Tuesday, March 2nd, 2021
Bookmark and Share

Because I Said So!

A Weekly Blog From John Rosemond

Sign-up here to receive Because I Said So! each week in your inbox.



We're About to Find Out What Tulsi's Made Of

February 11, 2021

The Democrat Party, having gained power, is rapidly revealing itself incapable of governing. Do they really think they can afford to demonize half the country? They obviously do. Since his inauguration as president ersatz, Biden has destroyed thousands of jobs, destroyed women’s athletics, weakened the military, and weakened Asian-American students chances of getting into top-flight universities.

I’m going to play psychologist here. Donald Trump came very close to uncovering the evil that has embedded itself in Washington. One more term would have been the clincher. The swamp denizens had to stop him at all cost, and they did. Or, they think they did. Or, they’re desperate to convince we, the people, that they are in their rightful place, doing rightful and necessary things. One thing is for certain: They are scared. The extreme speech they’re putting out there and the extreme things they’re threatening are the stuff of fear.

They spent four years trying to prove that Trump was a Russian agent. Dark humor is defined by the true believers in that bright red herring. Lenin coined a term that aptly describes them: useful idiots. I don’t think many on the right even begin to comprehend the depth of the depravities and abuses of office the New Left was trying to hide with that charade.

Notwithstanding a three-year sham investigation of a sham dossier supposedly unveiling a sham conspiracy, impeachment, and push-back from many on the Republican side of the swamp, Trump prevailed. He stayed the course, never wobbled, not once. What a guy! He had the swamp creatures quaking in their luxury lifestyles.

Every morning, my wife and I spend about an hour drinking coffee, cuddling with Mazie the Wonder Dog, catching up on the latest in the crash and burn, and doing the Wall Street Journal crossword (me). Willie pulls up video of Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, Maria Bartiromo, and other rational people. Tulsi Gabbard has been a frequent guest on their shows. I know her parents, met her briefly when she was a teenager. When Tulsi first ran for Congress, a conservative friend of mine in Hawaii told me she was “out there.” I took it that Tulsi was the consummate New Ager, a believer in crystal healing and dancing to Shiva on black sand beaches at midnight in the full moon.

Tulsi Gabbard is making more sense than any politician except maybe Rand Paul and I’m still unsure about him. Yes, Tulsi is no longer a congresswoman, but it sounds a lot to me as if she’s setting herself up for a run at something. I think she’s going for the brass ring. She’s got to be almost as if not more scary to her former colleagues on the left side of the aisle as The Donald. How are they going to demonize her? She’s a woman and ethnic. She appeals to millennials and boomers. She’s a surfer! But mostly, she’s highly intelligent, articulate, rational, logical, attractive to men and non-threatening to women. She is the package! How in the world are the creatures from the Black Lagoon going to demonize her? They’re going to try, for sure. And the more they try, the more repellant they’re going to appear.

I dig Tulsi. It’s going to be interesting to watch how she deals with the garbage Pelosi and AOC and CNN and The New York Times and The Washington Post and Whoopie (can’t forget one of the most perceptive political analysts going) begin tossing her way. I flunked Fortune Telling in grad school, but I predict, nonetheless, that Tulsi is going to come out on top without breaking a sweat.



Ted Cruz and I Fail Seth Rogen's Fascist Test

February 4, 2021

Friday, January 22, 2021, is a day that will live in infamy. It is the day actor and comedian Seth Rogen called Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) a “fascist” during a Twitter exchange. Rogen determined that Cruz was a fascist when Cruz openly opposed ersatz President Biden’s decision to rejoin the Paris Climate Accords.

Okay, so Cruz and I are in the same boat. Last summer, when I told an adult female (at least, she had physical characteristics of being adult and female, but one never knows these days) that I was voting for The Donald, she yelled, “Oh, no! He’s a fascist!” That makes me a fascist too, I guess, since I agree with The Donald about most things.

Rogen, age 38, is a millennial. He can be forgiven, therefore, for anything he says about anything. But! He’s Jewish, so it’s difficult to forgive him for mis-using the term fascist. He should be ashamed of himself and apologize to Cruz, in fact, but that’s a non-starter.

The authoritative Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines fascism as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime … that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”

Gosh and golly gee whiz! That sounds a like the 2021 version of a Democrat politician, to me. Parsing the definition:

  1. …exalts nation and race above the individual – True, The Donald wanted to, and almost did, make America great again, but up until B. H. Obama, every president, Democrat and Republican, tried to maintain America’s greatness in the world. So, exalting the nation is not exclusively Republican. But exalting race above the individual is what identity politics, exclusive to the Democrat Party, is all about. Strike one against Rogen.
  2. …stands for a centralized autocratic government – The Donald tried to restore the power of the 10th Amendment, the states’ rights amendment, so this doesn’t apply to him either. Today’s Democrat Party is for nullification of states’ rights and centralized government. Once a government becomes centralized, autocracy follows. Once again, Rogen is wrong. Strike two for the Sethmeister.
  3. …economic and social regimentation – Obama increased regulation; Donald decreased it. On day one of his ersatz presidency, Biden struck up the regulatory band. Strike three for the Rogendude.
  4. …forcible suppression of opposition – Since the “election,” quite a few Democrat bigwigs have spoken of wanting to silence Trump supporters, take away their rights, and even force them into re-education programs. No Republicans voiced similar ideas when Hillary lost in 2016. Strike four for the funny man.

I’m a psychologist. According to psychology, to accuse someone of an egregious fault that is true of the accuser is known as “projection.” Very insecure people project their own pathologies onto others because they can’t face the truth about themselves.

I’ll stop right there. I don’t need to say anything else because my readers are a very intelligent group of people.



"That's Not Fair!"

January 28, 2021

Beginning in the late 1960s, psychologists and other mental health professionals began demonizing traditional childrearing. Without a shred of evidence with which to support their contentions, they asserted that traditional childrearing was psychologically harmful to children. To save children from further harm, they came up with a new childrearing paradigm that stood in sharp contrast to the old. If the new paradigm had retained any aspect of the old paradigm, then the argument could have been made that the new paradigm was only less harmful, so the new paradigm was NEW in every sense of the term, and thoroughly so.

