Friday, August 18, 2017

The Daily Signal: Far-Left ‘Antifa’ Agitators on the Rise in the Age of Trump

 I found this interesting article by Ken McIntyre and Kevin Mooney on The Daily Signal regarding antifa that seemed particularly relevant in light of our current discussions on this blog.  It definitely lends credence to the "many sides" comment of President Trump.  Enjoy.

When self-described anti-fascists showed up in force Saturday to oppose a rally of white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia, some of them turned violent, according to media reports and eyewitness accounts.
President Donald Trump did not specify radicals who operate under the banner of Antifa, an abbreviation for anti-fascist or anti-fascist action, when he said Tuesday that “both sides” bore responsibility for the violence and bloodshed that left three dead and dozens injured.
It is hard to know at this juncture how many of the hundreds of counterprotesters considered themselves affiliated with Antifa. Nor is it clear how many of them were among those who squared off against the white supremacists marching in downtown Charlottesville, trading punches and blows, some with lengths of wood.
The full facts await the findings of a Justice Department investigation of the Charlottesville violence announced by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
“Antifa is a coalition of hyperviolent activists who are far-left anarchists or communists,” said Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the Washington-based Capital Research Center. “They could be considered domestic terrorists. They are not legitimate actors in the democratic process.”

Read more here. 

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

The 3-Step Argument the Left Makes to Justify Violence Against Conservative Speakers

I ran across this article today which further clarifies a point I have been making for awhile now.  Let me state at the outset that most folks on the Left are good and decent folks and do not support nor advocate these type of tactics; however, there is a significant and growing number of other folks on the Left that think the ends justifies the means.  These are the folks that we should all unite against together to publicly denounce and marginalize them, just as we should do for the KKK, Neo-Nazi's and other hate groups from the Right.

We, as Americans, enjoy the constitutionally-enshrined right to free speech, even when that speech is deemed offensive by others.  Indeed, non-offensive speech with which everyone agreed would not ever need to be protected by a constitutional amendment.  That is not to say that we should accept or not challenge repugnant free speech.  We absolutely should and indeed have a moral duty to do so. That said, when we have become so tender as to not even want to hear opposing view points, are we not thereby weakening ourselves and our own convictions?


The 3-Step Argument the Left Makes to Justify Violence Against Conservative Speakers

By Ben Shapiro

Free speech is under assault because of a three-step argument made by the advocates and justifiers of violence.
The first step is they say that the validity or invalidity of an argument can be judged solely by the ethnic, sexual, racial, or cultural identity of the person making the argument.
The second step is that they claim those who say otherwise are engaging in what they call “verbal violence,” and the final step is they conclude that physical violence is sometimes justified in order to stop such verbal violence.
So let’s examine each of these three steps in turn. First, the philosophy of intersectionality. This philosophy now dominates college campuses as well as a large segment, unfortunately, of today’s Democratic Party and suggests that straight, white Americans are inherently the beneficiaries of white privilege and therefore cannot speak on certain policies, since they have not experienced what it’s like to be black or Hispanic or gay or transgender or a woman.
This philosophy ranks the value of a view, not based on the logic or merit of the view, but on the level of victimization in American society experienced by the person espousing the view. Therefore, if you’re an LGBT black woman, your view of American society is automatically more valuable than that of a straight, white male.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

The Fascist Roots of the American Left

By Dinesh D'Souza

In 1925 the Jewish philosopher Theodor Lessing spoke out against the repressive political climate of Weimar Germany.

Although Lessing’s explicit target was the cravenness of the Weimar regime of Paul von Hindenburg, his real target was the emerging power of Nazism, and he blamed the government for yielding to it.

The Nazis recognized immediately the threat posed by Lessing. Adolf Hitler youth at Lessing’s University of Hanover formed a “committee against Lessing.” They encouraged students to boycott his lectures.

Nazi youth then showed up and disrupted Lessing’s classes. Lessing was forced to give up his academic chair the following year.

In his account of what happened, Lessing later wrote that he could do nothing to prevent being “shouted down, threatened and denigrated” by student activists.

He was helpless, he said, “against the murderous bellowing of youngsters who accept no individual responsibilities but pose as spokesman for a group or an impersonal ideal, always talking in the royal ‘we’ while hurling personal insults … and claiming that everything is happening in the name of what’s true, good and beautiful.”

This was fascism, German style, in the 1920s.


Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Drinking Beer and Tax Reform

President Trump and congress have stated that one of the next major issues on their agenda, which they will begin working on in 2017, will be tax reform. 

Now I don't necessarily believe they will be any more successful with this exceptionally difficult endeavor than they were with repealing and replacing Obamacare.  After all, the GOP senators had already voted to repeal the inaccurately named Affordable Care Act multiple times when it didn't matter and had no chance of actually being repealed when President Obama was in office.  Of course they refused to cast that same vote when President Trump would have signed the bill.  Why would we believe that these integrity-challenged charlatans would be willing to expend political capital to fix our broken tax code next?

Regardless, we can hope that these cowardly and incompetent people that populate our House of Representatives and Senate might overachieve just once in their careers and actually be able to enact meaningful tax reform.

Of course any tax reform that doesn't raise taxes on the "evil rich" will immediately be vehemently decried by some of our fellow Americans as being grossly unfair and exploitive of the poorest amongst us.  It is nonsense, as the poor do not pay federal income taxes currently and surely won't in the future, but mark my words that the cacophony of demonization will happen as surely as President Trump will continue his incessant "tweeting". 

With all of this being said, a friend of mine recently forwarded this simplified explanation of how our progressive tax system functions, and the likely results of that reform being excoriated by the ignorant and ideologically partisan pundits and politicians when and if actual tax reform does come to fruition.  Enjoy!

