Shadowy Healthcare Industrial Complex Complicit in Enacting Campaigns Of "Social Justice"

Recently I found that my suspicions about the Healthcare Industrial Complex have turned out to be all too true.  Everyone knows Obamacare is rife with all kinds of "nefarious abuses of power", as I've termed it before; but few knew that this legislation effectively turns hospitals and mental health facilities into agents of a Socialist agenda.
It may sound hard to believe!
"Where I get my healthcare is now a... a Social Justice center?"
Yes, effectively.
Now I'd wager many wouldn't mind a little 'help the poor' sentiment in their healthcare services, but I'm afraid what the Regime is now guilty of, i.e. communism/socialism, is far more dangerous than a little extra good will towards others.
This was a statement by a representative of NAMI, a communist front group:

"The police and law enforcement system is unjust and needs to be stopped."

Now if that isn't dangerous Social Justice activism, I don't know what is.  Everyone, I'm sure, is familiar with that argument that the Regime has created a 'psuedo-law' that undermines and circumvents the legal system and law enforcement establishment;  however, putting that aside for a moment - If what the healthcare system is doing is actively undermining the Police - we're in BIG trouble.

The fact is, Police are the number one target for the international communist conspiracy.  They refer to those who put their lives on the line for the sake of security "pigs".  Well, as it turns out this sentiment is pervasively part and parcel with Obamacare.  Think of it.  What better place to organize than under the radar in a locked down healthcare facility.  They even have their own security forces!
In fact, this communist organization NAMI even has agents who are, mandated from the Fed more than likely, involved in police matters.  There are potentially even some of them working INSIDE police depts.

As everyone knows, communisms main operative goals are to undermine the credibility of the police, discredit their sovereignty, and infiltrate the police depts themselves in order to bring information on Law Enforcement back to the communist party.

This may well, if I'm correct, turn out to be a major component of what Obamacare effectively does!

I for one stand by the police.
I for one feel that the Law is the Law.
And if you do the crime, you do the time.






















God Bless America


























RT Stillwell DDU 2014

Fallenness, Brokenness and The Way Of Being-Unto-Death

In a fallen state of worldhood, it is apparent that our, as Foucault called it, Human Naturale constitution is one of not only sinfullness-as-such, but also a profound sense of lack of integrity.  Speaking an untruth not only conforms those who internalize this untruth, but is so readily understood as truth-as-such that the integrity of not our own selves but simply of the world-for-itself, under the darkness of a long night, is questionable.    Worldliness would seem to offer an answer to the being-unto-death of the worldhood of the world, and rightly so.  By being of the world, one can internalize an understanding of our own fallenness, and take a kind of solace relegated to the holy in our brokenness-unto-death.
It is my way of saying, be broken.
Understand fallenness.
The world-as-such has been fallen since the garden of eden, when Adam and Eve sinned.

Now, our only real repayment of this brute sin of knowledge and wisdom is in a state of spirit known as brokenness.  Brokenness-as-such is simply being repentancefull, as far as I am concerned.  It is simply and authentically acknowledging that we do, in all facticity, live in a "fallen" world.  One where the righteousness of heaven is nil, and we - in all truth - live in a world of sloven obedience to Abbadon, Leviathan, Osmodais, or whatever you might call it.
A state of brokenness is what is required for godly repentance - accepting that you have sinned, and it is only by virtue of the worldhood of the world's "fallenness" that we have even been offered a mere chance at anything approaching rightness.  Why, in fact, is the world fallen?
Simply by virtue of the collectivism inherent in the early christianity era crucifixions.
god saw how we, as in all worldly people etc., allowed our own sense of malice and conviction bring those early prophets to the cross to be crucified.  he saw how we stood, even PAUL, idly by and watched it happen.
How can we even be forgiven if he knows we are all in a state of being-unto-death that blindly kills prophets, and complicit thereof therein? In, simply, a state of brokenness.
Saying, brokenly, "Dear Jehova, I am sorry for myself and the way I've been living.  I am sorry for my compatriots.  I am sorry for my primordial sin."
Almost every day.

And it is Hard!  and A  HARD WAY!
But it is absolutely necessary for salvation.

"First of all, you must understand that in the last days there will come scoffers, scoffing and following their own evil desires.  They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised?"  But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.  By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.  By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgement and destruction of ungodly men.  But do not forget this one thing, dear friends:  With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.  He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.  But the day of the Lord will come like a thief.  The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.

