"Enchanted by Nature" by The Unknown Artist

"Enchanted by Nature," mixed media computer graphics and oil on canvas by The Unknown Artist

 

"Capsized" by The Unknown Artist

"Capsized," mixed media computer graphics and oil on canvas by The Unknown Artist

"Blue Moon on the Water" photograph by The Unknown Artist

"Blue Moon on the Water," a photograph by The Unknown Artist taken at the Sea of Cortez in Baja California Norte, Mexico.

"Autumn Dawn" by The Unknown Artist

"Autumn Dawn," mixed media computer graphics and oil on canvas by The Unknown Artist

WHM Update: White House debates itself over amnesty

A WHM Update courtesy of Clipon News Network (CNN)

This is truly amazing.

White houses have evolved in only three days from being able to talk, to having emotions, to being able to back Congressional bills, now to being able to debate with themselves.

Debating with yourself is tantamount to playing both sides of a chess game simultaneously.

But according to White Houses Matter (WHM) when white houses do it, they just play the white house side and let the black house side lose by default.

That makes it easier a new technical breakthrough in white house logic.

Apparently, White houses got the idea from the latest non-occupant of a Clipon bedroom. (see the graphic)

Black Houses Matter (BHM) said they are not surprised at the WHM trick.

They added, however, that WHM is not a difficult group of houses to challenge about amnesty.

They said white houses already have white house privilege and do not require more.

BHM still believes, nonetheless, that amnesty for black houses is now much needed, because white houses win by cheating.

This important current news has been brought to you as a public service by "White Houses Matter" (WHM).

Disclaimer: Any resemblance to houses, living or dead, past, present, or future, is purely coincidental.

The True Story of If, And, Or, But by The Unknown Author

The True Story of If, And, Or, But

These four girls have specific likes and dislikes.

If And But are good friends.

Or And But are also.

Or does not like If.

If And But show up at a bar at the same time as Or.

Or says,

"If you are not my friend, But why are you with her? And what shall we do?"

And says,

"But If talking with their friend is bad Or If talking with me And is just as bad, how are If, And, Or, But to get along?

Or says, "No! No Ifs Ands Buts are allowed."

This disagreement caused a serious legal argument in at court.

A femen group supporting Or, "NOYES," protested outside the court for its not being heard and understood that No means No.

A group supporting If, "IFANDBUT," came to disrupt the NOYES protest.

In the court, Yes and No were the determined not to have relevance in cases about If And Or But.

It finally got settled; and in divorce court cases from that time until now, Ifs Ands Buts have been allowed in legal arguments, Ors have not. Yes and No have No standing.

Two new pieces of art by The Unknown Artist

These are both mixed media computer graphics and oil on canvas art by The Unknown Artist.

This is "Balloon Launch."

This is "Fragile."

 

WHM UPDATE: Senate health bills struggle to win White House backing

WHM UPDATE: Senate health bills struggle to win White House backing

The latest report from the WSJ about WHM (White Houses Matter) shows that the funding from the Wierld Crank has had its intended effect.

Now, not only can white houses have feelings, but they can back Congressional action if they wish.

Furthermore, Congressional bills, themselves, can struggle for their acceptance and backing by White Houses Matter.

WHM is especially glad that they can use their white house privilege to get much needed protection from Black Houses Matter (BHM) and the very privileged LBGMQT group, if they offend white houses.

Additionally, a rival group has sued to protect its copyrighted and trademarked abbreviation, WHM.

The suit claims that the WHM name has been used from as early as 2008. It was clearly stated then that it be only used to designate their White Horses Matter (WHM) brotherhood.

Their court action is well supported by the members of the Knights in Shining Armor (KSA). They have stated that it is their only means of protection themselves from the fire breathing dragon (see above) when rescuing Lady Gaga.

When hearing about the White Houses Matter attempt to steal their good name, the KSA assembled outside the court house in their full regalia, having swords, white helmets, and breast plates having explicit images of Lady Gaga on them.

Madonna entered her opinion on Twitter saying, "I think it is uncomplimentary to black horses and a very racist statement. Black horses are able to race as well as white ones sometimes. Even so, I would prefer that the knight rescuing me would be on a white horse for old times sake."

The Would Healthy Organization (WHO) has approved the use of bills of lading to assure the delivery of the necessary support from all white houses, including if Trumpery were to be in residence in one.

This important current news has been brought to you as a public service by "White Houses Matter" (WHM).

Disclaimer: Any resemblance to houses or U.S. Senate bills, living or dead, past, present, or future, is purely coincidental.

White House 'deeply troubled' by Rohingya crisis

Headline News: "White House 'deeply troubled' by Rohingya crisis"

Now we have learned that a building can not only speak and be quoted in the news, but it can have deeply troubled emotions.

The Capital Building in Washington, D.C., a white house housing the US Congress, was heard to groan in the direction of the White House, but refused further comment.

It is clear now that white houses have great empathy and concern for people in foreign countries, such as the Rohingya in Burma, but they have shown little of it for people in their own country.

