Posts Tagged ‘history’

Via Wikipedia commons

Yesterday I talked about the mini-series Jonathan and Jesus today I watched it. Several takeaways from Part 1.

I mentioned in yesterday’s piece that Roumie has credits dating back with 2003. He commented that Harold Ramis told him it takes 20 years to be an overnight sensation and at the time he said that wasn’t going to be him. Reality just is.


I was not familiar with Dallas Jenkins previous short from 2013 Once we were slaves (retitled the two thieves) about St. Dismas on the Cross. Jonathan played Jesus in that short and Jenkins thought it be best film portrayal of Christ in film.

And this was five years before the Chosen.

That’s mysterious ways all over.


One of the things that happens in the 1st episode is that Roumie gets to meet the head of one of his favorite bands: “The Killers’ who are apparently one of the biggest rock bands of the 21st century and have been around for 20 years.

I had never heard of them until that moment.

Boy I’m old.


While in Italy they walk along actual Roman Roads dating back to the time of Christ and before.

Those Roman Roads were the internet of their times. They connected people throughout the empire in a way that was not possible previously because it made travel, trade and communication easier.

Those Roman Roads are one of the greatest single inventions in the history of mankind and it was across those roads that Christianity marched through the empire, at a time of general peace which made it possible.

Just a coincidence I’m sure.


If I had to choose the best moment of part one it was the visit with Alice Cooper who while I heard had converted to Christianity didn’t know that his family had been very Christian and that he came back to the faith late in life. He also talked about how he was told that putting his Christianity into his work would end his career, but of course it did not.

His description of what the price of incredible fame is the single best I’ve ever heard:

Fame is really dangerous, I mean, look what it did to Elvis. Here is a good example. If you take anybody and put him in the biggest mansion on the planet and say: ”You can have anything you want, you can have all the woman, you can have all the drugs, you can have food, you can have anything you want, but you can’t leave the mansion.” that person will find a way to kill themselves because they’ve lost the basic freedom be just to live.  Elvis couldn’t go to the movies. Elvis couldn’t play pool, Elvis couldn’t go out for a drive. He was a prisoner of his own fame. He was that big. Michael Jackson. Everybody that achieved that type of fame died early, because it’s so unnatural.

Of course the most important and true thing he said was: ”It’s your relationship with Christ that is the most important thing no matter what situation you’re in.”

He gets it.

  • Sir Bedevere: What makes you think she’s a witch?
  • Peasant: Well, she turned me into a newt!
  • Sir Bedevere: A newt?
  • Peasant: [meekly after a long pause] Got better.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail 1975

The Jack Smith “Trump is going to have his enemies killed if elected” story brought back memories of a young lady I once knew.

About 7 years or so ago, just before my temp job became a full time one I used to work with a particular young lady.

She was 30 years younger than me, very intelligent and a hard worker. Her older sister had gone to school with my youngest son and also worked at the place but as a full timer. 

We got along like a house on fire although we were about as politically and religiously different as we could be. I was a straight devout Catholic who after Ted Cruz had lost in the primaries was all in on Trump and while she was a lesbian or perhaps bi who was all in or Bernie and had walked away from the Church, though devoted to her still devout French Canadian grandmother.

While as I said we got along well one of the things about her that regularly dove me nuts was her INSISTANCE that Donald Trump was going to put her in a gulag for being a lesbian.

No argument or evidence could convince her otherwise and even after Trump’s election she remained convinced that any day now a Trumpian gestapo would come for her to her final day at the company back in January of 2018 she clung to this belief. I ran into her older sister who left the company a year or so ago (a great loss to the place) last week and inquired about her. She told me her sister was doing well and apart from the COVID isolation that everyone had gone through had not in fact ended up in a gulag during the entire span of Donald Trump’s presidency.

Which brings us to election 2024.

I’ve already noted the invincible irrational hatred that some have for Trump which I think will be a real problem come election day, but the only thing more irrational than that hatred (particularly from some conservatives) is the abject fear of some liberals of a 2nd Trump term in terms of their personal freedom.

To put it simply. If there is one thing that was perfectly clear during the Trump years is that while he had harsh words and abrasive and even insulting tweets for those who opposed him Trump did not censor nor imprison those who opposed him loudly.

You’d think that if Trump was a wanna be dictator he might have, you know, acted like a dictator, imprisoned a few folks on “Trumped” up charges, used the power of the FBI or the IRS against them or even gone after those burning cities and thrown the book at them for their terroristic actions.

Or to put it another way: If you ask people to raise their hand if Donald Trump imprisoned or even censored you for speaking out against him during his first term the number of hands that will go up will be equal to the number of Camels this person has spotted.

On the contrary it was In fact it was Trump himself who was often censored and/or misrepresented particularly when he suggested that there were treatments for COVID out there that were effective and the Biden administration who has used all of these tactics on those who might dare suggest that the previous election was not clean and the government’s statements on COVID might not be all that accurate.

Put simply Trump has a record of not imprisoning’s or harming his foes, so what makes anybody think that he’s going to be doing so if re-elected, particularly since he will go into office as an instant lame duck who can’t run for a 3rd term?

Of course this kind of logic is lost on the Jack Smiths of the world and on those who think looting and burning cities is fine but walking through the capital while police hold doors open for you is high treason and can’t tell the difference between barbarians who rape murder and kidnap women and children and those who retaliate against the folks who do so.

No amount of argument will apply here. This is a matter of faith for them and if we are blessed with a 2nd Trump term they will insist that their lack of imprisonment was simply because he either didn’t get around to it or that the brave democrats of the house prevented him from doing so.