Traditional families were adult-centric, so the new, utopian family was child-centric. In the traditional family, parents ruled, so new families were to be democratic. Children were to have an equal voice – from early on, mind you – in family decisions. Traditional parents had not explained themselves to children, so parents who wanted to get with the new program were to explain themselves. If their children didn’t like their rules and boundaries, new parents were to negotiate with their children until a win-win outcome was obtained.

Okay, let’s stop right there. A win-win outcome requires agreement on the part of both parties that a satisfactory agreement has been reached. What is a satisfactory agreement from a child’s point of view? Right! From a child’s point of view, the only satisfactory “agreement” has the child getting what he wants!

EXAMPLE: Billy, age sixteen, has received three speeding tickets in his first month of driving. His parents, having paid close to two thousand dollars in fines, are inclined to take his driving privileges away until he turns seventeen. Billy thinks that’s unfair. He wants to continue driving, without any restriction. What is a win-win solution to that problem? There is none! But Billy’s parents, wanting Billy to view them as fair, propose to Billy that, okay, he can continue driving and okay, there will be no restrictions, but he has to promise to drive more carefully, which Billy thinks is just splendid and so promises.

My point: If the child in a parent-child negotiation doesn’t think a certain outcome is fair, then it is not win-win. To achieve win-win, the outcome must be pleasing to the child, which isn’t win-win. It’s win-lose. Quickly, the child learns that he can get his way in a “negotiation” by yelling “That’s not fair!” So, that’s what he does. In other words, in said “negotiations,” the child holds the trump card. He’s in control of the outcome. Are you getting this?

The above example illustrates how in many of today’s families, children are in complete control of the home. They control through emotional intimidation. They scream, yell, cut, threaten to kill themselves, and otherwise bully their parents into letting them have their way. And the more their parents cave, the more the children in question scream, yell, curse, cut, and threaten to kill themselves.

The paradox, however, is that while the kids in question are getting their way, they’re not really happy. That explains why, since American parents began taking their marching orders from psychologists and other mental health ninnies, the mental health of America’s children has gone down the proverbial toilet. And it will keep right on going down the sewer pipes until American parents wake up to the scam that has been run on them.

Scam? Yes, scam. Consider that the people who have profited financially from the mess of child mental health are the very people who made the mess. If it walks like a scam and quacks like a scam, then it is a scam.



Darwin Got It All Wrong

January 21, 2021

Apologists for Darwinian evolutionary theory tend toward being both infuriating and hilarious.

Full disclosure: Until my early 40s, I accepted Darwin’s theory of macro-evolution as the gospel. I thought only narrow-minded, uneducated, superstitious nincompoops believed in an invisible supernatural being who poofed the universe into being and created humans out of clay. Then, I began reading books written by scientists in various fields who were arguing against Darwin’s theory and, poof, just like that I became a creationist. Today, I think Darwin was a brilliant man who came up with a brilliant, but wrong, theory. His problem was simply that he didn’t possess the scientific knowledge of things like DNA that we possess today.

Anyway, back to the infuriating and hilarious people who are the public spokespersons for Darwinism. Take David Barash, for example. Barash is professor of psychology emeritus at the University of Washington and the author of Threats: Intimidation and Its Discontents. In the December 30, 2020 Wall Street Journal, Barash reviewed Donald Prothero’s book, The Story of Evolution in 25 Discoveries. How, one might ask, does a psychologist (of which I, too, am one) qualify to review a book on evolution? Because both psychology and evolution are leftist-atheist-postmodern ideologies that have no basis in good science. Barash and Prothero are blood brothers in the cause of destroying belief in God.

Barash begins his praiseful review by invoking the “evolutionary fact that complex multi-cellular creatures came along later than simple, unicellular ones.” Indeed, the fossil record is clear on that account. It is indeed a FACT that small things came before bigger things. But is it, as Barash claims, an EVOLUTIONARY fact? No, it is not. The FACT of the matter is that the fossil record – especially the record contained in the so-called Cambrian Explosion – supports the creationist view. In the CE, all major animal phyla appeared, fully formed, around the same time. No evidence of evolution there. The CE contains no transitional species, for example. It is paleontology’s Big Bang. There were bacteria, amoeba, and planaria, and then, BANG, there was nearly everything else. That’s called creation, as described in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis. The CE drives evolutionists up a wall. They have no choice, really, but to twist the facts to fit their ideology.

Barash goes on from there to homologies: the curious fact that the body parts of various species seem to be constructed on the same basic pattern, as in the bone structure of the human hand and porpoise flippers. Evolutionists employ homologies to “prove” common descent.

Barash: “The Darwinian story provides scientific insights into why homologies occur, whereas the theological story simply reiterates that they occur.”

Wrong again! The Darwinian story does no such thing! Darwinism explains homologies in terms that preserve a materialistic worldview. Darwinists begin their “scientific” explorations with a conclusion: God is a fiction. They then fit evidence into that conclusion. Thus, homologies “prove” evolution. But homologies can be easily explained theistically: to wit, God often created different species using similar designs. Why not? He is under no obligation to never replicate basic templates.

Barash then cites the FACT that the flora and fauna of islands often resemble those of nearby continents, “a phenomenon that wouldn’t necessarily be expected if each had been a separate, independent creation.” Huh? Barash sets up a straw man – to wit, if someone called God created thingies, each thingy He created would be found, at least initially, in only one spot – and then knocks the straw man down. But the Bible says no such thing. It says God covered the earth with His creation. And so, the fact that similar flora and fauna are found in separate places on the earth is consistent with the Biblical account.

Barash claims that an animal with both amphibian and fish-like features proves said animal is a “transitional species.” No, it doesn’t. It proves only that there was once an animal, now extinct, with both amphibian and fish-like features. A salamahi? newtagrouper?