You should be careful not to offend white buildings, because all white houses have white privilege and have funding from the Weird Blank.

They can stage a rally on Wall Street to protest any very racist hate speech that you might use about brown houses, yellow houses, black houses, wooden shacks, log cabins, teepees, chalets, or caves.

Saying anything about a white house will in the near future be punishable by being confined in the pitch black basement of a black house with no windows or doors.

If you live in a white house and are one of the privileged LBGMQT group, offending your white house's feelings can get even you confined indefinitely in a rainbow colored house with lovely pastel colored stained glass windows; and you'll never be allowed to play dress up.

If you are one of those offenders who thinks that white privilege means having to work for those who do not have such privilege--BML, MoveOut, PANTYFA, or the JSLPC--you could be pardoned if you confess to that belief while you are still on the rack.

Be very careful about deeply troubling a white house's feelings. It can lead to protests by all of them and to your possibly being incarcerated by the big daddy of them all in Washington, D.C.

You must watch, also, what you say in or around a white dog house or white bird house, as they are being wireless equipped to listen to what you say and report you on Dogpile and Twitter.

This important current news has been brought to you as a public service by "White Houses Matter" (WHM).
 
Disclaimer: Any resemblance to houses of any color, living or dead, past, present, or future, is purely coincidental.

Grammar Rules by the Bear

These rules were written by The Bear to help The Unknown Author to be grammatically correct at all times. 

Always avoid alliteration.

Prepositions are not the proper words to end sentences with.

Avoid clichés like the plague—they're old hat.

Employ the vernacular.

Avoid ampersands & abbreviations, etc.

Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are unnecessary.

Parenthetical words however must be enclosed in commas.

It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.

Contractions aren't necessary.

Do not use foreign words or phrases when there are, as the French so well put it, mots parfaitement bons en anglais.

One should never generalize.

Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said: "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."

Comparisons are as bad as clichés.

Don't be redundant; don't use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.

It behooves you to avoid archaic expressions.  Avoid archaeic spellings too.

Understatement is always best.

Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.

One-word sentences? Eliminate. Always!

Short sentences.  Or sentence fragments. Don’t use them. They are annoying. As hell.

Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.

The passive voice should not be used.

If you have to, go three times around the block to cross the street in order to avoid colloquialisms.

Don't repeat, or say again, what you have said before.

Who needs rhetorical questions?

Don't use commas, when, they are not necessary.

Do not use hyperbole; not one in a million can do it effectively.

Never use a big word when a diminutive alternative would suffice.

Subject and verb always has to agree.

Be, more or less, specific.

Placing a comma between subject and predicate, is not correct.

Use yor spell chekker to avoid mispeling and to catch typograhpical errers.

The grammar checker is their two help ewe avoid the misuse of homonyms.

Don't repeat, or say again what you have said before.

Don't use repetitious redundancies that say the same thing more than once in the same sentence simultaneously together.

Use the apostrophe in it's proper place and omit it when its not needed.

Apostrophe’s are not to be used as plural’s.

Don't never use no double negatives.

Poofread carefully to see if you any words out or unspelled.

Hopefully, you will use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.

Eschew obfuscation.

No sentence fragments.

Run-on sentences are difficult for the average reader to comprehend and so the facts you are attempting to convey become lost in a sea of words that if allowed to go on long enough will confuse even the most intelligent reader so don’t write them.

Don't indulge in sesquipedalian lexicological constructions.

Abstain from the utilization of grandiose verbiage if circumstances allow the deployment of  diminutive textual creations.
 A writer must not shift your point of view.

Don't overuse exclamation marks!!!

Place pronouns as close as possible, especially in long sentences - for example, of 10 or more words - to their antecedents.

Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided.

A participle is something you should not leave dangling.

If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.

Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.  It is so last-year.

Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in their writing.

Always pick on the correct idiom.

The adverb always follows the verb.
 
Take the bull by the hand and avoid mixing metaphors.

If you reread your work, you can find on rereading, a great deal of repetition can be removed by rereading and editing.

And always, be sure to finish what


Newspeak, The Intentional Misuse of Words for Political Purposes, by The Unknown Author

Liberal v Conservative:

Liberal is derived from the Latin word "liber" meaning free. It is an adjective, such as is in the oft used term "liberal arts college." Liberally is the adverb from of liberal, such as the directions on packages that say "sprinkle liberally with water," meaning without undue restraint or freely with as much as you chose. "To liberate" is the verb form of liberal, meaning to free, as in to liberate captives. There is no noun form except one which has been fabricated for politically fraudulent purposes over the centuries.

From the mid-14th century, liberal meant "generous," and also "nobly born, noble, free;" from the late 14th century it meant "selfless, magnanimous, admirable;" from the early 15th century, it meant in a bad sense "extravagant, unrestrained." It comes from 12th century the Old French word "liberal," meaning "befitting free people; noble, generous; willing, zealous;" and that came directly from Latin "liberalis" meaning "noble, gracious, munificent, generous," or literally "of freedom, pertaining to or befitting a free person," which came from "liber" meaning "free, unrestricted, unimpeded;" or in a bad sense "unbridled, unchecked, or licentious."