Unexpectedly of course.


Little Christmas is here and we’re still $2345 & 10 subscribers short of our goal. If you’d like to change that please hit DaTipJar below

Bart Maverick:Well it still smells of a con game but there’s too much money in the come-on.

Madame De Chauvrier: So?

Bart Maverick: Madame there isn’t a grifter alive who puts real gold in his “goldbrick” not over a million dollars worth.

Maverick Diamond in the Rough 1958

Now that the Civil war is suddenly in vogue thanks to Nikki Haley’s gaffe it’s worth noting a few things that are basic facts.

The south was fighting to preserve slavery, all you have to do is read the newspapers of the time to know this is true but if you really want to understand this, don’t take my word for it, take the word of the Vice President of the Confederacy Alexander Stephens:

The new [confederate] constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. 

Alexander Stephens: Crossroads speech

Keep an eye on that link we’ll be going back to that speech a lot in this post.

What would have been more accurate to say was that the North was not fighting to end slavery, although there were many in the union ranks who believed in its abolition. As Lincoln himself put it in his letter to Horace Greeley:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less  whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

This believe it or not is something that even Nikole Hannah-Jones of the phony narrative of the 1619 project understands and states publicly showing that every now and again when a person is trying to sell a salted mine or a fake narrative it’s necessary for a person to make sure there is enough gold in their gold brick or a bit of truth in the come-on to be able to make the sale.

Of course Hanna-Jones likely had little use for the final sentence of Lincoln’s letter

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

And I suspect that she thought even less of Alexander Stephens words concerning what the founding fathers thought of Slavery and the black race in that same Crossroads speech:

But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

All emphasis mine

This completely contradicts the narrative of the left on what the founders thought. Furthermore unlike Hanna-Jones, Stephens was in a real position to know what the founders thought not only because the founding of the country was still in living memory at the time of this speech but because he was one of the most educated men of his time:

Take a note of what he says here. He not only states that Jefferson and most of the leading statesmen were opposed to slavery and considered wrong on every count and that said idea was the prevailing idea of the time, but that those founding fathers held that idea based on an assumption of the equality of the races.

It’s important to note here that his was not mere rhetoric. Stephens despite poor beginnings was not only well read in an age were illiteracy was common, but well educated (Top of his college class) a successful lawyer, married to the daughter of a Revolutionary war colonel but at the time of this speech had been an elected representative in the state of Georgia and congress for over a quarter of a century. Few men in the entire nation were in a better position to know the history and the sentiment of the Founders than he.

The real irony is that Hanna-Jones argues for advantages and reparations and special privileges for Blacks in education, and the workplace and by law because they can’t make it in the biased “white” world. Stevens would and did agree completely with this argument:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

And he not only stated this but he noted that their opponents in the North arguments against slavery would be correct if they did not subscribe to what he considered a false premises of racial equality.

One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. 

emphasis mine

Is this not the same argument that the Nichole-smith and folks from DEI are making? Blacks must have separate graduations, gays must have separate graduations, they must have separate spaces, all of this is pretty much the argument that Stephens made that Blacks can’t complete on a level playing fields.

George W. Bush called it the: Soft bigotry of low expectation.

I call it “racism”, racism for fun and profit. Well fun and profit for those who make a living off the DEI grift, but for the vast majority of actual students of color who are going to have to make it in a world that doesn’t give a damn about DEI but skills and results It’s a sentence to failure, that ironically will be blamed on racism.


Note: Our days of Christmas fundraiser is in progress $2900 & 10 subscribers to go. Read more here or donate below:

By John Ruberry

In 1904, a Greek American, Ion Hanford Perdicaris, was kidnapped by Ahmed al-Raisuli, a Moroccan tribal leader. Theodore Roosevelt was president. And the official American response to Perdicaris being taken hostage was simple: “We want Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead.” There’s more. Roosevelt sent several companies of Marines and seven warships to Morocco. 

The end result was a compromise. Perdicaris was freed and the sultan of Morocco paid a ransom to Raisuni, but also $4,000 to the United States to cover the expenses of the incident.

Moving to the present, our current president, Joe Biden, hasn’t done much more than beg for the release of ten-or-so Americans held in Gaza by Hamas terrorists. 

Yeah, yeah, I know the rest of that narrative, which roughly is, “We’re working behind the scenes to secure the release of all American hostages,” or something like that. 

Begging is more accurate, I believe.

As of this writing, 58 hostages have been released by Hamas, but only one American, 4-year-old Abigail Mor Edan, whose parents were murdered by the terrorists. She was released this morning, as part of third round of hostage released–a fourth is expected on Monday—which is part of a temporary cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. Israel in turn has released at least 100 Palestinian prisoners.

Obviously, most of the released hostages are Israelis, but ten Thai hostages are now free, as well as one Filipino and one Russian.

Thailand clearly gets more respect than America, although none of the hostages should have been taken.

Hostage-taking and purposeful killing of civilians are both war crimes–not that Hamas cares about that. 

Biden, who favors a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians–which would presumably include Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists–came across far less forceful than Teddy Roosevelt, when speaking of Abigail’s release.

“What she endured is unthinkable,” Biden said. “Thank God she’s home. I just can’t imagine the enjoyment. I wish I were there to hold her.” 

Eww.

Instead, Biden should say this: American hostages released or the Hamas leaders dead.

But Biden, even though he is clearly suffering from cognitive decline, apparently still has enough brain cells for now to realize he’s a tool of the growing hate-Israel wing within the Democrat Party.

Election Day in America is less than a year away.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.