According to Barash, Prothero “enumerates transitional species galore.” Trust me, transitional species are the Great Darwinian Myth. Take “Lucy,” for example. Lucy, as she was named, was a supposedly transitional hominid species found in Africa in 1974. For many years thereafter, evolutionists proudly pointed to Lucy’s bones as proof of their theory. Then it was determined that Lucy’s bones were not Lucy’s bones; rather, they were a collection of bones from several different animals. So much for Lucy. May she/he/it rest in peace.

Furthermore, the Bible does not say that Adam and Eve were the first hominids. It says, and this is very important, that Adam and Eve were the first hominids God created with souls – the first truly HUMAN beings. So-called “Old Earth Creationists,” of which yours truly is one, believe hominids existed prior to God creating Adam and Eve. So, even if fossil remains such as Lucy’s dubious collection of bones are dated prior to human beings, that does not prove evolution.

Barash then goes on to animal and human body parts that make no sense, like the giraffe’s laryngeal nerve, which begins in the upper neck, loops down to its heart and then back up again. Only a “thoroughly incompetent designer” would make such a contraption, says Barash. Okay, so the fact that some features of God’s designs don’t make sense to people like Barash and Prothero means God doesn’t exist. How about Barash and Prothero make very little sense; therefore, Barash and Prothero don’t exist? An equally “scientific” deduction, if I do say so myself.

Darwinists don’t bring up DNA because it is their stumbling block. DNA is essential to life. Said another way, to qualify as a living organism, a candidate must possess DNA. We’re talking about the most complex binary code ever discovered. We’re talking about an absolutely gorgeous arrangement of code that takes the form of a double helix – two snakes curling around each other with a regular arrangement of code between them. FACT: There is no way DNA could have been present in a one-celled organism that spontaneously appeared in otherwise inert primordial muck. FACT: There is no way DNA could have evolved. It is clear, irrefutable evidence of a Designer. FACT: Darwinism cannot get over that hurdle. Oh, they try. Do they ever try. Some of them propose, for example, that Earth was seeded with one-celled organisms from other planets in the universe by solar winds or comets, which only makes for another question Darwinists stumble around: “How did life arise on those planets?”

Intelligent design proponents (they avoid the word “creationist” but that is effectively what they are) – William Dembski, Michael Behe, Phillip Johnson, et. al. – make a much more logical case for creation than Barash makes for evolution. I highly recommend their books. If you’re interested, begin with Johnson. He introduced me to the truth when I was in my early 40s. He can do the same for you.



Special Edition: Are You Satisfied?

January 14, 2021

Are you satisfied? I’m addressing folks who voted for Biden simply because mainstream media convinced them that Trump is a mental defective whose rocking chair is missing a rocker.

But let’s pretend, for the moment, that Biden actually won, which is a truly laughable proposition.

As I write, the House of Representatives has impeached The Donald for the second time and McConnell is trying to figure out how to get out of that one. Meanwhile, food and gas prices are going up, AOC is calling for establishing controls over certain media so that they can no longer print “lies,” Iran is rapidly developing weapons-grade uranium and nuclear technology (in blatant violation of the agreement it signed), Biden has said he’s going to “war” with the NRA (in other words, he’s intent upon trashing the Second Amendment)…

It is now a known fact that the siege on the Capital on January 6 was a planned, coordinated affair that the FBI, CIA, and other security organizations had advance notice of and did nothing. Some credible media outlets are saying Pelosi and Schumer were briefed on the distinct possibility of an attack and did nothing. Right! The ensuing chaos fit right into their plans.

Did Trump incite the riot? No, he did not. Has any mainstream media outlet released an audiotape of his speech? No. Why? Because the audiotape refutes their narrative, that’s why. The question becomes: How did Trump incite a riot that was in progress before he finished his speech? I’ve heard plenty of first-person testimonies from folks who were there. Trump urged calm. He urged peaceful protest, which is our right under the Constitution.

It is a known fact that the FBI had been warned, in advance, that certain violence-prone extremists were planning to create a major disruption. What history is there of Trump supporters being violence prone? None. What history is there of radical leftists being violence prone? Plenty. Think the summer of 2020, when Democrat mayors were silent as their cities were torn apart by Antifa and BLM mobs.

We now have one-party rule, folks. Even the Chief Justice has shown himself to be a turncoat. If the Republican Party held all the cards, no one would need worry that our civil liberties, which have come at a great price, would be trashed. But the Democrat Party? Now, that’s a different story. The Dems have caved to the radical left-wing agenda of AOC and her crowd. We’re talking about people who hate the Constitution because it hampers their totalitarian objectives.

America is headed into darkness. Trust me. I know how these people think. I was one of their mob in the late 1960s and early ‘70s. They are dangerous and they will stop at nothing.

Are you satisfied?


Why Is Demi Lovato Such a Mess and Why Do I Have To Know?

January 14, 2021

Why is Demi Lovato such a mess and why do I have to know? In the last year, the media has informed me that she is bipolar, has suffered from depression, and once had an eating disorder. Ms. Lovato was famous in her teens and a multi-millionaire before she was twenty-one. She is now twenty-eight.

I love standing in the checkout line at grocery stores. Where else can one catch up on what’s really important? George and Amal are getting divorced for the twentieth time, Harry’s been unfaithful to Meghan, one of the Kardashians tried to kill herself last week, Brad is in a love triangle with his makeup artist and her boyfriend, who’s in prison for trying to poison his mother, who recently came out as a man who believes he’s actually a porpoise. The longer the wait, the better my mood.

I love every bit of it. I do, however, yearn for the days when Elvis sightings were commonplace; when he was able to be in Seattle, Little Rock, and Ranlo, North Carolina in one twenty-four-hour period. By the way, the license plate on my F-250 reads IMLVIS. I’m just trying to throw the paparazzi off his trail. It’s working. Ask yourself, “When is the last time I saw a current photo of Elvis on the cover of the National Enquirer?” See what I mean?