It began purely with no reference to politic or political opinions, but it was gradually perverted to mean "tending in favor of freedom and democracy," as it dates from around 1801 coming from the French word libéral. In English the label at first was applied by opponents (often in the French form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness) to the party more favorable to individual political freedoms. But also, especially in U.S. politics, it then tended to mean "favorable to government action to effect social change." That usage seemed at times to draw more from the religious sense, which dates from 1823, of being "free from prejudices that were in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions" and thus open to new ideas and plans for reform.

American writer Guy Emerson, wrote the following defining idea of what a liberal is in "The New Frontier" in 1920:
"This is the attitude of mind which has come to be known as liberal. It implies vigorous convictions, tolerance for the opinions of others, and a persistent desire for sound progress. It is a method of approach which has played a notable and constructive part in our history, and which merits a thorough trial today in the attack on our absorbingly interesting American task."

It is clearly a word that has been perverted from its original meaning of freedom to promote socialist, progressive, and even Marxist Communist agendas. Take a word meaning freedom and gradually change it into meaning "favorable to government action to effect social change," which is government force and control, the reverse of freedom. Emerson's words, "persistent desire for sound progress," clearly indicated the hidden, but persuasive, introduction of a radical agenda of progressive ideology in the USA.

Indeed, it has so progressed as an ideology. In the sociopolitical sense as meaning "favoring reform and radically liberal," it emerged in various British contexts from the 1880s. In the U.S. it was active as a movement in the 1890s and a generation thereafter, and by the year 2000 it was the name used again from time to time by most recently some more liberal Democrats and other social activists.

Now to the term conservative:

Conserve is the verb only meaning to protect, preserve, and retain so as to be available for either current or future use. It is seen in the warning, "you must conserve your resources." Conservatively is the adverb form of that verb, meaning to do something carefully, as in using words conservatively.

It derives from the late 14th century, from the 9th century Old French word "conserver." The French comes from the Latin "conservare" meaning "to keep, preserve, keep intact, guard," and that from "com," the intensive prefix, plus "servare" meaning to "keep watch, maintain," the root of which is "ser" meaning "to protect."

The most important thing humans have to protect is freedom of choice, i.e., the freedom of conscience to believe what you chose and to take whatever action in accordance with it you so chose. It is using the free will with which we are created that keeps us from being prisoners of our device. With free will we may make mistakes or not as our choices determine their effects.

We must liberally chose to conserve our freedom for our free will to remain unimpaired. By not doing that, we become robots simply following the dictates of others.

The two words, liberal and conservative, have the same objective, enhancing freedom by protecting, preserving, and retaining it. They are not in an opposition to one another.

However, "liberal" and "conservative," the Newspeak-created noun forms of the words, only signify false ideologies. These newly created terms were crafted and promoted into an acceptance of their presumed opposition, which had to have been a political perversion to make them appear to be one.

Those who promote such falsities are neither liberals nor conservatives, but, instead, tricksters creating by division intentionally fraudulent misuses of words for their own purpose of controlling masses of people who do not know better.

Left and right, directional terms, as in turning left or turning right at an intersection, have been equally drafted into the service of the fraudsters. Equating the "Left" as being "liberal" and the "Right" as "conservative" simply removes the obvious lack of conflict in the real meanings of those underlying words. It hides a real conflict with the truth that the words present when used by political ideologues.

The left and right side of the aisle, as used in descriptions of US Congressional "liberal" and "conservative" factions, are terms that derived from the French Parliament of long ago when there was but a single aisle and opposing political parties clustered on one side or the other of it.

In the political sense, "the democratic or liberal party" arose from the custom of assigning those members of a legislative body to the left side of a chamber. This usage is first attested in English in 1837 by Carlyle in reference to the French Revolution. It is a probable loan-translation from 1791 of the French word "la gauche," said to have originated during the seating of the French National Assembly in 1789 in which the nobility took the seats on the President's right and left the Third Estate to sit on the left.

In the U.S. Congress' capital building, there are two aisles, not just one, and seating is not segregated by faction. Thus the terms left and right side of the aisle cannot be made applicable to ideological disagreements in Congress.

Words have meaning when they are understood to have roots that in their derivations must be consistent to be true. Free does not suddenly or even gradually come to mean not free. Good does not mean bad, and bad cannot come to mean good, as it now has in common parlance.

If words are fraudulently redefined by scurrilous politicians and their supporting factions using Newspeak  to divide and conquer public opinion and destroy freedom's liberal conservation, those who do not notice that are going to be the first victims of their own ignorance.

The perversion of these terms has always had its disastrous effects on the thinking of people, just as their misdirection has been intentionally crafted to have.

This commentary of mine has been written in disgust and dismay that it has occurred with such prevalence in current political commentaries, discussions, debates, and even in outright arguments, which can never be resolved with these terms incorrectly defined for fraudulent purposes.

Credits: The definitions and origins of these words have been found at http://www.etymonline.com.