So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with Him."


This comes not from revelations, a very controversial part of the NT in this part of the world, but in fact from a small passage of the gospel I try to read as often as possible...  Peter.

DDU 2014

derived from:
Heidegger - Zein und Zeit
Foucault v. Chomsky Debate
Billy Graham's - "Crusade in Miniature" 12"
and
Adin Troyer - Jesus, Your Only Way to God

Mexicans Sending Hispanic Babies Over The Border In Grim Race War

From what I've heard, and keep in mind in N.C. Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants is an affair of the imagination, Hispanics of the Mexican origin are sending their "refugee" children over the border to be "cared" for by team 'Bama.

If this keeps up, I may need to write another piece on why it's inherently evil to have American services prompt for "press 1 if you would like these directions in espanola".  It's bloody bollocks.

we have to retrain entire school districts now, apparently, just because the louses South of the border can't keep their cartel kids in check.  I say, send em to the U.N.

Right now, criminal gangs are sending their wee little babes, all brunettes, over our southern border to find "refugee" status in our home country.  And if we refuse their citizenship?  If we refuse to let these wee little babes find solace in our, now, completely deprived Former U.S. o' A.?  What happens?

Well, it would appear because of our lack of compassion on the matter, we would now be in a civil law suit from the DOJ, who wants to keep mexi-cartel babies inside our borders!

It's a flippin joke!

I say, send their diapered asses back to where they come from, and quit botherin me NSA!!!

The VA Scandal: Exposed!!!

In regards to the queer "resignation" of the Head of the Veterans Hospitals, I can only quote walt whitman when he said, "Of the concourse of Power and Poetry, there is but one true course).  In effect, I should be congratulating Mr. Hussein Obama on his efforts of Justice.  I merely wish that translated a bit more for his Regime.  The malfeasance, and yes it is malfeasant, of the VA leadership should lead to - in the opin' of DDU - more "resignations" a.k.a. "Firings".

Curiously though the DOJ continues it's assault on civil liberties.  If only Eric Holder and Mr. Hussein Obama, along with his Regime, weren't so intertwined.  The DOJ, I think with some responsibility in this matter, has failed to protect Veterans as well.

I'm loathe to say this dereliction of duty - i.e. 60 Dead Veterans in Arizona etc. - is of proportions comparable to, say, Fast and Furious and that mess.  The DOJ should be audited.
But I'm sure that won't happen - just more Tea Party patriots having a little trouble with the Hospital Industrial Complex.

The fact is, Domestic Democracy United's main concern is not some Knee Jerk reactionary outrage - though it may well be for some.  The main call in for this supposed "concourse" to have recourse in recompense.  Some grief.

The brunt is, like with Al Queda, according to Rush affiliate IMPRIMIS, 30% of muslims living in the U.S. believing that former bad guy ******REDACTED******** was a good thing, that there was quantifiable loss of life.  And DDU always stands firm behind the statement of Roger Heartaway, back in 1974 that a SINGLE loss of life is a QUANTIFIABLE loss of life.  That is to say, even the Unborn.

But what does this mean for the VA Hospitals themselves?

That the same eugenics responsible for condoms, sex ed, evolutionary theory and subsidized abortions is responsible for these, more than likely, DEATH PANELS PERFORMED BY VA ADMINISTRATIONS.

succinctly and simply yours,

R.T. StillwellDDU 2014

Temperance is for Nerds, Losers and Dorks

The notion of temperance is traditionally defined as a southern hospitality of sorts, in which it is considered immoral to drink beers.

This, obviously, has no real existence in the south in the post-deconstructionist age - apart from the Obamanites insistence that everyone act like a dork/looser and whine about those who enjoy life.  Temperance is idiocy.  It is simply a way for those with grievances (and believe me, all nerds and loosers have grievances) to try to show others the correct and "enlightened" way of their own hypocrisy, that is - a grim farce in which every Cool-Aid drinker believes their own way to be the way of correctness.

It is not only a grim-farce, but indicative of a communist conspiracy.

You see, as often as the communist party is thought to be drug-using and defiant (and they ARE drug users), the fact remains that the communist party's platform is one of persecuting those who indulge in a beer.  One of their central tenants is to condemn the use of alcohol (obviously they prefer heroin and lsd - not to mention crack-cocaine).  They used this method of subversion against my personal hero - Mr. Joseph McCarthy.