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.  If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
 So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
“Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20".  Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected.  They would still drink for free.  But what about the other six men?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?  They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.  But if they subtracted that from every body's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink their beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
So the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (29% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (17% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free.
But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man.  He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man.  "I only saved a dollar too.  It's unfair that he received ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man.  "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2?  The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him.  But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important…they didn't have enough money among all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists, politicians, and pundits is how our tax system works.  The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.  Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

U.S. History Quiz

This history quiz link was forwarded to me by a person who thought that this was rather difficult and a good indicator of one's knowledge of U.S. history.  The test contains 102 questions and was rather rudimentary, in my opinion.  There was only one question that I had to take an educated guess on.  A vast majority of these questions should be, and indeed used to be, common knowledge for anyone that had successfully passed 8th grade U.S. history class.  One wonders if that is even objectively taught any more today.  Indeed, even this test had some editorializing towards a PC - progressive bias with a few of the questions.  Anyway, see how well you can do on this basic U.S. history knowledge quiz.

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Matt Walsh: Stop pretending you’re killing Charlie Gard ‘for his own benefit,’ you monsters

I have been monitoring the ghoulishly "enlightened humanitarians" over in the United Kingdom and their "benevolent" reaction towards Charlie Gard and his parents.  It is vile, disgusting, and flat out evil what these folks are insisting must happen with regards to Charlie by effectively sentencing him to death.  Perhaps Charlie will likely die regardless, but doesn't his parents have a right to try to provide all possible care for him, and failing that don't they have the right to at least bring him home to die with them?

Once again, Matt Walsh does a brilliant job in capturing my thoughts perfectly on poor Charlie and his tormented parents at the hands of the socialized health care system in Great Britain.  It is the inevitable outcome that always occurs when the state is granted the power of life and death over its citizens without there being any recourse for them.  We are no longer merely slouching towards Gomorrah in our Western civilized nations.  We have evidently already arrived there in England.

"The parents of Charlie Gard are back in court this week, continuing the struggle to free their baby from captivity and bring him to the U.S. for treatment.

As you hopefully are aware by now, Connie Yates and Chris Gard have been fighting with courts and hospitals in the U.K. for the right to seek medical care for their sick baby. So far, European death panels have determined that Charlie must die, because, in their estimation, his life is no longer worth living. His parents are not allowed to bring him elsewhere for treatment, nor are they even permitted to bring their child home to die in their arms. He is being held as a condemned prisoner in a state funded hospital, with his mother and father permitted only visiting hours to come and weep over the child they are not allowed to save.

But Connie and Chris have been granted one last chance in court to prove the validity of the treatment they hope to obtain for Charlie in the United States. Any sane and decent person would say that it doesn’t matter if some judge or some collection of doctors in London think the treatment will be ineffective. It’s the only chance Charlie has, and his parents have the right to give it a shot. But it doesn’t work that way because the laws in Europe are neither sane nor decent. Charlie had the misfortune of being born into a system of socialized medicine, where government officials get to decide who is worth saving and who must die on the altar of resource efficiency."
Continue reading the rest of this excellently stated essay here. 

UPDATE: Connie Yates and Chris Gard had a court hearing yesterday to see if the judge would allow them to have their baby treated in the United States or other countries that have offered help.  They ended up storming out of the court because of the judge.

Thursday, July 6, 2017

Thomas More, The Rise of State Supremacy and Modern Day Persecution of Faith

For the first millennia and a half after Christ first walked the earth, to be Christian was to be Catholic. There were no other “interpretations” of Christianity.  Then in 1517, a rather obscure Catholic monk and scholar by the name of Martin Luther penned his grievances in the form of “95 Theses” that decried much of what he correctly saw as corruption within the Catholic Church. He was not correct however, according to Orthodox Catholic belief, in his new interpretation on sola fide (salvation by faith alone) and sola scriptura (Biblical scripture as the only authority for Christians).  But that is a topic for another time.

That said, the horse was out of the barn, and the genesis of the Protestant Reformation was at hand.  No longer was the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, considered to be the first among equal brother bishops when it came to Christian authority for many Christians following this schism.

A little over a decade later in 1529, King Henry VIII of England appointed Thomas More, a deeply religious Catholic lawyer and scholar as his Lord Chancellor for the kingdom.  At that time England had not yet fallen to the Protestant schism and was still united with Rome in its Catholicity.  Then King Henry VIII desired an annulment from his wife Catherine in order that he could marry Anne Boleyn.  He drafted a letter requesting the Pope’s permission to obtain the annulment and requested that his good and faithful chancellor, Thomas More, endorse his request.  More, due to the dictates of his Catholic faith, respectfully refused.

Henry was enraged and over the next couple of years he isolated More in ever greater measure as he purged many of the clergy who supported the Pope that had refused to grant him his annulment.  It was becoming obvious to Thomas More that King Henry VIII was breaking away from the church in Rome.  This was something that Thomas More could not abide and thus he offered his resignation to the king in 1532.  King Henry accepted the resignation but was deeply vexed by what he considered to be More’s failing loyalty towards him.

By 1533, King Henry VIII had already declared himself to be the head of the Church as well as the State so that he no longer fell under Rome’s Christian authority thereby allowing him to establish the Church of England which subsequently allowed him to marry Anne Boleyn.  Thomas More, still a loyal English subject, refused to attend the wedding or coronation of Queen Anne but sent a letter of congratulations instead.  King Henry was highly insulted by this perceived slight from his friend.

King Henry, on April 13, 1534, ordered Thomas More to take an oath in which he acknowledged the legitimacies of Anne's position as queen, of Henry's self-granted annulment from Catherine, and the superior position of the King as head of the church. While acknowledging Anne as queen, More refused to acknowledge Henry as head of the church, or his annulment from Catherine.  The king was furious and had More arrested, tried, and imprisoned in the Tower of London accordingly.

Exactly 482 years ago today on July 6th, 1535, Thomas More was executed for his "conspiracies against the king" accordingly.

Five hundred years later, we now have closer to 30,000 different Christian denominations, all proclaiming their own authority for their beliefs and wildly varying interpretations of Christ’s message for all of us.  Sadly, as the world has become ever-increasingly coarse, crass, and not coincidentally more secular, the more orthodox Christian faiths are becoming ever more under attack from society and the state.

