could call themselves democrats. Jon is the consummate “little guy!”

What happened to all the people on both sides who claim to be fed up with the establishment? This district Jon runs in is “Bernie Central!” Aren’t those “feeling the Bern” the ones who claim the loudest to be so upset at the democrat establishment? Our young watch our every word and action. The next time someone comes to your door for a nomination signature, remember, your kids can see if you are really as confident in your ideas as you say you are by seeing if you allow your ideas to be examined or challenged. I’m guessing that many of these folks instruct their kids how to vote rather than trust they possess a solid ability to reason.

Let me encourage you to experience democracy by finding a guy like Jon, with a dream, and show some support, even if you don’t fully agree with him. Everyone deserves a chance to try.

Here is a link to his page in case you want to show him some support:

Socialism and Taking One For The Team

stalinValues Clarification” is one of the names of a curriculum that has been taught in American middle and high schools since the 1970’s. I believe it is an effort to condition children to accept socialism and moral relativism. It is cleverly disguised as a social studies strategy. Who said the “Department of Education” was outside the reach of politics? Are they teaching “taking one for the team?”

The most famous values clarification exercise was widely known as the “life boat” exercise. The class has a discussion where there is a life boat full of people from various walks of life. There is always one more person than the boat can hold. As a group, their job is to figure out who is of real value to the group and who is of little value. This exercise was used in the middle school my oldest kids went to. The outcome is predictable; someone always has to die, and the kids make the decision about who. They refer to this as teaching “decision making skills!” Really; who could throw out a sweet little old lady?

They are learning to determine, by democratic means, who is not worthy to live. They form a consensus on what makes someone a value to their society. Nobody in the class is allowed to sacrifice themselves, because they aren’t on the boat. This is not actually an exercise in exploring what a student’s personal values are. For that to happen, the kids would have to be on the boat, defending their existence, facing being disposed of by their peers. No, this is an exercise in teaching students to accept the determinations of the group, before the determinations of the self.

Our founding fathers, by their writings, envisioned a new world where society was a loosely knit group of individual people all pursuing their own individual self interests, while government kept foreign invaders at bay. Our founders envisioned a world where the voluntary acts of its citizens, and its greatness was built on the individual, not the collective.

The byproduct of curriculum like values clarification is large groups of people who no longer believe in individual responsibility or sacrifice. Read the news if you doubt. In case a student has a strong set of values from their parents, it utilizes peer pressure to encourages them to abandon those values, in exchange for the values of the group. Not so transparently, this exercise is taught at an age when the children are most susceptible to peer pressure. In short, it prepares them to accept socialism. Sounding familiar?

Socialist societies forget that motivation for sacrifice and industry spring from a persons sense of self, not their sense of belonging to a group, because the building blocks of every society is a bunch of “selfs” (individuals). The current state of the Venezuelan economy demonstrates what happens to individual effort when the state elevates the collective above the individual; productivity dies. America has been indoctrinating it’s children for decades in the fallacies of socialism.

Socialism, appeals to peoples desire to be caught by the “safety net”, to be dependents, but in its end game, socialism keeps no dependents. Few words work as effectively at obliterating a persons sense of reason more powerfully than the word “FREE.” History shows that those who were attracted most to the socialist offer of a “FREE chicken in every pot,” and worked hard to realize this grand scheme, in reality are the first to be thrown out of the life boat because they fail to understand that their role in the collective is to be the producers of those chickens. Fathom that: socialism turns out to be giving one for the team instead of taking one for the team!

Seven million Ukrainians were killed, starved to death, working the richest soil on the planet during the Bolshevik take over of Russia. It was a crime against the state (collective) to grow vegetables for your family even out in the forest because it is “the peoples” earth and, by extension, the peoples vegetables. Many became thieves this way. Those caught paid dearly. When being sold, socialism plays to peoples individual needs and wants. But pursuing ones own individual self interest was a crime. It’s kind of funny how that works. Values Clarification and Socialism both share the stated goal of “making the best decisions for everyone.” Remember, there is a big difference between everyone and every one.