When McCarthy attempted to, and succeeded at finding soviet spy's working in the U.S. government, he was overwhelmed with allegations that he was an alcoholic.  Personally, I think it's impossible to fight against communism without a stiff drink now and then.  But yes, he found over 40 soviet spies working for the U.S. government, and was immediately attacked due to the fact that he, on occasion, enjoyed a drink or two.

That's because it is part of the American Communist Party's platform to decry the evils of alcoholism and alcohol use!  literally.

So in summation, The ones who tell people that they are alcoholics are generally part - consciously or not - of a communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

And the majority of them are nerds, loosers and dorks who have no life and have read Marx one to many times.

Ask your average nerd how many times he has read the communist manifesto and you will invariably find that they hide the fact that they have ever done so.

It's a shame.

But always remember, never forget....




































The fact that Nerds, Losers and Dorks have no life and no accomplishments beyond their own soured sense of vanity.

Hooray for them!

But they shall surely rot in hell for eternity! lol




RT Stillwell, DDU 2014

Hey Teach- It's Point .0003 Percent

I pride myself here at DDU/EIB affiliate, Politalk2.blogspot, as being - as rushlimbaugh has been accuracy checked by conservative fact checkers (i.e. watchdogs), as having a 93.6 percent accuracy rating on my narrative/commentary.

I'm here to tell you, dear reader, today that there is NO HOPE for america today, unless we sentence the victims of crimes to - *XPLZN*











































Big date, right?







































Ahem*

umm, the youth of america are better off with a .0003 percent deduction on textbook based curriculum.















































88888
88888888888
DDU lol
*************************

Review Of Hobbes' "Leviathan"

During a brief vacation, so to speak, I had the opportunity to read a work by Thomas Hobbes through, his "Leviathan".  Olde english permeates the language of the work, and makes for an aesthetically pleasing piece of traditional philosophy.  Such language as "publique" and "sinne".  Very often, the use of what today would be considered incorrect grammar induces in the reader a fluidity and ease of viewing and compliments his actual philosophy, the content, as well as gives one an historical sense that one would be incapable of finding in a textbook.

It would seem odd, considering I've previously "railed against" Hobbes, that I would give a favorable view of "Leviathan".  However, I would be lying if I said this work is anything but an altogether great work of philosophy that stands commendable and admirable, to say the least.  Not having ever read the famous "Nasty, brutish and short" description of human life and consequence in it's context, I was taken aback by how this phrase is, in all facticity, not written with any disdain for human life in-itself nor malicious whatsoever.  In full context, Hobbes explains that life is only so when there is no Law-as-such.  So, I think it is a shame that this "Nasty, brutish and short" idea is obscured by way of implying that Hobbes finds this to be good, necessary, or ironic.  He explains that humans meet a grim end when their rulers fail to protect them, or when a conquering military force decides not to have mercy upon the peoples in a country they've vanquished.

I suppose it's a testament to how one cannot truly in any way at all claim to understand a philosophy from mere snippets and commentary, and it goes to support my ongoing claim that philosophy as presented in academia is glaringly insufficient, because the majority of it is merely a textbook telling the reader what the ideas of monumental works mean through commentary and rather insufficient analysis rather than the reader coming to their own conclusion through immersion in the entire work itself.  Reading Hobbes cover to cover, I can only admit that I was wrongheaded in simply repeating Robert Solomon's analysis of Hobbes as anti-democratical.

"Leviathan" is mostly political and theological in content.  However, there is a great passage early on where he, as many philosophers are want to do, describes what it means to create great art.  I must admit, and I shouldn't flatter myself too much as one of the things that is apparent in Politalk is that I've nothing approaching an acceptable grasp of the english language, that I identified with his description of how the genesis of art comes about.  Composition, he seems to imply, is something that takes both passion and circumspection, with circumspection - as in intuiting where to make variations - winning out as the dominant mode of authorship.  Perhaps that's what he meant.

Perhaps not.

As was said by someone in the continent, famously, when asked what Hegel meant by one of his passages: "Only Hegel and God know".

I think the same would apply to "Leviathan".

One thing I appreciated in Hobbes is his lack of Dialectic, in an Hegelian or Socratic sense.

It's very much an individualist work, and remains - in my mind - an example of restraint in use of wit and humor.  There were many times that I laughed upon reading "Leviathan"

For example, when Hobbes described "Laughing" as making a kind of "Grimace".