Once upon a time, celebrities had scandals but no soap operas. Today’s celebrities have soap operas but no scandals. Why is that? Nothing rises to the level of scandal these days because we’ve topped out on scandal. When a formerly male Olympic champion publicly claims to be a woman, is celebrated as “courageous” and awarded medals for giving five-year-old boys permission to be who they really are, what is a scandal?

Back to Ms. Lovato. My question: Who cares about her miserable life? Apparently, lots of people! Her miseries sell a gobsmacking number of tell-all magazines. Personally, I think the truly miserable people among us can be identified by their insatiable lust for said magazines. After all, what is more comforting than knowing that the rich and famous have more problems than you? Compared to Demi Lovato, who is a multi-millionairess, your problems are small potatoes. Stop whining and figure out how you’re going to feed your kids tonight. Demi could have an eating disorder relapse at any moment, for Pete’s sake!

Have you figured out that eating disorders are a luxury exclusive to people who have never had to worry about where their next meals are coming from? When is the last time you heard of a homeless person with an eating disorder? Ever stopped to think how many people in the Central African Republic, the poorest country on the planet, have eating disorders? Right! Poor people can’t afford eating disorders, which proves that eating disorders are caused by a surplus of money. Is it any wonder, then, that Demi Lovato’s net worth is estimated at $40 million?


Jimmy Buffett is a Big Yawn

January 7, 2021

First, my qualifications for writing this chapter of my world-renowned blog: I began playing in rock ‘n’ roll bands – lead singer, mostly, with occasional stints on rhythm guitar and blues harmonica – at seventeen and continued playing for seven years. In 1992, I recorded, with a backing band comprised of crack musicians (who auditioned me before they agreed to play on the album), a full-length album of songs I had written. Not parenting ballads, mind you…rhythm ‘n’ blues-based rock ‘n’ roll. The album received very good reviews. One reviewer said that one of the songs was the best he’d ever heard in its category (so-called “garage” rock). Truth be known, given the choice between I can be lead singer in a band or I can be a parenting expert…lead singer, hands down.

Okay, having established my bona fides in rock music, the blog that will make me lots of enemies. I’ll come straight to the point: I cannot abide Jimmy Buffett. See? Some of you are already screaming vile things at me. Let’s face it, the Margaritameister is not a good singer, he’s not a good songwriter (save maybe two that are passable), he’s not a good guitarist, his band is not that good (a friend of mine sang backup for him for a while and told me he picked her not for her talent but because she didn’t charge the going rate). He’s a crashing bore, to be honest.

But! He’s a good marketer, for sure, and I do believe in capitalism and the free market, so I honor him for making lots of moolah off of very mediocre talent.

You can generally judge a musician by his ability to take someone else’s song and make it better, like Hendrix did with “All Along the Watchtower” and the Stones did with “Time Is On My Side.” Just to mention two. So, on that basis, have you ever heard Buffett’s version of Van Morrison’s “Brown-Eyed Girl”? No? Don’t bother. It ranks with the worst covers ever done. His take reveals his utter lack of vocal chops. Someone needs to tell him, “Jimmy, my man, it’s not just about staying on key, which you manage to do, but what distinguishes a really great singer – Elvis, Sinatra, Dylan, Grace Slick, McCartney even – is their phrasing – their ability to create a new rhythm with their voice, and Jimmy, my man, you just ain’t got it. You got no soul, dude.”

Dylan? Yes, Dylan. He is one of the greatest singers of all time. People who say he can’t sing have never really listened to him. They don’t like his tone so they extrapolate from their bad ear that he can’t sing. Believe me, other lead singers are in awe of him. Dylan invents melodies that no one has ever thought of before and his phrasing is magical.

But back to the Parrotman. Okay, okay, he’s entertaining. On second thought, not really. He stands in one spot and sings and cracks jokes. Mick Jagger is entertaining. Steven Tyler is entertaining. Comparatively, Buffett is a big yawn.

But I still sing along to “Wastin’ Away in Margaritaville” every time it comes on my car radio.



Making Mountains Out of Molehills

December 31, 2020

As a child and through my high school years, I failed at things. I was bullied – truly, physically bullied – by more than a few sociopaths. My stepfather, who came into my life when I was six, was emotionally abusive to both me and my mother. Hell was created with people like him in mind. My mother eventually descended into serious emotional disturbance. By the time I was twelve, I knew I was on my own. My father, with whom I went to live when I was fifteen, turned out to be an irresponsible, commonsense-defective narcissist. I lived with him a year and went back to live with my mother and the ogre. I came three feet from driving my car, accidentally but stupidly, off a cliff at age sixteen. Three years later, I was supporting a family.

I was never traumatized. Hurt, stunned, cut down to size, humiliated, disappointed, emotionally abandoned, stressed to the max, but never traumatized. I just picked myself up and moved on. I learned to pick myself up and move on by picking myself up and moving on. It’s what my mother did and I figured it was the thing to do. Besides, she had no time for sob stories. She had enough of her own.

My childhood was not exactly a happy one, but I was never depressed. Early on, I figured out how to make the best of it. When people ask me what my childhood was like, I tell them it was “interesting.” I was blessed with more problems in eighteen years than a kid in a Dickens’ novel. Yes, blessed. I do not dwell on anything about my childhood. I am who I am today because of it. I am a happy man and I credit my less-than-happy childhood. The only thing I’d do differently is start learning to play the guitar earlier and devote myself to it. Rock ‘n’ roll music was my escape from reality then, and it’s been my passion ever since.

The point of the story: I don’t have much sympathy for people, even young people, especially young people, who claim to be suffering from the aftereffects of some “traumatic” experience. A few weeks ago, a guy in his early twenties complained to me that something I’d said during a radio interview had “triggered” him. I wanted to say, “You are in desperate need of a growing up pill,” but I’m not quite that impulsive anymore.