Interesting links:

Is Changing The Rules Unfair?


Is changing the rules unfair? I learned long ago that disappointment is the child of unmet expectations. Know these facts and you won’t be disappointed!

Delegates to the national convention are elected at states conventions by party members. Senator Cruz spent big effort getting his supporters elected as state delegates; Trump; not so much.

National convention rules governing delegates and all aspects of the convention are always subject to changes by the convention rules committee. Rules won’t change if the rules committee does not propose change, and if they do, then rules cannot change unless 1237, or a majority of the duly elected national delegates, vote to approve any change.

A pledged delegate is someone who ran and was elected at the state convention and signed an affidavit or pledge to support the winner of the caucus or primary in their district. It is a pledge to the state they reside in. The problem with this is that our constitution guarantees its citizens to be free to vote their conscience, so signing this pledge is considered by many to be coercion.

Curly Haugland, a North Dakota Republican Party member, a former North Dakota state party chairman, a member of the RNC rules committee, a delegate to the national convention, and a member of the 2016 national convention rules committee, stated that the RNC rules do not require a delegate to be bound to any candidate. He further said that the convention rules and the RNC rules have been tested in court all the way up to the supreme court. The result is that the states rules lack the power to enforce any binding their state rules might wish.

…so long as the 2016 Republican National Convention adopts as standing rules for the

convention what are now the temporary rules, or at least does not substantially

change Rule 37 (b) and Rule 38, then the freedom of delegates to

vote their conscience will be preserved. “

Curly Haugland – Unbound©

Link To A FREE pdf copy of Unbound© can be found on the following site.

 Is changing the rules at the national convention unfair? No; it happens often. That’s why there is a convention rules committee. Last cycles standing rules become this years temporary rules. This years temporary rules, can be changed or not, and however ratified, become the new standing rules. What Donald Trump is wanting, though he says the opposite, is the convention rules committee to change the rules to force delegates to be bound to state primary results. For a man who panders to the angry that “They want to change the rules on us,” his hope is that the rules do get changed, to include binding delegates to their pledge. He and the media have worked hard to convince the people that this binding rule already exists. His Obi-wan “these are not the droids you are looking for” mojo, appears to be out of gas.

Should “Gun Free Zones” Be Regulated?

gun-free-zoneAll of the major terror attacks in the U.S. for at least eight years, where guns were used, the shooters had licensed weapons and many had background checks done. This recent shooting was done in a gun free zone, as were most. If it wasn’t a gun free zone, he likely would not have been able to kill so many. It could be said that one of the problems in this latest shooting is that people followed the rules and left their guns at home.

There are many that are quite able at figuring out how to craft laws around this subject that will limit the people from getting weapons. I want to know which of you can find a way for people to reject their evil ways and embrace love for their fellow man? Aren’t gun control laws just a less-than-clever idea to separate the evil from the man? Great Britain outlawed guns long ago; now they have a stabbing violence issue, and are trying to get people to turn in their knives.

Laws don’t prevent the evil from having their way with the law abiding; they prevent the law abiding from stopping those under the control of evil from following through. Since the gun free zone very likely created the environment that made the carnage worse, could it not be said that, however well-intended, the gun free zone affected evil on the law abiding? Is it also possible that all of the law tweaking suggested lately, no matter how well-intended, may also become the partner to evil in the same way?

It should be at least a point of interest that Chicago, the US city with the strictest gun control laws, has near the highest gun murder/gun violence rate in America. Also, the states with the least restrictive conceal carry laws, have the lowest gun murder/gun violence rates in America. If you think regulating guns more because you think they are evil is a good idea, then be consistent and propose regulating gun free zones because they exacerbate the carnage. We cannot stop the evil, but we can make them think twice.

twig tree1

The only known picture of government regulation!