There are signs of this rising secularism and attack on sincere religious belief everywhere.  Indeed, a little over two weeks ago Sweden’s Prime Minister, Stefan Lofven,
“suggested that all Church of Sweden priests be compelled to perform gay marriages, despite the Lutheran church’s position that clergy members should have the right to refuse… The prime minister indicated in an interview with a church magazine that if a priest cannot bless a gay marriage, they should consider another vocation. 
‘We Social Democrats are working to ensure all priests will consecrate everyone, including same-sex couples,’ Lofven told Kyrkans Tidning magazine.
‘I see parallels to the midwife who refuses to perform abortions. If you work as a midwife you must be able to perform abortions, otherwise you have to do something else… It is the same for priests,’ he said…
In the interview, Lofven, who is not religious, defended the perceived political incursion into the practice of religion, saying ‘the church must stand up for human equality.’"
This seems to be the trend in which our modern enlightened society is inexorably heading.  Indeed, our neighbors to the north in Canada have passed “hate speech” laws that are chilling for Orthodox Christians to say anything negative about the sin of homosexual acts, even from the pulpit.

The government of Wales has proposed registration and inspection of religious schools and churches to evaluate if they are complying with “fundamental values”—an option Welsh evangelicals call highly intrusive and “an unwarranted incursion into private religion and family life.”

In America, bakers, photographers, and other business owners with deeply held religious beliefs have been excoriated in the press, secular society, and even the courts for their refusal to bend to secular law in its requirements to provide goods or services for same sex couples when celebrating what they deem as a religious rite of marriage.

Even former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders recently questioned Russ Vought, the nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, in antagonistic fashion because of Vought's Christian beliefs, specifically in the form that those that do not accept Christ as their Lord and savior are condemned by God.  It is a belief that is common amongst all three of the orthodox Abrahamic faiths that refusing acceptance of their core beliefs invites possible damnation.

Now never mind the minor detail that the United States Constitution itself states that there is to be NO religious test administered for those seeking public office, the fact remains that we, as Americans, should be free to exercise our religious faith and answer to our own consciences in line with our first amendment, and more importantly, God-given rights.

When the state, president, or king would usurp those rights of conscience given to us by God, are we not obligated to follow our faith in God over that of the laws constructed by man?

Sanders wrote in his defense of his statements against Mr. Vought:
“In a democratic society, founded on the principle of religious freedom, we can all disagree over issues, but racism and bigotry—condemning an entire group of people because of their faith—cannot be part of any public policy.”
Senator Sanders fails to understand that even people of deeply held religious convictions, (and sometimes especially those very people) absolutely can and do work with and befriend others of differing or no beliefs on a daily basis.  Senator Sanders, by his pronouncement would basically preclude any Christian, Muslim, or Jew from holding office by his own secular PC standard.  Only the secular world and man’s law should hold sway over our governance in Sanders' world, it would seem.

Saint Thomas More, the patron saint of lawyers, politicians, civil servants, and religious freedom, refused to compromise his own beliefs five hundred years ago in order to accommodate the powers of the secular world as commanded by King Henry VIII.  He refused to surrender his faith and his integrity even for the crown and at the pain of the forfeiture of his own life.  He understood the supremacy of God’s law foremost.  More saw it as scripture teaches, 

“For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?” ~ Mark 8:36

If only our modern day public servants and leaders were to exercise such integrity and follow the enormously brave example of conscience demonstrated by St. Thomas More.

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Hate Trumps Love from the Left

I recall several years ago how Sarah Palin was castigated by many on the Left and in the mainstream media (but then I repeat myself) for having the temerity to release a map that "targeted" certain congressional districts for which Republicans could concentrate.  The word "targeting" was labeled as hateful and inciting violence to shoot Democrats, as it was released shortly after the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords by a mentally deranged man.  It was patently ludicrous and nothing but faux outrage.

Fast forward to today and we have the unhinged, out-of-power Left waxing eloquently, or not so eloquently, with their far more explicit hate speech towards President Trump and the Right.

Although I am not a fan and do not listen to him, I have come across this list that Sean Hannity's staff has put together of recent hate speech spewed from some of our Leftist brothers and sisters who purportedly wanted to make "love trump hate".  I'd say they were off to a very bad start, wouldn't you?

* Hollywood Actor Mark Ruffalo calls on NBC News to "cease hiring white conservatives."

* "Knights for Socialism" group at a Florida University teaches students how to "fight the fascists."

* Anti-Trump "resistance" leaders say they want to "Make America Ungovernable," call for "direct action" tactics against Republicans.

* Kathy Griffin's photoshoot depicting President Trump's severed head.

* Charlie Sheen wishes death on Donald Trump, tweeting, “Dear God; Trump next, please! Trump     next, please!" following the death of actress Carrie Fisher.

* President Trump murdered in musician Marilyn Manson's music video.

* Katie Tur insinuates Donald Trump will begin killing journalists on MSNBC, saying “Donald Trump has made no secret about going after journalists"

* Unhinged NYU professor calls on students to attack conservative speaker Gavin McInnes, calls his supporters "Nazis."

* Rachel Maddow says Donald Trump wants to murder journalists.

* Comedian Jim Carrey supports Kathy Griffin's photoshoot, says he dreams of killing President Trump.

* Madonna says she wants to "blow up the White House" during a speech.

* Black Lives Matter say they want to "fry cops like bacon" during a rally in Minnesota.

* President Obama urges liberal activists to, "Get in their faces."

* Actor Mickey Rourke goes on anti-Trump rant, says "F*** him, F*** the horse he rode in on, his   wife's one of the biggest gold-diggers I know."

* Rapper Big Sean raps about murdering Donald Trump with an icepick.

* Late-Night host Stephen Colbert goes on anti-Trump tirade, calls him "Vladimir Putin's c***-holster."

* Comedian Bill Maher jokes about Trump family incest.

* Rapper Snoop Dogg stages phony execution of 'clown' Donald Trump.

* NBC and New York Times contributor Malcolm Nance calls on ISIS to suicide-bomb Trump-owned properties.

* NYC Theater group stages performance of 'Julius Caesar,' showing the savage stabbing-death of  'Donald Trump.'

* Protesters in Philadelphia chant "Kill Trump - Kill Pence" during May Day demonstrations. "

And sadly, this doesn't even come close to listing all of the over-the-top hateful and violent rhetoric coming from some on the Left.  Yes, I know the Right has been guilty of going over the line in the past too, but nothing like this, especially considering the actions following some of this hateful speech.  Hateful and violent speech like this is never acceptable from anyone, regardless of party affiliation.  We should ALL stand together and condemn it accordingly!