Another thing I thought was interesting about this work was his affinity, apparently in vogue at the time, for insulting the Greek philosophes - esp Aristotle.  He's not exactly cruel about it, but upon describing what pagan Greeks actually believed I found myself again making one of those "grimaces".

The climax of Part 1 of Leviathan had me absolutely riveted, where Hobbes culminates his graceful circumspection in an attack on the Church of Rome.  Being partial to this kind of narrative, I have to admit I jumped up in my seat in shock and awe when he finishes the first part of his work with a sharp and decisive blow to the Church of Rome.  Though one thing I should note is that it was patently obvious that he was writing as such to please the new Anglican monarchy, a criticism I suppose could aptly apply to myself on occasion.  Another thing that I thought was a little lacking was his opening:  "For what is the Heart, but a Spring;  and the Nerves, but so many Strings;  and the Joynts, but so many Wheeles, giving motion to the whole Body, such as was intended by the Artificer."  I'm not attempting to say this is not appropriate use of prose, but in this reviewers humble opine it's not as strong of an opener as perhaps it might have been.  Still, it will remain.

In short, 

"Leviathan"

By Thomas Hobbes

"Fun olde english, fun to read through, and as entertaining as it is important to the disciplines of Law, Politics and Theology."

- Brendan O'Connell, DDU 2014

The Regime Intent On Shoving Obamacare Down The Publik's Throats

The Regime of the U.S.S.A. seems to have no compunction or hesitation when it comes to forcing Americans into an Orwellian fascist state.  Rush Limbaugh yesterday said, of the current climate in the former U.S.A., he's never seen Democracy fall so fast.
And there's one mysterious thing to blame this on.
Obamacare, otherwise known as the "Affordable Healthcare Act".
Obviously it is laden, in a legislative sense, with all sorts of nefarious anti-democratical abuses of authority.
But what do we REALLY know about Obamacare?

Almost nothing, to be perfectly frank!

I'd love to shy away from the sort of "conspiratorial" talk that some revel in; but to be honest, it's difficult.

Obamacare is not just a mess, but - in fact - an official fascist move by a Regime so set on the forcing the populous into a kind of obedience that it's willing to do just about anything to ruin god fearing American's lives.

It would be ironic, if it weren't so deathly serious.

The irony, if it weren't so scary, would be that Obamacare's stated intention is to "Care" for people, and, obviously, it is fairly readily doing the exact opposite.  It's ruining lives.  It's ruining our country.

It's wrong for America.

One thing I don't think this Regime truly understands is that mandated health reform (i.e. abuse of a necessity) may well work fine in the continent.  Perhaps not, but decidedly it IS something that Europeans generally have in their republics, monarchy's, or popular governments.

And the Regime, with their leftinista NPR diet and educated stupidity, love to think of themselves as... well...  a "little european".  They obviously have the sophistication of progressive eurocracy, and are just, well... a little "cultured", a little "more intelligent" than those rubes in flyover country.

They are obviously wrong, however.

Socialized healthcare is just, to put it bluntly, unamerican.

Obamacare might work well in other country's, perhaps -

But the Regime and their disciples forget that this is NOT europe.

This is, or was, America.

Obamacare is wrong for America, wrong for Americans, and just plain "wrong" altogether.

Perhaps if the leftinista cabal weren't shoving it down our throats, so to speak, I would be a bit more compassionate towards what would just be ill timed and wrongheaded paper work cooked up in D.C.

But they are very insistent on shoving it down our throats.

Raise your hand if you've had several, two or more, democrat stooges tepidly recommend that you sign up for Obamacare?

That's, if you experienced it, merely the veneer on a fascist Left wing - intent on fighting in such a vile and base way that the boxing metaphor is, unfortunately, no longer applicable to politics.

The Left wing fights like a UFC champion.
The Conservative Publik likes to, shall we say, keep the gloves on.

So I conclude by saying this small bit of Limbaughian fact:

Health Insurance provided by an employer was set to be eviscerated at the beginning of this year.
Millions were to lose their coverage provided by an employer and dumped into Obamacare...
But the Regime is so disingenuous that they delayed this until, predictably, after the 2014 elections.

It will certainly happen, however, after the elections; so that's a decent sign that liberal benevolence is inadequate for a functioning popular government.