So many of today’s young people complain of having been traumatized by something that would have been a molehill to me. They have anxiety about stuff that I had to deal with all the time. They’re depressed. They’re bipolar. They’re ADHD. They’re test-phobic. Blah, blah, blah. To me, their carping is nothing but soap opera.

They seem to believe that a life without soap opera is a life without meaning. So, to infuse their lives with meaning, they create soap opera. They tell their soap opera to anyone who will listen. I just want to slap ‘em, but I’m not that impulsive anymore. In many if not most cases, these soap opera factories are seeing therapists who validate their soap operas, which explains why nearly every parent who tells me his child saw a therapist says the child’s problems got a whole lot worse during that descent into quicksand.

I have concluded that today’s kids are in dire need of problems. Real problems as opposed to the tsunamis they make out of ripples on the waters of life. The problem in that regard is that lots of today’s parents spend lots of energy filtering out any and all problems from their kids’ lives and solving the ones that get through the filter. Which is why their kids are so easily traumatized.



The Postmodern 'Liberal'

December 24, 2020

The liberals of today aren’t liberal at all. For one thing, the classic liberal – pre-1960s, that is – believes in the free market of ideas. He believes, as with competing products, in letting the consumer choose which idea “wins,” if any. Every idea is given rational consideration, a chance to be heard.

The classic liberal doesn’t allow his decisions to be driven by emotion. He knows that when emotions are controlled, everyone, including himself, benefits. (By the way, to control one’s emotions is not to repress them by any means, but rather to give them expression only in ways that are loving of one’s neighbor.)

The classic liberal believes that everyone should enjoy the equal right to attempt, struggle, fail, and succeed. No one’s right to participate fully in the life of the culture should be unnecessarily restricted, and when restrictions are necessary (on antisocial behavior), they are applied equally and according to rule of law. Nor should anyone be given a hand up by the government because government “assistance” ensures inequality. And by the way, when government steps aside in the field of social services, charity flourishes.

In my neighborhood, on the front lawns of a number of homes, signs have sprouted announcing that “Hate Has No Home Here,” printed in eight languages, usually alongside signs proclaiming support for a certain presidential candidate. The reek of moral superiority is palpable. I do not qualify for one of said signs because I harbor an equally palpable distaste for the reek of moral superiority. The individuals in question believe themselves to be a cut above in the morals department. They aren’t, of course. They hate people like me. I’m a classic liberal. The difference in our hate is that I hate their attitude; they hate me. I would attempt to persuade them to a more liberal point of view; they would celebrate any attempt to silence mine.

How in the world has their totalitarianism come to be called “liberalism” anyway? The answer is simple. In a free market of ideas, their ideas would be relegated to the bottom shelf. They compensate by changing the meaning of words, making appeals to emotion, and shouting down ideas that don’t conform to their narrow worldview. In this way, what is tyrannical becomes “liberal,” and what is genuinely liberal is fascist, racist, sexist, misogynist, and so on.
And suddenly, one is no longer deserving of being heard. You’re a pariah, holding back the species’ glorious evolutionary march toward a pseudo-utopian nightmare.

In the early years of the third millennium, paradox rules.



We Are One Bloomin' Mess

December 17, 2020

The new national motto is surely “We Are One Bloomin’ Mess!”

Anyone who thinks that everything is going to return to normal after Joe the Schmo is inaugurated should stop smoking whatever they’re putting in their hand-blown bong. And to anyone who thinks I’ve just disrespected the presidency, wake up. Joe the Schmo was not elected. He was “elected” by voting machines that were tampered with at the voting machine factory and mail-in ballots that were “mailed in” by people who were killed in the Battle of the Bulge.

As I write this episode of my blog – a word that fits our national circumstances to a “T” – there is still some likelihood that truth and Trump will prevail. Nonetheless, the fact that the election was a fraud should jolt everyone out of their Facebook addiction and into reality, if, that is, they have enough functioning neurons left to carry out the assignment.

Several years ago, I realized what was happening in the world. I saw it happening to friends and family members and determined that it would not happen to me. So, I hired someone to manage my social media. Confession time! I’ve never logged into Facebook, Twitter, or any other demonic manifestation found on the Internet. Thus, what I write, at age 73, still makes perfect sense. That’s right. You may not agree, but I make perfect sense. My mind functions as well as it did – much better, actually – than when I was in my twenties. The secret to my agelessness is quite simple: I read. In fact, for every page I write, I read at least twenty. I don’t watch television. I keep my brain alive and fit by reading and believe me, the brain is the most important muscle in your body. Furthermore, I don’t waste my time reading fiction. I read what other people have to say about important things as opposed to what’s going on in George Clooney’s life these days. But I digress.

Two thousand years ago, the apostle Paul said that our battle was with supernatural powers. A person who is not clear on that is incapable of dealing with it – properly engaging in the ongoing battle – at a personal level. Most of our politicians are not clear on that. Therefore, despite what might be good intentions, they are incapable of dealing with it or helping us deal with it. Most of the people who occupy America’s pulpits are not even clear on that. Therefore, they are equally incapable of dealing with it or helping us deal with it. So, we, the people, must deal with it on our own. And we must prepare our children to deal with it. America’s educators began gulping the Kool-Aid in college, so they cannot be trusted, even if they teach at so-called Christian schools. As the late, great Bo Diddley so profoundly said, “You can’t judge a book by lookin’ at the cover.”

Parents! Are you with me so far? You absolutely must see to it that your children become armored with a biblical worldview! In the post-Babel history of the world, that has never been so important as it is today. First, you must not allow your children’s worldview to be defined by what so many children are consuming on smart phone screens. If you have not noticed, let me help you. Those screens are a narcotic, perhaps the most powerful and seductive narcotic ever devised. Second, you must make whatever sacrifices you need to make to take control of your children’s educations. I’m talking about transforming your home into a school. Third, you must make the Bible their primary textbook. And you must make the Bible YOUR primary reference. You must build your family – beginning with your marriage – on a solid biblical foundation.