But, it seems that we are indeed a nation sorely divided and returning to civil discourse, let alone reuniting as fellow Americans appears to be a lost cause.  In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"  Sadly, the answer from the Left appears to be a resounding " HELL NO!"

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

A Pope, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Princes, and Their Pictures

I have seen several leftist websites and mainstream media sources (but then I repeat myself) promulgate the notion that Pope Francis was not happy when he met with President Trump recently as was reflected in their group photo.

Even my good friend Burr Deming at Fair and Unbalanced picked up on this new trendy left-wing meme on his site.

The problem is that not everything is as our brothers and sisters on the left would seem to want it to be.  Yes, a picture can say a thousand words, but when we look at all of the pictures, they also can tell a completely different story if we only take the time to truly look.

Here is a typical version of what the anti-Trump Left is posting.  They will first show a picture of President Obama standing next to a smiling Pope Francis and then contrast that picture with a dour looking Pope standing next to President Trump.  Of course the implication is that Pope Francis adores President Obama and is not pleased with President Trump.

But as Paul Harvey would say, here is the rest of the story.  It isn't hard to also find a picture of a seemingly displeased Pope standing next to many of the world's leaders, regardless of their political ideology.  

Below is a picture of a Canada's very leftist Prime Minister Trudeau smiling beside a seemingly grumpy Pope Francis.

Or how about this one where Israel's right-wing Benjamin Netanyahu is posing with a surly Pope Francis. 

Perhaps the apolitical (left-wing) Prince Charles would cheer up the Pope... or not.

Is it perhaps possible that Pope Francis simply doesn't typically smile for staged photographs?  There are myriads (more than two) of candid pictures of him smiling and laughing with numerous world leaders that are easily found on the inter-webs, but for the staged photographs, he presents a more stoic countenance that can be taken for a disapproving or grumpy attitude towards the official with whom he is being photographed.  

For those that attempt to make political points by pulling merely two pictures out of thousands in order to justify a talking point, they come off as being naive and self-deluding or perhaps even intentionally dishonest in their presentation of the facts.  I know beyond all doubt that it is not the latter but far more likely the former in the case with my friend Burr Deming.

I guess we sometimes need to stop and ask ourselves a question.  Is it possible that sometimes we only search long enough to see just what we wish to see and nothing more?

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

A World of 6.5 Billion Truths

Right or wrong.

There is a distinct and discernible difference between the two.   

This increasingly morally relativistic world would like us to think that it is comprised of 6.5 billion shades of gray, but honestly there are far more issues in the world that come down to a truly black or white decision than what we may believe; that come down to a choice between a falsehood or truth.  There is a right answer and a wrong answer.  There is the correct path and the path that leads to desolation.

I know— I know—

How presumptuous of me!  After all, I haven’t walked in your shoes so I don’t know what issues you have had to face. 

And that is true.  I haven’t walked in your shoes.  Perhaps I have been in similar circumstances and faced adversaries or dilemmas that were very much like the ones you have faced, but that doesn’t mean they are exactly the same.

But, that doesn’t mean that truth changes because circumstances are slightly different for you either.

I have often heard in recent years some version of “it’s her truth” or “that is the truth as he sees it”.  Well folks, that may or may not be THE truth.  Rather, that is their perspective. 

Truth is not subjective.  It simply is.  It is factual and unwavering, no matter how much one hopes to color it in deeper shades of gray with one’s own individual circumstances.  It does not change based on one’s gender, color, sexual orientation, political ideology, shoe size, or for which NBA team one cheers. 

God is Truth.

“Gasp!  Well what if I don’t believe in God?  What then?”

What then, indeed?  That is actually a very good question.  If my statement is correct that God is truth, and you don’t believe in God, then how do you define or determine what truth is?

When the Jewish priests handed Christ over to Pontius Pilate, they did so because Jesus challenged “their truth”. 
So Pilate said to him, "Then you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say I am a king. For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice."
Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" When he had said this, he again went out to the Jews and said to them, "I find no guilt in him.”   ~John 18: 37-38
You can almost hear Pilate spit out his response, “What is truth?”  The irony is that The Truth was standing right before Pilate and was crucified because He contradicted the Romans’ and the Jews’ version of the truth.

But back to our original question.  If you don’t believe in Christ –in God- then how do you define and determine what is the truth?

Is our government the arbiter of truth?  As American’s we’d like for them to be, but honestly if you assume that simply because the government says it is so and therefore the truth, you will be sadly mistaken more often than not.

Do we look to teachers, professors, family, or friends to determine what is right and wrong ...what  is the truth?  Sometimes.  Sometimes we are met with wise counsel from these good people too.  But they are still human and therefore subject to the same foibles and failings that you and I are.  They can make mistakes, even when discerning what the truth is.  The wisest and most holy man or woman on earth can still be mistaken and lead one away from the truth.

“Exactly! So if I cannot count on anyone else to lead me to the truth and I don’t believe in God, then I guess I just have to count on myself to define my own truth.”

Easy there, Skippy! 

Do you really think you are going to be any less prone to errors in choosing between right and wrong and finding the truth than the wisest and most holy among us?  That is rather arrogant if one is searching for THE truth, instead of just a version that fits your specific wants, desires, and perceptions.

But if God is a myth and you cannot necessarily depend on others, then the only person you have to answer to is yourself, right?   This journey of yours is singular. It is a lonely walk that you must take by yourself. No one can guide you, direct you, or tell you which way to go. You alone must chart your course because you alone know your circumstances –your truth.  You get to decide what is right and true for you, even if it conflicts with what your parents, teachers, or society says is right and true.  After all, they aren’t living “your truth” in your circumstances, right?

It is in defining these alternate individual “truths” that we each come to justify our own immoral actions.  Shacking up with our girlfriend/boyfriend, living a homosexual lifestyle, promoting or procuring an abortion, lying, cheating, polluting our planet, or ignoring the least among us in need all become permissible if the ultimate arbiter of truth is ourselves – if we are the ones that determine what is true.