DDU 2014

Thom Tillis Endorsement

I endorse Thom Tillis for U.S. Senate, to represent NC in that dark city of Washinton D.C.
He is truly a breath of fresh air for this repub, and I know that with proper foresight and conviction he will clench the nomination and the office.
Endorsed by the National Rifle Association and given an A plus rating by said establishment, Thom Tillis gets not only my vote, but my sincere congratulations on his support given by the NRA.  We need someone in Washington who can stop the persecution of rifle owners.
Tillis is not only the best candidate for the U.S. Senate, but achieves his status as top dog contender with the ease and grace of a true Christian - who GETS the ways of our fair state of North Carolina. He CAN win, WILL win, and deserves to win.  The NRA has backed Tillis, ensuring all of us in his district that the conservative ascendancy is one of proportions nearing the true character of the south.

Tillis not only has aptly refused to respond to the insipidly stupid attack ads leveled at him so far in the lamestream media, but shows a real attitude of conviction of principle.  I say OF, due to the fact that his principled stance on the second amendment shows he GETS IT.  He gets what we care about, he gets what matters - the constitution - and he understands the true care and concern of the southerner typically.

If I see another attack ad, coupling his free enterprise philosophy with environmental "concerns-as-such", i may sincerely get angry.  The union organized mafioso club-of-the-profane has spent their wad most likely already, trying to convince average citizens of North Carolina, USA, that future Senator Tillis is a crony capitalist dedicated to big industry.  It's laughable, not to mention annoying for a hardworking joe or jane to have to sit through, however brief, whilst getting the weather at 6 and 7 p.m. EST.  The unioners should halt these vicious and ill timed attack ads, lest they show their hand in the political game to be exactly what it is for millions of NCers - a sham parlor trick meant for decidedly middle class overeducated global warming nutbags.  Lay off unions!

Thom Tillis is what NC needs, and this Tea Party patriot succinctly would like to endorse  Tillis with the following:

"Do you want a fucking hippy communist senator, or would you like to vote for a true patriot and southern republican Christian?  I don't care.  VOTE TILLIS."

On The Conservative Character: Post-Deconstructionist Republicanism

Deconstructionism, otherwise known as post-moderninism, was basically the End of Philosophy-as-such.  It was massively in vogue for many years, and has remained a cultural icon for many, including the counter-culture.  Basically one can look at Po-Mo ideology as a hip european import, taken as true by the majority of academia for most of last century more or less by virtue of it's elite, hip, and altogether "cool" status as an anti-philosophy.  One could, as a teacher, dismiss most of the philosophies of the continent throughout history by simply making a cursory reference to the current psychological sciences and physics-as-such.

However, we must all surely admit that Post-Modernism - given a nomenclature that seems decidedly futuristic - has run it's course and is now, like many philosophical movements of the past, merely another development in how Academics rationalize away the Christian truth of the Bible.  It may have been all the rage for both exceedingly intelligent learned people and counter-cultural drop-outs looking for something to dote on whilst sipping latte's at their coffee den of choice; but we must all admit the truth:  That Post-Modernism is dead.

We now live in an age of what could be called Post-Deconstructionism; that is, the era following the Post-Modernist time.  It's a blithe term that I've coined, no doubt - and surely won't catch fire in academic circles or find anything approaching respectability; however, Post-Deconstructionist philosophy/theology is a force to be dealt with.

Think of Post-Deconstructionism as a return to the originators of Po-Mo ideology.

Hegel and Heidegger, for example.

Both of these decidedly Germanic philosophes are generally acknowledged to have spurned Po-Mo's initial conceptualization.   Indeed, without Hegel and Heidegger there would be no Post-Modernism as is understood academically and, more to the point, in the works of Derrida - the author most closely tied to Post-Modernism's genesis.

If you are still wondering what I'm going on about this for, you could contrast the Po-Mo thinkers and authors with a philosopher I'm sure everyone is familiar with: Sartre.  Obviously he was anti-thetical to Post-Modernism, and many Po-Mo authors spent a great deal of time making polemic assaults on Sartre the man as well as Sartre's works.

So all of this pointless analytical word salad is merely to bring to a head the main thrust of my argument, which I've made before in previous entries... that is, Po-Mo ideology-as-such is almost entirely atheistic while the authors who created works that inspired the very existence of Post-Modernism were very, very Christian.  Hegel and Heidegger too centered their dialectic and ontology respectively around God-as-such.  This is, despite the whining of many left wing black t-shirt clad Po-Mo cultists, an honest to goodness fact.

On a side note, to all of the readers of DDU's Politalk who may still be scratching their heads at the use of Heidegger, here is a short video of the man himself:

How does all of this apply to Conservatism/Republicanism in America?

Simply as such;

The key tenet that defines Republicanism is the idea of a Bible centered culture, rather than a secular one.  There may well be atheist republicans, such as author Tom Wolfe, but the key tenet of Republicanism is the christian ethic-as-such.  The left looks at things in a far more holistic manner, in which Bible and Government are to remain explicitly and implicitly heterogeneous.  They often loudly cite Ben Franklin's account of the separation of Church and State...  However, the philosophical integrity that layeth behind the Republican Party's family friendly platform and image always has a pointed and oft' historically minded retort to almost all of the whiner progressive's qualms; in this instance, Ben Franklin is known, factually, to merely have been addressing the notion of having an official government religion.  It is a far cry to say that this indicates that we must, say, remove the Pledge from the classroom as Dukakis did in the eighties.  

For every ideological position of the Left, there is a bold and thorough philosophical retort.

But the left wing is so brazen that not only will they refuse to hear it; not only will they refuse to let us speak it to others; but they in fact silence any opposition whatsoever, most often through the media and academia.

Intelligence warrants that theology and philosophy be taken seriously.

But those on the left, as per Po-Mo cultism, disallow us to preach the truth by saying

a) Philosophy is dead.

b) The Bible is Myth.

The fact is, Democracy-as-such would never have taken off if Po-Mo ideology had been the existent philosophy of the Founding Fathers, etc.

Democracy requires purpose,

and purpose

requires

god.

Review of "George And Laura: Portrait Of An American Marriage"

No presidency has been as rife with controversy, conspiracy theories, polemical abuse, reactionary media bias and all around disdain from the Left as the Bush presidency.  Recall the 2003/2007 fervor from the lamestream media against W.  Everything from calling him a 'War Criminal' to lambasting all Christians as fundamentalist kooks.  They made every attempt to dethrone W. from his presidency in 2003, and failed.  This type of victory by the right should be analyzed by theoreticians of the political variety, as the 2016 election will undoubtedly receive the exact same level of unbiased media treatment.

Bush, one thing to note, probably took LSD according to the recent book "George and Laura".  As a matter of fact, so did Laura Bush - more than likely.  This is a bold claim, but "George and Laura" seems to hint at the fact that Laura bush went through a phase of wearing bellbottoms and tie-dyed shirts - and W. had a "wide-eyed" period where he almost certainly smoked SOME amount of marijuana and, as I said is indicated in "George and Laura", probably took hallucinogens.  To historical sceptics, it does in fact note that all of his friends and compatriots have been quoted as saying that W. smoked no marijuana or took any hallucinogens, but as presented in "George and Laura" this is merely an indicator that this was a controversy laden issue, more than likely pointing to the fact that W. experimented with LSD in the 70's.

This was one of the most startling aspects of "George and Laura"...  Just how rebellious both of these "squares" were in their early years.  George obviously had his partying days, and Laura has been a social drinker for her entire life up until the present.  However, the way in which their faiths coalesced in a purposive marriage after Laura Bush and George W. Bush met is a definitively awesome example of how two people can come together in a union of teleological prescience.  I mean this by the way in which both of their lives came to a tip when they met, and continued to be a real blessed and graceful movement of teleological purposiveness for years and years, sinning or not.

An interesting aspect of the book that really presented something you wouldn't be able to find in Oliver Stone's treatment of their lives is the role Jenna and Barbara played in George W. Bush's presidency.  Saddled with the same type of lifestyle W. had lived in his former years, they took being the president's children in the post-deconstructionist age with a fair amount of angst and even malice in regards to their role in history.  Jenna AND Barbara were both caught at various points in the presidency drinking lavishly with fake I.D.'s and whooping it up to near promethean fervor, decidedly down and out about having to be in the limelight of the POTUS, with all of the controversy and press that this includes.

But on 9/11 everything changed, and Jenna and Barbara became far closer to their previously somewhat estranged parents.  They started calling eachother every day.  Making visits to the whitehouse where they had previously declined to do so.
Everything changed on 9/11.