The attack on what is good and what is truth has never been so intense. The barbarians are at the gates and make no mistake, their intent is to destroy every semblance of good and every semblance of truth. They intend to substitute what is irrational for what is rational, and their primary targets are the most vulnerable and impressionable among us – to wit, America’s children.

And they are succeeding. One of my very own precious grandchildren recently told me that his generation “doesn’t really care if someone is transgender.” The problem? He’s right! The young people of his generation have stared at the electronic opium for so long that many of them are incapable of distinguishing truth from falsehood. They are incapable of knowing evil even if it’s right in their faces.

Two thousand years ago, Paul told his audience that dealing with the enemy required putting on the armor of God. Two weeks ago, someone told me that I should stick to parenting and leave theology to the theologians and politics to the politicians. How utterly naïve. It’s all one and the same.



Are You a Useful Idiot?

December 10, 2020

I recently told an ultra-liberal Democrat that I knew who my enemies were. I then asked, “Do you know who your enemies are?” He thought a moment, then told me that his enemy was the Republican party.

“Wrong,” I said. “Your enemies and my enemies are one and the same.”

The Soviet ruling elite referred to people like my friend as “useful idiots” – people who, albeit intelligent, lacked the ability to think critically. The useful idiot could be swayed by appeals to emotion, especially those that cast him either as a victim, the champion of the victim, a moral superior filled with patriotic zeal for the promised utopia, or all the foregoing. I am acutely aware of the worldview that inhabits the useful idiot because I have been there, done that.

The useful idiot allows his rational thought processes to be taken over by propaganda that feeds his pride. He subscribes because subscribing makes him feel like he belongs to a movement that represents all that is righteous. The movement embodies a glorious vision of human perfection in which peace and love rule the universe and the extraterrestrials finally leave us alone because they no longer need to save us from self-destruction.

The reality of this supposed utopia is that everyone is demoted to the lowest of common denominators and all resources are held by a chosen few to distribute as they, in their “wisdom,” see fit. Truth becomes falsehood, falsehood becomes “truth,” virtue becomes evil, evil becomes virtue, what is irrational becomes rational, and misery becomes the new normal.

The useful idiot is, first, useful because he can be manipulated by the puppet masters, caused to believe that when they come to power, they will favor him with privilege. Second, he is an idiot because he can be manipulated to help accomplish that which is opposite his self-interests, primary of which is liberty of thought and expression.

Accomplishing their perverse utopia requires that the cabal infiltrate education, media, the entertainment industry, the church, the Internet, and the bureaucracy. Take a look around you. If you are not alarmed, then you are, by definition, a useful idiot. In which case, but presently unbeknownst to you, you and I have a common enemy.



One Way, One Truth, One Life

December 3, 2020

I believe, in its entirety, the account of the life, execution, and resurrection of Christ Jesus, Lord and Savior of all who come to believe in him. To be clear, I believe His grace is freely offered to all, to embrace or reject as each sees fit.

I qualify as a paradoxical believer. If someone told me when I was, say, in my early twenties, that I would be a believer in Jesus and the truth of God’s Word, I would have immediately stopped inhaling what they were inhaling. I was raised by highly intelligent atheists who possessed three PhDs between them and taught to regard belief in God as superstition.

Then I began reading the Bible. That is the intellectually honest thing to do, if I do say so myself. I became especially captivated by the Bible’s account of creation, which I had been taught was a myth. No, it’s not. Myths conform to certain linguistic characteristics. The Bible does not even approximate the forms that defines myth.

The third verse of the creation account found in the first book of the Bible is a statement of scientific fact: the universe began in a mega-burst of light. By what means did Moses, the author of said book, know that? He possessed no scientific instruments and had not even attended kindergarten. The only sensible answer to the foregoing question: God told him.

In the account, God immediately separates light from darkness. That, also, is a scientific fact. In the first micro-seconds of the Big Bang, light matter and energy separated from dark matter and energy. How’d Moses know that?

We are then confronted by an earth that is covered in water. Tectonic and volcanic forces uplift the land, creating islands and continents. How’d Moses know that?

The Bible tells us that fish and other sea-dwelling creatures are the first life forms. How’d Moses know that?

Most important of all, biblical creation is true creation. God does not fashion what is already there, as is the case in creation myths. He creates out of nothing. He speaks the universe into existence and then fashions it into planets, suns, and solar systems, with a few black holes here and there. The universe is expanding. So says the Bible. So says the astrophysics community, as well.

One of the above “coincidences” might be written off as coincidence, but that many? Not a chance, as probability theorists will affirm. It’s as if God is saying, “Someday, you will discover that I am a giver of nothing but the truth. In fact, you will discover that I Am The Truth.” Yep, one will discover just that, whether by the easy way or the hard way.

Jesus identified Himself as THE way, THE truth, and THE life. I highly recommend that everyone consider the possibility. It will cost you nothing and just possibly gain you everything.



A Stranger in a Strange Land

November 19, 2020

These are strange time in which we live. To be more accurate, human beings have never stopped being strange; therefore, times have always been equally strange. But this time around, the strange seems stranger than ever before.

Moral relativism was what brought down Adam and Eve. The serpent told Eve that if she ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, she would become “like God, knowing good and evil.” The serpent was lying, of course. By eating of the tree, Adam and Eve only began to think they could define good and evil on their own terms, on the basis of their own tastes, without reference to the moral laws built into God’s design.

A prime example of moral relativism is the notion that women have a “right” to terminate the life of an unborn child for whatever reason including “I don’t want to be bothered.”

God says “Thou shalt not kill,” and man begins inventing caveats. Eventually, man pulls out of thin air the idea that killing is not killing if the thing destroyed is not alive and since fetuses are only blobs of flesh, it’s okay then to destroy them. Furthermore, since a fetus is akin to, say, a cyst, a woman has a “right” to have it cut from her body.

Those are the sorts of strange ideas man comes up with on his own, when his primary loyalty is to himself rather God.

Relativism is the notion that moral standards are fluid. Instead of being timeless, fixed, external to man, they are “living” and most importantly, they are internal to man. As Greek philosopher Protagoras put it a while back, “Man is the measure of all things.” Protagoras’ most famous maxim definitely has curb appeal. Fortunately, God created all things; therefore, He is the measure of all things.

But in a popularity contest between Protagoras and God, guess who wins? For the time being, at least.

The latest supposedly fluid standard is gender. Once upon a time not so long ago, one’s gender and one’s sex were one and the same. That is clearly the way God designed us. Male and female He created us. Today, even otherwise intelligent human beings have been persuaded to believe that a person occupying clearly male biology can nevertheless be a female.

Furthermore, using that example, if the individual in question is challenged on that account, his/her challenger is a narrow-minded, mean-spirited, even dangerous bigot. That’s how strange things have become: If I deny that a transgender person is suffering delusions, I become said nutcases’ persecutor. Even if I do not care what he thinks he is, if I disagree with his personal assessment, I am a bully, an oppressor, and Twitter is likely to silence me for being a threat to public safety or some such insanity.

The final arbiter in matters of speech used to be the Supreme Court. Presumably, they ruled consistent with the wording of the Constitution. Now, the final arbiters in such matters are Facebook and Twitter and they rule consistent with political correctness. Chief Justice Mark Zuckerberg? Jack Dorsey is the measure of all things?

Mark my words. The “strange curve” is accelerating and we’re all along for one wild ride. I console myself with knowing that God never fails to keep His promises.



It's Only Rock 'n' Roll

November 12, 2020

This blog will roam over the subjects of childrearing, psychology, postmodernity, the dangerous state of American politics, the Bible, the church, and rock ‘n’ roll music. That’s the short list. I reserve the right to add a topic as the whim overtakes me.

Today’s post is about rock ‘n’ roll music. My wife tells me I’m a repository of useless rock trivia. I once won a rock trivia contest by naming the conga player on Traffic’s “Welcome to the Canteen” album. I played in a working rock band for seven years. Early on in their career, we beat REO Speedwagon in a Battle of the Bands. It took place on our campus, so the outcome was foregone, but isn’t that impressive! Nonetheless, we rocked the house.

I can’t name my favorite rock ‘n’ roll band, song, album, lead singer, songwriter, guitarist, etc. Changes depending on my mood, I suppose. As for bands, Led Zeppelin is my answer on most days, but then there’s The Beatles. And then there’s that band I first saw in a 1000-seat theater in Chicago in 1966. Jagger was singing through the house PA. I couldn’t take my eyes off him. No one could. I appreciate a lot of bands, but my appreciation begins to run out in the mid-1970s and is gone by 2000. Dave Matthews? C’mon, man! He’s got zero soul. Listen to Eric Burdon during the early days of the Animals. Listen to The Allman Brothers Band. Jimi, Cream. Listen to “Bless Its Pointed Little Head” by the Airplane. Grace set the bar for female lead singers. Only Ann Wilson comes close.

Best concert for me was the Stones on November 16, 1969 in Chicago. Best band I ever heard live was The Paul Butterfield Blues Band, the version one encounters on “In My Own Dream.” Saw The Beach Boys in 1972 in Quincy, Illinois in a college gymnasium. Willie and I were sitting on the floor, right in front of Carl, who was clearly leading the band. Even without Brian, who was back in California trying to figure out where to go next, they were mind-blowing. They were a rock ‘n’ roll orchestra of sorts. They probably had twelve musicians, including themselves, on stage. Ricky Fataar on drums, for example. Blondie Chapin on background vocals with Dennis. They did the obligatory Top-40 medley and then got down into deep album cuts like “’Til I Die,” “Sail On Sailor,” and “Surf’s Up.” Absolutely magical evening. Occasionally, I meet someone and discover he was in that same audience and we always agree it was one of the best concerts we ever witnessed.

I had the sublime pleasure of seeing Willie DeVille in a club in San Francisco in the late 1990s. He just held the crowd spellbound for two hours. If you’re not familiar with Willie, I highly recommend that you check him out. Lots of musicians regard him as the single most underrated, unsung singer-songwriter of our time. Sort of like Roy Harper, whom Zeppelin immortalized on their third album with “Hats Off to Roy Harper.”

I discovered Van Morrison when I was a senior in high school. In 1965, he was fronting the great Irish band Them. The first time I heard Van was at a friend’s house. His mother put on the 45 with “Gloria” on Side A and “Baby Please Don’t Go” on Side B. What a cool mom! I even remember what she was wearing. I immediately fell in love with her and Van both.

My favorite Beatles’ song is just about anything they ever did, but “Paperback Writer” pops immediately to mind. Some folks say The Beatles weren’t really a rock ‘n’ roll band. If that’s what you think, you haven’t been listening closely enough. Listen to Paul’s bass lines, listen to Ringo’s drumming, listen to John’s rhythms, listen to George suddenly turn a bouncy pop ditty into a rockabilly rave. They were a rock ‘n’ roll band all right.

When I return to the subject of rock ‘n’ roll music, we’ll take up The Four Seasons. At the peak of their powers, The Beatles came along and that was that. Too bad. “Rag Doll” is right up there with “I Want to Hold Your Hand.”



Amy Hates Outback

November 5, 2020

When my social media boss, my daughter, told me to begin writing a blog, I knew she referred to weekly essays on whatever parenting topic was on the top of my head. I think she even told me not to write on politics or faith. She cannot tell me what to do! Who does she think she is! I am her superior in all things; therefore, I will write about whatever I feel like writing, whether it pleases her or not. So there!

Amy has only recently advanced beyond wanting to be the boss of everything. During much of her childhood, the family ate out probably once a week. One of us would announce that we were going out to eat.

Amy would ask, “Where?”

It did not matter what restaurant we had chosen, she wanted to go elsewhere.

“I want to go to Golden Palace!” she would yell.

“Yum! We all love Golden Palace, but we’re going to Outback.”

“I hate Outback!”

“We were there two weeks ago. You loved it.”