There are two faculties or powers of the immortal soul that are given to us by God.  They are reason and free will. Using our reason, we can think about things such as the morality of a proposed action as defined by God defined by the Truth. Using our free will, we can decide whether to do it. Faculties that we share with animals are senses and emotions. Our emotions are more varied and complex than those of animals, though there is no denying that my dog can be happy with his tail wagging at a frenzied pace as we play fetch or scared when he sees the car approaching the dreaded veterinarian’s office.

We call reason and free will higher faculties; emotions and senses are our lower faculties. It is a serious mistake, though one that is common in our culture, to allow the lower faculties to govern our actions. This leads us to believe that a proposed action must be good if it is pleasurable to our senses or if it makes us feel happy. I have heard individuals justify immoral acts by saying, “God wants me to be happy.” This is true, but there are acts that will give us momentary pleasure but not long-term happiness. God wants us to live in eternal happiness, and to use reason rather than emotion and sensual pleasure to guide us there.  Drugs, alcohol, or promiscuous sex may give us momentary pleasure, but in the long run will only lead us to more sorrow and misery.

All of us sinners have, to one degree or another, bought into the lie. At the heart of the lie—and we can see it in the Genesis account—is the deification of the ego. I become the center of the universe, I with my needs and my fears and my demands.  And when the puny “I” is the center of the cosmos, the tie that binds all things to one another is lost. The basic reality now becomes rivalry, competition, violence, and mistrust.  And The Truth is subjugated in the world to “my truth” and the varying “truths” of billions of other people whom fail to seek, acknowledge, and live by The Truth that is God.

In such a world, right and wrong are always relative.  In such a world there is no singular transcending all-encompassing Truth.

As for me and my family, we will always strive to serve the Lord ...and The Truth.

Thursday, April 27, 2017

Michael Smith: Separate and Equal (but Special)

Michael Smith wrote a very interesting piece on Facebook a few days ago.  I thought it was worthy of being shared here.  Enjoy!

The Supreme Court ended the doctrine of “Separate but Equal” when it handed down the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, overturning the decision on Plessey v. Ferguson on May 18, 1896 that affirmed Louisiana state law mandating “equal but separate”. Homer Adolph Plessy bought a ticket on the East Louisiana Railroad, from New Orleans to Covington, La. Mr. Plessy , seven-eighths white and one-eighth Negro, took a seat in the coach designated for whites on the segregated train. When challenged, he refused to move, he was taken off and jailed.
Reflecting the social and legal environment of the times, the Plessy decision was not even close - the decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. This decision established legal segregation by race as the law of the land and it stood for 58 years until society changed and recognized that separate but equal is anything but equal.
Brown v. Board of Education has now been law for 5 years longer than was Plessy (63 years vs. 58). Proving that certain segments of mankind never learn anything from history, the SJW’s (social justice warriors) of contemporary times seek to return to the days of Plessy (with a twist) by working with government to be separate and equal (but special). Blacks are calling for “black only” instruction in college and black only police and government in majority black areas. Muslims are demanding Muslim only public accommodations – the same is true with the LGBT community. Feminists want to be free of the “heteronormative patriarchy” by removing men from their roles in society. The entire “safe space” idea is not just to provide protection for thin-skinned progressive adult children and academics (but I repeat myself) but to exclude people who hold opposing ideas and prevent them from being heard. These folks say they want to be treated as equal but demand to be separated from others and in doing so, they also expect special protection and treatment.
Affirmative action programs were created to “cure” the discrimination created by the “separate but equal” doctrine. These programs created the first classes of people who were separate and equal (but special). The idea was to carve out special privileges for blacks that would eventually help a class of citizens overcome historical inequality. Looking at black America today, it is obviously possible to make the case that black individuals have benefited – but as a socio-economic class, affirmative action can hardly be considered a success - and yet it continues apace.
In 2003’s Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), SCOTUS upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School by defining the very quota system found unconstitutional in 1978’s Regents of the University of California v. Bakke as “not a quota system” (a lot like how John Roberts redefined Obamacare’s tax as not a tax and a tax at the same time in order to find Obamacare constitutional). Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision and joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, ruled that the University of Michigan Law School had a “compelling interest in promoting class diversity.” Never mind that the Constitution says nothing about “diversity” and everything about equality, the important aspect is that Grutter v. Bollinger affirmed the same “separate but equal” doctrine as did Plessy v. Ferguson (with the special twist of approving reverse discrimination).
Progressivism is riddled with self-contradictory ideas and affirmative action is no exception – it seeks to create equality by creating inequality (i.e. lowering standards, mandating quotas, grading on the curve, etc.), proving that Brown v. Board of Education was demonstrably correct – separate is not equal, especially when discrimination is thought to be cured by more discrimination against an out of favor class. Progressivism is built on building protected classes and “curing” their ills by disadvantaging another class. Proving that progressives are the least self-aware class on the face of the American political landscape, this is the basis for the Plessy decision in 1896 making the modern SJW’s little better than the post-Civil War segregationists.
Separate but equal is not equal. Equal but special is not the same as being equal. Separate but equal was wrong in 1896 and progressivism’s doctrine of separate and equal (but special) is just as wrong today.
Mr. Smith makes some very interesting and accurate points, in my opinion.  I was always of the opinion that there was indeed a time when affirmative action programs were necessary to balance out the systemic racism that would not allow people of color to even have a chance to get a foot in the door of some colleges or businesses.  I also feel that time is past and affirmative action is no longer necessary.

Nowadays, affirmative action, in my opinion is just as Michael Smith intimated, a system of reverse racism.  Affirmative action tells our brothers and sisters of color that they cannot make it on their own merits today.  They must be propped up with quotas in order to be allowed entrance to universities and careers.  Today, such is NOT the case and is frankly demeaning to myriads of well qualified folks.  It is interesting when a program that was enacted to combat racism has outlasted its usefulness and has thereby become racist in itself.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Matt Walsh: I Didn't Fall in Love with My Wife

"It’s no surprise that we are so bad at marriage in this culture.