However, by far the most fascinating tale told in "George and Laura" is the history of Laura Bush's family.  It's as if Laura was ripped from the pages of a Flannery O'Connor novel and shoved into the light of full prestige.  Her trip from humanitarian elementary school teacher, searching for Mr. Right, into the first lady of the U.S. is remarkable, if only as a tale of differance into being-alongside-others.

Anybody who perhaps has had a drink or drug before will find a great deal to revel over in "George and Laura", where the recounting of W.'s hard-partying days is far more humanized and sentimentalized than in the hit film/hit piece "W".  Rollicking good ole' boy tumultuous revelry and a seemingly softer side to the greatest cowboy in history provides a tale of intrigue and evanescence - a story oft' ignored about Georgie's early years.  From telling off color jokes to fights with George Sr. and including but not limited to about the hardest partying anyone this side of the mississippi can imagine in waking life, the recounting of W.'s early years is a joy for any political insider to drink up and wash with in the morning.

But there remain many key insights into the former first lady and POTUS himself that remain unique to "George and Laura: Portrait of an American Marriage".

1) W. was a class clown in elementary school.

2) Laura actually murdered her highschool sweetheart and got away with it!

3) W. was caught picking his nose on T.V. in the 80's.

4) Laura was originally a a southern Democrat, and never completely strayed from this kind of belief system.

5) W. became successful in school, business, and politics almost entirely due to his charisma and charm, playing mischievous pranks and caining pet names for people, always getting the laugh.

6) Laura took her experience as a teacher to launch literacy programs as first lady; a bright contrast to Ron Paul and ilk's "right to illiteracy" platform.

7) W. made so many off color jokes that it made people around him uncomfortable, an admirable quality in any christian.

8) George W. Bush went to bed almost every night at 9:00 pm, and got up every morning around 4:50 am to read the NY Times, Washington Post, etc. during his presidency.


"George and Laura" is a good buy for anyone looking for something other than the lamestream media bias about the previous POTUS, and I urge all interested parties to click this link and pick up a copy (on sale for next to nothing):
George And Laura: Portrait Of An American Marriage

Hippocrates: Emboldened Sage Demon

Hippocrates, known for his pagan oathe required by all doctors of medicine, is truly an emblem of the taxation and misrepresentation engendered by modern healthcare intrusion.  Intrusion into the lives of everyday people, in that we now must have a doctor in the house - and that doctor is bound by a pagan oathe, the hippocratic oathe.

There are some in the Christian community who view the conflagration between the bible and pagan Greek philosophy as something resolved by thinkers such as Aquinas and Augustine.  This is a grim farce.
The fact is, pagan Greek philosophy and Christian philosophy are diametrically opposed.

This was resolved by many of the recent thinkers in post-modernism, but also profoundly disputed by myself in the following respect:

Thinkers in pagan Greek philosophy believed in, to all you doubters, what is referred to as "polytheism" - according to many postmodern thinkers as well as christian fundamentalists this in no way comports with Christianity, proper.

I've met some in the institutional bureaucracy that is healthcare who truly have a refined faith in completely refuted philosophers such as Aquinas and Augustine - they are dead wrong.

And to take a pagan oathe upon becoming a minister of health is far from appropriate in a Christian nation such as the U.S.A. -
but this is really the "former U.S.A." as doctors are now, in some sense, arbiters of our everyday lives!

It's a crying shame, and one which should surely be revealed as what it is in-and-for-itself... an ancient pagan game of lecherous proportions.  Why not add a leach to my abdomen?

Pagans really were engaged in an evil act - Polytheism.
Christianity really DOES need to be first and foremost when it comes to the administration of Health-as-such!

The fact is, nerds suck!

DDU 2013 R.T. Stillwell

In Support of Chris Christie

DDU believes that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie makes an astounding candidate for the presidential bid in 2016.  He will continue to garner widespread support from the republican constituency and mainstream voter base, and hopefully ride the tide into a great victory for the Republican party in 2016.
Chris Christie has two things that make a president great; both of which are controversial but all too true.

1. Bridges, bridges and bridges.
2. Bridges, bridges and bridges.

I mean, let's face it ~
A leader who can shut down infrastructure at his political whim is the kind of leader we want to enact revenge on the democrat party for 8 years of social justice activism, massive taxation and a legacy of tyranny.   We need a president with resolve, on who is willing to do the dirty work that it takes to get this country going great again - not some left wing whiny baby with penis envy, am I right?

A leader who can effectively cause significant harm to the constituencies of the left?  That's the kind of leader I want running our country!  One who can shut down bridges, close roads, cancel building permits, make dems feel uncomfortable and out of place etc.  We need someone who can bring the stigma, and make it stick ~ and Christie can do it.

One thing about Christie that has been underplayed in the newsmedia is his devout Christianity.  He is a profoundly Christian leader, who offered his unequivocal support to one of our nation's most Christian leaders of late in his 2000 POTUS run, George W. Bush.  He and former President Bush share one thing in common, despite their notably different dialects:  They both put God first and foremost, and politics second.

We need a leader who can get the job done, send em home and pay the bills.  A big boss, who can keep the busses running on time and keep the schedule in order.  Not some wimpy know it all with a penchant for the radical.

Hillary Clinton's honors thesis was "An Analysis of the Alinsky Model" - that is, an analysis of the author of "Rules for Radicals" who dedicated the book to "Lucifer... the first radical".
Big government with it's little hidden world is NOT what we need more of.  What we need more of is governance, New Jersey style.

And what a losing game the lamestream media will play in spinning a Christie presidency!  I can see it already.  SNL making fun of New Jersey residents as white trash.  Off color remarks his weight.  Using that image to present him as a crony capitalist!  It's so perfect...  perfect for the dems to lose in 2016.

I can see why Ann Coulter was an early Christie supporter!

DDU Founder and Member, Brendan O'Connell

Why Liberalism is Wrong: A Tiresome Dialectic

Liberalism is wrong because of it's ideologically derived affinity for misunderstanding.  Misunderstanding of such basic and primordial terms as "caring" and "coping" and "Concern".

Concern-as-such isn't merely a knee jerk worrisome reaction to an other, but a nuanced and complex way of being-in-the-world.  Reason-in-itself dictates that words have not just a representative meaning, not just a meaning in which we bestow the meaning with virtue, but that the representative meaning corresponds to or, in-fact, IS the object of consciousness.  There is no reason to delimit the meaning of words to one's own inadequately synthesized understanding-for-itself, a priori.

The truth of "coping" is that it is not a slavish and immoral basic-being-as-such that needs to be civilized into an entity, in a ontical sense, in which appropriate behavior (as per behaviorism) is capable of being known or embodied.  Coping is, in fact, nothing progressive...

To cope, as liberalism believes is a slavish inadequate form of being-in-the-world-as-such, is merely to be in a world in which one realizes their own spirit as the definitive form-as-such of an image of Hosana-in-itself.  The fallenness of being-alongside-others defines the terms of a priori synthesis in-itself and for-itself, as the Being of the world is an ontical image of the Absolute individual.  If coping were something, as liberalism believes, to be stopped then this comporting of linguistic formulae - as in ideological contrivance - would be an untrue and ungodly faux pas of ethical understanding as per the post-modern and post-deconstructionist infrastructure in-and-of-itself.

Liberalism adheres to ideology in that it takes the means to be an end for-the-sake-of-which one's own fleeting sense of recompense to Hosana is nil, and there need be no repentance in-and-for-itself.

One is quick to repentance, it is said, precisely because of the fallenness of being-in-the-world and the world-in-and-of-itself.

One is reluctant to repent due to, more often than not, one's own sense of ideological prescience.


Liberalism is wrong exactly due to the fact that ideological adherence is no guarantee of philosophical ontological authority!

Why does one, as per liberalism, make amends to a means with which the a priori synthesis has no verstehen of the ends-for-the-means?  Why sacrifice anything at all?  Sacrifice is no service, no care nor concern.  Sacrifice is merely a way of getting beyond the limits of one's own ultimate Absolute Being-in-the-world!

If one was to say coping is what one needs to move beyond, then one implicitly denies the teleological authority needed for authentic Care-as-such.  If one moves beyond the limits of one's own innate and inherently fallen Being, the ontico-ontological priority of repentance becomes a melodrama of inappropriate one-in-all Universalism.

One can never be all.

All-for-one is only an absolutely singular end delimiting the means of itself.

So, as-such, one can only truly be just if one takes into account the way in which the philosophy of the left is self-defeating.



A self defeating philosophical priority to it's own means-in-and-for-itself.








...and the ends never justify the means!






DDU 2014
R.T.
"VOTE CHRISTIE"
-Brendan O'Connell, DDU FOUNDER AND MEMBER