“I hate it now! I hate steaks!”

“They have chicken, too.”

“I hate their chicken!”

“You’ve never had their chicken.”

“I know I hate it!”

“Stay home then, ‘cause we’re going to Outback.”

And the histrionics would commence, and we’d leave, get in the car, back out of the drive, and turn the corner to the main road and Amy would come bursting out of the front door, run down the steps and across the yard and jump into the car. “Okay then!” Mind you, she never failed to enjoy our restaurant adventures.

From the get-go, my wife and I refused to let our kids dictate their meals. When Willie first introduced “solid” food to Amy – jars of Gerber purees – Amy would sometimes take a spoonful of something and then promptly push it out of her mouth with her tongue. Willie, undaunted, would simply scoop it up and put it back in her mouth, even if she had to gently pry Amy’s lips open. Repeat until completely consumed.

I think most kids become picky eaters before they’re six months old. Parents of pickers tell me their kids were “intolerant” to certain foods from the very beginning. Yeah, so was Amy. So are most kids, probably. Parents either persist in accustoming the child’s palate to what is initially repulsive or they switch to another Gerber pate’ and then another and pretty soon one has a food tyrant on their hands. Even a four-month-old human being is smart enough to know when her parents are dancing to her tune.



Who's on First

October 29, 2020

What can parents who possess and have modeled commonsense and rational thought processes do when children go off to college and promptly become convinced, courtesy of their professors – ideologues of the sort I marched with in the late 1960s – that the United States is not and has never been a great country, a beacon of freedom for the peoples of the world, but rather a systemically racist, sexist, homophobic cesspool in desperate need of riot therapy?

A question I am frequently asked, that. My answer is usually along the lines of “Why did you send them to said institution of anti-American learning in the first place?” The usual answer: “That’s where he/she wanted to go.”

“And just how did he/she come to want to go that particular leftist propaganda mill?”

“Well, we toured several college campuses and he/she liked that one the best.”

Ah, yes. The ubiquitous tour of college campuses, the result being that the youngster in question makes a life-altering decision on the basis of the “feel” of a certain campus as well as an artfully crafted sales pitch by a completely unbiased college employee. That was a joke.

Our kids told us what colleges they wanted to attend. In return, we informed them of the colleges we would pay for. It was a short list. One propaganda mill is as good as the next, after all. One child called me one day and told me he was voting for Michael “Tank Commander” Dukakis. He heard Dukakis speak and “liked” him.

“What did you like?” I asked.

Pause. “Um, I guess I just liked his stand on things.”

“Give me an example.”

He couldn’t. That’s the state of mind of the average young college student – easily swayed by stuff that sounds good but has no substance. And you’re going to let this person choose where to spend YOUR hard-earned money based largely on some visceral emotional reaction? The adage, “You get what you pay for,” is never so apt.

The second child, following graduation from the University of North Carolina, the People’s Republic of Chapel Hill, told me she did not tell me of the brainwashing that took place in her classes – was the major feature of most, in fact – for fear that I would promptly transfer her to a small Christian school where she would have no fun. Yes, that is precisely what I would have done, her misery notwithstanding.

The parents of a nineteen-year-old girl told me that at her college’s parent orientation, a faculty member, in his address to the people who funded his salary, said the college’s purpose was to “separate your children from you and your values and help them toward thinking for themselves.”

First, that is not the purpose of university. Second, it’s a lie. Excepting a handful, the goal of today’s American university is not to help young people think for themselves; it is to indoctrinate them in the most-failed, destructive ideology ever devised by the evil heart of man. I saw it coming when I was in college, I just didn’t know what I was seeing.

“Why did you let her go there?” I asked.

“It’s where she said she wanted to go,” they answered.

I am reminded of the title of a well-known Jim Carey movie.



The Simplest Explanation is Almost Always the Correct Explanation

October 22, 2020

During my childhood, my parents would occasionally remark that I was developing “some very bad habits.” They were, in fact, spot on. Looking back, I did develop a handful or two of bad habits as a child, a habit being something a person does repetitively, without thinking. That is not to say that people are not responsible for the habits they develop and foist upon the world. That may be true concerning, say, a muscle tic, but that is not the sort of habit to which my parents referred and I am now referring. The habits under discussion are emotional, cognitive, and behavioral. And they are, as my parents defined them, bad. They serve no constructive purpose.

Psychologists assign diagnoses to the habits in question. They call them by such names as “bipolar disorder,” “schizophrenia,” “depression,” and “attention deficit disorder.” They explain these emotional, cognitive, and behavioral phenomena in terms of biological processes that have never been verified – biochemical imbalances, for example, or the equally bogus, all-purpose “brain differences.”

Since no biological explanation has been proven, the simplest explanation becomes “bad habits.” How do the habits in question get their start? Who knows? How does any bad habit get its start? The fact is that very few people can identify when and how a bad habit began. They simply begin and sometime later, they are noticed. By the time they’re noticed, they’ve strengthened to the point where getting rid of them is problematic.

The reason no psychiatric medication has ever reliably outperformed a placebo in clinical trials is because such medications are developed on the basis of theories that have no basis in proven fact. But, even though several psychiatrists have admitted that to me (quote: “We all know that nothing we tell people has ever been proven”), psychiatric medications continue to be prescribed because of the incredible profits they generate. Furthermore, as research has determined, placebos work. The problem is that the sanctioned placebos in question have bad side effects and cost lots of money.

The point of this treatise is to say that the process of disciplining a child is all about preventing him from developing bad habits and motivating him to replace bad habits he has already developed with good habits. It’s really that simple. When discipline fails, the ever-increasing likelihood is that the child in question will become the subject of a psychological evaluation, performed by a person who believes in things that just ain’t so.











Parent Coaches
Book Store
Host an Event
Membership Site
Contact Us
Tyndale Privacy Policy
The Leadership Parenting Institute
North Carolina, USA
Tel: 1.704.860.4711
Copyright © 2021 JohnRosemond.com