We’re bad at it because we don’t understand it, and we don’t understand it because we don’t understand love. You can’t forge a lasting marriage if all you know about love is what you learned from an Ed Sheeran song. It’s like trying to build a car when you think engines run on fairy dust. And that’s essentially how many of us approach marriage. We believe it’s fueled by some intense and mystical emotional force — a force we inaccurately call 'love' — and as soon as we run out of this mysterious cosmic gasoline all we can do is send it to the scrap yard and find a new model."

Friday, April 14, 2017

Good Friday: He Makes All Things New Again

As we enter into Good Friday and the most solemn day of the year for most Christians, I wanted to share this beautiful and haunting music video.  It is sung by two of my favorite artists, Brad Paisley and Sara Evans, and they do a masterful job.  The video itself contains excerpts mainly from the Passion of the Christ film.  Please be warned that the film and the clip can be difficult to watch in parts for many folks due to the realistic and graphic portrayal of the crucifixion of our Lord and Savior.

Nevertheless, as Blessed Pope John Paul II was reported as having said upon seeing a private screening of the film upon its release, "It is as it was."

My people, what have I done to you?  Or in what have I offended you?  Answer me.  What more should I have done, and did not do?  I led you out of the land of Egypt, and you prepared a cross for me.  I opened the Red Sea before you, and you opened my side with a lance.  I gave you a royal scepter, and you have given me a crown of thorns.  With great power I lifted you up, and you hung me upon a cross.  My people, what have I done to you, or in what have I offended you?  Answer me.    (~ From the Reproaches of Good Friday)

Blessed be God forever!  Amen!

Sunday, April 2, 2017

The Objective Media Myth

I am always amused by many of my progressive friends who insist that the media is not liberally biased, or at worst are products of corporate and not progressive bias.  The fact that so many of these well-meaning people don't even recognize the intrinsic liberal bias in the mainstream media based on what they report, how they report it, and what they choose NOT to report is quite telling.  

I saw a recent article that is further damning to the notion that the mainstream media is objective.  A few points of interest in particular are the following:

·        96 percent of the donations given by journalists in the 2016 presidential election as of August were to Hillary Clinton, according to the Center for Public Integrity.

·        7 percent of journalists identify as Republican, while 28 percent identify as Democrat, according to an Indiana University School of Journalism study conducted in 2013.

·        “Of the major newspapers that endorsed either Clinton or Trump, only 3 percent (2 of 59) endorsed Trump,” noted FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver.

Just some more evidence of the "objectivity" of our mainstream media -- but then us true conservatives already knew these truths.

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Daniel Greenfield: The Civil War is Here

A reader and friend of Saving Common Sense directed me to this excellent article on FrontPage Mag that was written by Daniel Greenfield yesterday.  The article is entitled, "THE CIVIL WAR IS HERE: The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule." 

As I told my friend, this is perhaps one of the best articles I have read in awhile.  I was contemplating some of the same ideas espoused in the article and was working on a very rough draft over the last few weeks when time permitted, but Mr. Greenfield did such a masterful job of articulating the issues at hand, that it seemed pointless for me to reinvent the wheel.  With that said, I strongly encourage everyone to click on the link and read the entire article at Front Page Mag.

Below are a few excerpts that particularly caught my attention from Mr. Greenfield's article:

"The left is an authoritarian movement that wants total compliance with its dictates with severe punishments for those who disobey...
...We can have a system of government based around the Constitution with democratically elected representatives. Or we can have one based on the ideological principles of the left in which all laws and processes, including elections and the Constitution, are fig leaves for enforcing social justice.
But we cannot have both.
Some civil wars happen when a political conflict can’t be resolved at the political level. The really bad ones happen when an irresolvable political conflict combines with an irresolvable cultural conflict.
That is what we have now.
The left has made it clear that it will not accept the lawful authority of our system of government. It will not accept the outcome of elections. It will not accept these things because they are at odds with its ideology and because they represent the will of large portions of the country whom they despise...
...The left doesn’t believe in secession. It’s an authoritarian political movement that has lost democratic authority. There is now a political power struggle underway between the democratically elected officials and the undemocratic machinery of government aided by a handful of judges and local elected officials...
...Civil wars end when one side is forced to accept the authority of the other. The left expects everyone to accept its ideological authority. Conservatives expect the left to accept Constitutional authority. The conflict is still political and cultural. It’s being fought in the media and within the government. But if neither side backs down, then it will go beyond words as both sides give contradictory orders..."
It is ironic that many otherwise well-meaning people on the Left accuse the Right of being authoritarian and insisting that "love trumps hate".  It is even more ironic that they do so by means of violent protests and judicial coercion from activist judges.  I never expected "love" to require rocks, Molotov cocktails, and literal beat downs of dissenting opinion speakers.  It is scary to contemplate, but a civil war could very well be the exact direction in which we are heading.

H/T: Majormajor

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Progressive Home Defense

A few days ago a "progressive" friend asked me what I thought he might need in order to defend his home and family from home invasion.

I suggested a 9mm, a couple of clips, and a box of shells.

A few days later he sent me this picture below and asked me how to make it all work.

Of course, he voted for Obama twice and Hillary last November.

" will be necessary for the men of peace to have guns, as long as men of violence do.  We can't put all the force in the hands of evil."  ~ Louis L'Amour

Monday, March 6, 2017

Painfully Remembering Obama 3/6/2017

Obama books himself on the Jimmy Fallon Show.

Wondering why some of our progressive friends fail to see the arrogance and buffoonery of our former president.

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

Ash Wednesday and the "Glitter Ash" Initiative

Today is Ash Wednesday, thus marking the first day of Lent for many Christians throughout the world.  Lent is a sacred time for orthodox Christianity and marks the 40 days between Ash Wednesday to Easter, with Sundays (the Lord’s Day) not to be counted amongst the forty.  These forty days of Lent are representative of the forty days our Lord Christ spent in the desert after He was baptized by John the Baptist.  He wandered the desert in fasting and prayer prior to the beginning of His earthly ministry. 

The Catholic Church teaches that Lent is a time of repentance.  It is a turning away from earthly desires and temptations and a turning of our focus toward God through fasting, prayer, and alms giving.  On this day faithful Catholics and other orthodox Christians will attend Mass or church services to prepare for their Lenten journey towards the cross and then resurrection of our Lord on Easter. 

Ash Wednesday is so named because of the practice of the priest reminding each Christian as they come forward in Mass to receive the sign of the cross marked on their foreheads in ash to “Remember you are dust, and unto dust you shall return.”  These ashes are made by the burning of the palm leaves used in the Palm Sunday services of the previous year.  It is a very sacred time where Christians repent for their sins and focus on trying to live by God’s will.

Sadly there are some Christian churches that have taken this sacred day as an opportunity to advance an earthly agenda.  In the Chicago area there are several churches including Unity Lutheran Church in Edgewater, Holy Covenant Metropolitan Community Church in Brookfield, and Berry United Methodist Church in Lincoln Square, that have decided to partake in the “Glitter Ash Wednesday” initiative.

This initiative was created by the New York faith based organization “Parity”.   Parity focuses on the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer community.  Their goal is to combine the message of solidarity and support with the traditional symbol of lent – repentance.  These three churches will offer the option of “glitter ash” in which purple glitter is mixed with traditional ashes to be placed on each Christian’s forehead in the sign of the cross. 

“I think it’s really important for the church to respond to the intolerance and culture of fear that is being created especially toward LGBTQ people”, stated April Gutierrez who is the pastor of Berry United Methodist Church.  “We want to make sure the Christian message is one of love and inclusivity.”

Love and inclusivity are noble and Godly ideals.  Indeed God Himself is love.  And He loves all of his children regardless of similarities or differences.  However, His grace is bestowed only on those that acknowledge Him as Lord and try to faithfully keep His commandments; especially His greatest commandments to love Him and to love your neighbor.

True agape Christ-like love is not some mushy romantic feeling that overcomes one when he thinks of another but rather is the true desiring of what is best for one’s beloved.  Supporting a loved one in continuing a harmful and sinful life is not truly love.  

Scripture tells us that we are all called to hate the sin but love the sinner.  Granted, there are many Christians that are great at acting out on the first part of that phrase and then ignore the second part.  Indeed, it is not our place as faithful Christians to condemn those who stray from the Lord or His path.  If we were to do so, we must necessarily condemn the whole world… including ourselves. 

That said, we are not to give in to temptation and sinfulness nor condone sinful behavior in others either.  God hates sin.  We are to discern, based on His teachings, what is right and what is wrong and to live our lives accordingly, while still loving our fellow human beings that fall into sin.

It would seem to me that these few churches, while perhaps having good intentions, are sorely misguided in showing their “solidarity” with sinfulness and failing to properly discern wrong and what is truly best for their beloved brothers and sisters.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the "salvific meaning of this mysterious event," in which Jesus is revealed as "the new Adam who remained faithful just where the first Adam had given in to temptation."

With that said, one has to ask, are these churches that offer glitter ashes being faithful to Christ’s example or to Adam’s?

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Painfully Remembering Obama 2/28/2017

President Obama bowing to Saudi Arabian King Abdullah

Wondering why some of our progressive friends fail to see the arrogance and buffoonery of former President Obama.

Friday, February 24, 2017

Washington's Denial of Religious Liberty and Christians that Sit in Silence

Shame on the Silent Christian Leaders Who Refuse to Stand Against Government Tyranny


There is only one thing more appalling than the Washington Supreme Court’s 9-0 ruling against religious liberty today. It is the silence of Christian leaders across America, leaders who choose convenience over confrontation, leaders who would rather be popular than prophetic, leaders who prefer the favor of people over the favor of God. Shame on these silent leaders. Today is a day to stand.

There are, of course, the handful of expected Christian voices protesting the court’s outrageous decision, as these justices ruled unanimously against florist Barronelle Stutzman, claiming that she discriminated against a longtime gay customer (named Robert Ingersoll) when she told him she couldn’t make the floral arrangement for his upcoming gay “wedding,” despite the fact that she had served him for years and despite her recommending three other florists who could do the arrangements for his wedding.

Continue reading here.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

The Politics of Intolerance, Hate, and Anti-Semitism on College Campuses

There never was a nation called Palestine. It was a region -- and it was populated by Jews and Arabs alike. The entire cause of disavowing, boycotting, and the would-be destruction of Jewish Israel is patently dishonest. Most "Palestinians" are from Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and so on: not the region called Palestine. Indeed, Yasser Arafat, the terrorist leader of the PLO and subsequent "Nobel Peace Prize" winner, was himself Egyptian. (The fact that Arafat was awarded the prize speaks to the lack of credibility of this once noble committee.) This charade is all bogus and stems from anti-Semitic hate towards Israel and Jews.

Sadly, the anti-Semitism in U.S. universities has often been created by the students within them from the Middle East who covet Israel’s land and prosperity.  And then there are many professors who tow the seemingly progressive line and promulgate the agenda of decrying the "racism, apartheid practices, and oppression of the Zionists" which has sickened the minds of young students who trust such authority figures blindly. The students don't bother to do the research to find out the history and the truth of what is really going on in Israel. Sadly, even a loved one of mine has succumbed to these lies and refuses to even look at the contrary and inarguable EVIDENCE of the truth.

When the Palestinian government allies itself with Hamas and Hezbollah, whose very charters call for the destruction of Jewish Israel and denies its right to even exist, who really are the hateful ones? Indeed, if Israel were to unilaterally disarm, they would be over-run and utterly destroyed immediately. They would be wiped off the face of the map, as the former president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, once stated was his goal. On the other hand, if the "Palestinian" people and surrounding hostile nations were to unilaterally disarm, there would finally be peace in the region.

Therein resides the difference.

Therein one finds who is truly hateful.

For more information on the struggle in Israel, please read my older post on the topic here.

H/T to Carrie for the video and much of the information comprising this post.

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Trump's Temporary Immigration Ban

There has been a lot of hoopla made out of President Trump’s executive order on the temporary ban of immigrants from seven unstable or war-torn Middle Eastern nations lately.  Where one comes down on the issue is probably more indicative of one’s own political predilections than it is of the actual executive order itself.

Trump’s executive order specifically states that a temporary ban on immigration from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, and Libya will be enacted in order to ensure the safety of American citizens from potential terrorists that could infiltrate and pose as refugees in order to gain entrance into our nation for nefarious reasons.

Now I understand and indeed appreciate the good-hearted people that want to allow immigrants that are fleeing these war-embattled, terrorist hellholes.  If we could ensure their good intentions, then I would be inclined to grant them refugee status and welcome them in too.  That said, our government has the responsibility to strike the proper balance between national security and compassion for its citizens and those who would be its citizens.

The reason these particular seven countries are specifically listed in the executive order is because of the inability for us to properly vet these would-be immigrants due to lack of documentation that verifies that these people truly are refugees and not ISIS fighters simply trying to gain entrance to America.  The foreign governments from which these folks are fleeing either do not have the ability or do not wish to provide documentation to corroborate these peoples’ stories.  Trump, as promised in the presidential campaign, has taken the first step to protect Americans from a potential national security risk by not admitting these refugees without proper vetting.  (Can you imagine the outcry, particularly from the Left, if unchecked immigration allowed a terrorist into the country who did manage to kill Americans under Trump's watch?)

“But this executive order is unconstitutional,” and “It is un-American to ban people simply because they are Muslim,” many well-meaning Americans object.  Well, I would respectfully argue that there is nothing unconstitutional, outrageous, or immoral about suspending immigration from countries raging in war and terrorism or specifically touting a hatred for American ideals.  Further, this is NOT a Muslim ban as the other 43 predominately Muslim nations in the world have not had their immigration status affected by this executive order.  Indeed, the European Union and even some Middle Eastern nations such as Kuwait have similar restrictions for many of these exact same unstable hot spots in the world.

Further, I find it interesting how many of these same people decrying Trump’s order watched in silence as President Obama in his waning days in office signed an executive order abolishing the refugee status of Cubans fleeing that repressive regime with the decades-held feet wet/feet dry policy. Previously Cubans that risked their lives fleeing to American shores were granted political asylum if they could successfully touch U.S. soil.  President Obama rescinded that long held immigration policy by executive order to nary a peep from the Left in this country.  That is hardly sympathetic to those immigrants that are fleeing tyranny and do not wish our country harm.  It stands in stark contrast to Trump’s executive order.

I applaud the purpose of President Trump’s executive order; however, in many ways he has been his own worst public relations enemy on the subject.  At times, he or his surrogates have insisted that this was not a ban, and then turned around and referred to it as a ban.  Whether this was simply sloppy language or intentional, they have sent a jumbled message that the hyper-critical left-wing press has been only too happy to run with in order to try and goad and undermine Trump and his supporters on this issue.  My biggest complaint though was that it doesn’t seem like the purpose and scope of the order was communicated well to those needing to understand and implement it properly.  Further, it should never have affected green card holders that were already vetted and here legally.

Lastly, regarding the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order, a president does indeed have the right to enforce existing law as the chief executive.  He has an obligation to protect America and its citizenry.  By issuing his order, he is not abridging or denying constitutional rights to would-be immigrants.  By definition, the United States Constitution guarantees it rights and protections to those who are CITIZENS of the United States.  It does not necessarily confer all of those same rights and protections to foreign nationals.

Two years ago, President Obama signed The Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 which contained the following:

An alien shall be ineligible for program participation who:
has been present, at any time on or after March 1, 2011, in Iraq or Syria, in a country designated as one that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, or in any other country or area of concern designated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); and
regardless of whether the alien is a national of a program country, is a national of Iraq or Syria, a country designated as a country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, or any other country or area of concern.

President Obama was right to do so then.  President Trump is right to do so now.  And that is regardless of my political predilections.

Thursday, January 26, 2017

The Women's Rights March that Degraded Women

To a great extent the level of any civilization is the level of its womanhood. When a man loves a woman, he has to become worthy of her. The higher her virtue, the more noble her character, the more devoted she is to truth, justice, goodness, the more a man has to aspire to be worthy of her. The history of civilization could actually be written in terms of the level of its women.  
- Venerable Fulton J. Sheen

If Fulton Sheen was correct, and I fully believe he was, then our American civilization appears to those that do not know any better to have degraded to the point of being little more than a cesspool. The latest "women's rights" march in D.C. and throughout the country were nothing more than pro-abortion and pro-LGBT rallies.  They were a screed against the election of a president that they fear will take away their "right" to abort their children.  They were a symbol of our American culture's further slouching towards Gomorrah.

These women, in their pink "pussy hats" and carrying vulgar signs, degraded and lowered themselves and destroyed any sense of feminine dignity they had far more than the disgusting and vile words uttered by Trump years ago in a private conversation in which he has since apologized.  These sad women lowered the standard for what womanhood should be and actually hurt their cause to be heard and taken seriously with their disgusting and undignified actions.

Truly, if Susan B. Anthony had resorted to such filth, vulgarity, and lack of common decency in her fight for women's suffrage, I dare say that women might possibly not have the right to vote today.  So far down has our "pop culture" fallen in these "enlightened" modern times...

If the history of civilization is indeed written in the terms of the level of our women, I pray to God that He knows that the hundreds of thousands of women that did march, do not speak for the millions of good and decent women in our nation that we men should still aspire to be worthy thereof.

I pray for the conversion of the hearts of those women that acted so... unwomanly.

Caution: The following links are not family-friendly but are meant to illustrate the filth of which I speak.  I didn't have the stomach to actually post these pictures on my blog itself.

From The Federalist     

From MRC

Monday, January 23, 2017

Racism Redefined

Yep... enough said.

Chad Prather on Protesting the Protester

Perhaps I am simply being lazy and don't want to put in the effort to write a post about my frustration over the "peaceful" protesters, but I'd like to think that I am simply working smarter rather than harder when Chad Prather says it all so well for me.

Oh, and by the way, it would help me to take a lot of you protesters more seriously if you had even spent the effort to go and vote before your latest whine-fests.

Don't get me wrong.  I support and even champion many of the protesters out there.  What I have a serious problem with is the destruction and violence perpetrated by far too many of them.  You all should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.  Don't you know that when you incite or partake in violence or destruction, your message of protest becomes lost and your thuggery then becomes the main focus of the story?

Anyway... here's one of my new favorite guys of late to tell it like it is: