A Thug By Any Other Name

Exciting New Progress:

I’m not sure, but I suspect that once upon a time “juvenile delinquent” was a liberal euphemism for “young criminal.” As often happens, however, eventually even the euphemism is thought to be too harsh, and so a better one has to be found. And so one has: This Obama-administration press release yesterday talked a lot about “justice-involved youth.”

From "Young Criminals" to "Juvenile Delinquents" to "Justice Involved Youth". Orwell would be proud!





'via Blog this'

Fundamentalism Of The Smug Liberal

The smug style in American liberalism - Vox:

This article is a long but AMAZING read. Not so much for what is in it but because it exists at all. It is written by a liberal for a liberal site PLEADING for the liberal intelligentsia and hangers on to try their hardest to develop the merest hint of actual empathy!

I've covered all of this ground seven ways from Sunday, but to see an actual LIBERAL realize that maybe there is more to dealing with something possibly over half of the American Electorate than dismissing them with derision and smugness is a real treat.

This, I think, is fundamental to understanding the smug style. If good politics and good beliefs are just Good Facts and good tweets — that is, if there is no ideology beyond sensible conclusions drawn from a rational assessment of the world — then there are no moral fights, only lying liars and the stupid rubes who believe them.

Much of this goes back to "What's The Matter With Kansas" -- a book that SCREAMED about how STUPID poor people were to not be voting D and still clinging to tired old ridiculous Christian values to boot! "Good Facts" are critical -- liberals are sure of nothing if it isn't that THEY have ALL the FACTS on THEIR side! The following paragraph is a rare view of what a liberal might realize if they were to be a high school educated white Christian in some hick town in flyover country.

I am suggesting that they instead wonder what it might be like to have little left but one's values; to wake up one day to find your whole moral order destroyed; to look around and see the representatives of a new order call you a stupid, hypocritical hick without bothering, even, to wonder how your corner of your poor state found itself so alienated from them in the first place. To work with people who do not share their values or their tastes, who do not live where they live or like what they like or know their Good Facts or their jokes.

It's a worthy read, but we pretty much know it already -- liberals are smarter, better educated, better people, better looking, more tasteful, kinder, gentler, more moral, more culturally advanced, well, just BETTER! They are absolutely certain of it and they are even more certain that they have every right to be SMUG about it!

The thing that I would add from my experience is the quite large number of people who don't have the education, intelligence or money to actually be solid smug liberals, but they hang their entire sense of moral goodness on their embrace of liberal morality. They LOVE gay "marriage", they HATE the NRA, Faux News, they obsess about Climate Change -- they don't know a lot about many of these issues, but it gives them a chance to feel morally superior to their "hick neighbors". Often, it is the only sad "superiority" that they have.

Here is the Trump angle (doesn't everything have that these days?) :

Here's the conclusion I draw: If Donald Trump has a chance in November, it is because the knowing will dictate our [the liberal] strategy. Unable to countenance the real causes of their collapse, they will comfort with own impotence by shouting, "Idiots !" again and again, angrier and angrier, the handmaidens of their own destruction.

The smug style resists empathy for the unknowing. It denies the possibility of a politics whereby those who do not share knowing culture, who do not like the right things or know the Good Facts or recognize the intellectual bankruptcy of their own ideas can be worked with, in spite of these differences, toward a common goal. 

It is this attitude that has driven the dispossessed into the arms of a candidate who shares their fury. It is this attitude that may deliver him the White House, a "serious" threat, a threat to be mocked and called out and hated, but not to be taken seriously. 

The wages of smug is Trump.

The part of the Smug style that hurts personally is the requirement for "separation". I grew up in a Fundamentalist Baptist church that encouraged Christians to "be ye separate" -- not in heart and behavior only, but actually to separate yourself from the "world churches" and people who attended them -- which was basically everyone. ONLY the little General Association of Regular Baptists had the truth -- all else was error and sin.

Smug liberals can't associate with people who have "empathy for the unknowing", or even worse can enter a discussion with the smugly superior liberal in which the liberal ends up tongue tied and sputtering. They end up tongue tied and sputtering because their entire moral value as a person is tied up in the metaphysical correctness of their liberal world view, yet, since their view is dominant in media and culture, they have no knowledge of how to defend it. Like the fundamentalists of my youth, when faced with difficult questions, they have no choice but to say "get behind me Satan!"

The Fundamentalists of my youth put a lot of their self image into being "the ones in the right", but they DID believe in a God that was far superior to even them. The modern liberal is sure that somewhere between John Stewart, the NY Times, BO and a few really smart professors SOMEWHERE it is "all known and worked out" ("settled").

When liberals have trouble defending that faith, it gets VERY uncomfortable for them -- especially since they fervently believe that what they believe is not a "belief" at all, but proven and obvious FACT!  ("Good Facts") People who disagree with them MUST be either stupid or very poorly educated, and probably both. It makes it supremely embarrassing to not be EASILY winning a discussion with someone whom your entire world view depends on being as dumb as a box of rocks!

The urge to smugness is endemic to the human condition. Christ definitely came to discomfort the smug (ALL of us!) -- he was a LOT harder on the Scribes and Pharisees than he was on the immoral poor. The immoral poor knew they sinned -- the Scribes and Pharisees were very sure they didn't! (in those days / Jewish culture, they had the "Good Facts")

If Christ is in heaven and we will all be there for a lot longer than we will be here, we can enjoy earthy discussion about pretty much anything. Our worth as people is not be about our politics, our brilliance, our education or much of anything beyond God's Grace! Christian's could enjoy those discussions -- but "liberals" absolutely can't . They MUST be correct, and OBVIOUSLY / SMUGLY so!

The fact that a tiny fraction of liberals seem to understand how smug their movement has become and see it as a bad feature might be cause for hope, but I don't believe that humans can really cure their own smugness without God's Grace.

My soul weeps at the barrier that has been erected by the fundamentalist and smug secular humanist religion. It has destroyed the love of families far worse than even the divisions in the Church once did.

'via Blog this'

Tiger SEAL, Prince Witness, Black Helicopters

How Tiger Woods' life unraveled in the years after father Earl Woods' death:

Prince as Jehovah's Witness 

So we find out that Tiger wanted to be a Navy SEAL and in fact did a lot of training with them and some of their contractors and it is likely doing THAT where he destroyed his body! The media never really cared enough to tell the public what this at one time most famous of all athletes was up to.

"To many people inside Tiger's circle, Jack Nicklaus' record of 18 majors wasn't as important to Tiger as it was to the golfing media and fans. He never mentioned it. Multiple people who've spent significant amounts of time with him say that. When Tiger did talk about it, someone else usually brought it up and he merely responded. The record instead became something to break so he could chase something that truly mattered. He loved the anonymity of wearing a uniform and being part of a team. "It was very, very serious," the friend says. "If he had had a hot two years and broken the record, he would have hung up his clubs and enlisted. No doubt.""

Many of us found out just over the weekend that Prince was a Jehovah's Witness -- although that was in the news more than the Tiger SEAL thing I believe. In our giant Democratic Party / Media / University / environmentalist / race industry / grievance group-driven pseudo culture of BOistan how DOES it get decided what stays undercover, what is worthy of destroying a given person, what must never be forgiven, what must never see the light of day, etc??

Does the fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses are a fairly obscure religious group that doesn't get involved in politics provide enough cover that a globally known artist like Prince is exempted from the destruction of his life and career for having had the gall to question the rightness and sanctity of TP in an interview in the New Yorker no less?? Is the fact of his small and fairly androgynous physical appearance enough to make the sin against The Party (D) of being BAPTIZED into a conservative CHRISTIAN church worthy of simply covering up rather than publicly humiliating him?

I can understand Tiger Woods a bit more. TP has a rather sketchy relationship with the military anyway. I can imagine somebody commenting on something about Tiger in that photo that stands out about as much as the fact he is dressed differently. I'm pretty sure the SEALS are happy to have anyone that can pass the training -- and **FEW** can pass it ... white, black, yellow, green or Klingon (although I bet they would be interesting to watch).

The biggest point that hits me is how much we "believe" that pretty much any "news" or even rumors/lies/ hearsay about anyone even as remotely famous as Prince and Tiger is CERTAINLY being shared even when it SHOULD NOT BE! We may believe it, but what we DON'T hear about is often way more important than what we do.

While there are things like "Journolist" that provide SOME level of coordination, it is likely more a case of "journalist interest" -- Prince seems like a decent guy that likes his privacy to them, probably the same with Tiger -- if Prince wants to join some weird church, Tiger wants to play with the military and have a bunch of women on the side, "no harm to foul". They hear about it, they let it pass. Not really "Black Helicopter conspiracy" ... but basically a "natural conspiracy".

Obviously a Ben Carson saying he "was offered a scholarship at West Point" vs somebody from West Point telling him he WOULD get in is completely another thing and enough for a giant multi-day story. A black man that runs as Republican needs to be "smoked out" ... clearly he has skeletons in his closet, bats in his belfry or  all manner of unholy predilections to leave the TP plantation THAT much!

The Tiger story is longish but fairly worth it. Trying to generate meaning in a meaningless life is not an easy thing. Once great athletes floundering upon retirement isn't unusual ... "I used to be Tiger Woods" can go through a mind -- a person that was defined by winning majors, chasing records, being on commercials and being the #1 golfer in the world. Bad back and bad knees with a lot of money isn't the same. Sometimes I think the epitaph for Western civilization will read "Man does not live by bread alone" (but by every word that comes from the mouth of God).

I seem to be WAY behind on what is/was going on in the lives of the rich and famous!


'via Blog this'

Why Are Conservative Women So Pretty?

Why Conservative Women Are So Pretty:



The column author bases his observations on conservative gathering CPAC -- but you could just as well take a look at the conservative women that show up as candidates as draw the same conclusion. His wife (a European) had the short and definitive answer (as women often do):

 "Her answer was immediate, as if it was obvious, or should be. “It’s because they enjoy being a woman. And they’re glad they’re not men.”"

Being grateful in the gifts that God has given you and not having to tow some externally defined Politically Correct dogma is liberating. Sure, there are definite costs, but there really aren't any things in this world worth having that don't have costs.



Being an "oppressed victim" may seem to be low cost, but like countless addictions and false promises, often what appears cheap and easy is actually the most expensive. Being grateful is as close as it comes to a guarantee of happiness. Just being angry is nearly as much a guarantee of being ugly -- without the "thousands of years of injustice, oppression, unfairness, etc".

The women of the Right are allowed to believe things that the women of the Left are not. They are allowed to believe there is a difference between women and men, female and male, and that those differences are real, not a false cultural construct imposed by a self-interested, manipulative patriarchy. Unlike Gloria Steinem, they can express their femininity in any way they choose to, without fear of being accused of a calumnization of the sisterhood.

The author closed it well -- it could simply be that when we are grateful for what God has given us we are BLESSED!

Put another way, maybe what I’m noticing is simply women who have been liberated by their worldview to be who they are, uniquely and confidently, unabashedly and apologetically, unencumbered by the politically correct constraints imposed on women of the Left, and the result is a kind of essential womanhood that, far from being oppressive, as the Left would have it, is instead, miraculous and quintessential, and, you could say, God-given.

'via Blog this'

Losing Life to Government

Rich People Are Living Longer. That’s Tilting Social Security in Their Favor. - The New York Times:

If the Bible was not divinely inspired, it was written by people who were alive thousands of years ago that understood human nature far better than the NY Times understands it today. The Bible understands that there are MANY distinctions between people and these cause envy (covetousness) even so far as a desire to kill those that "have more" in any form -- wealth, property, donkeys, beautiful wife (or wives in those days), etc.

For example, an American man who is consistently in the top 1 percent of earners — making $2 million last year — will, if he starts taking Social Security benefits at age 66 and lives to be 87, end up with more money than he and his employers paid into the system in taxes during his lifetime. In the language of finance, he would receive an inflation-adjusted “internal rate of return” of 1.07 percent. 

By contrast, if a member of Mr. Moneybags’s household staff, born the same year, made about $30,000 annually and also lived to be 87, he would receive a 2.57 percent return after inflation. That’s quite a decent return — a higher rate than any inflation-adjusted United States Treasury bonds pay, for example. 

That’s progressivity in action. Or rather, it would be if Mr. Moneybags and his gardener actually lived to the same age.

The best laid plans of mice and men  often go awry. As government has destroyed the family and the work ethic, the people MOST affected are those at the lower half of the income spectrum. As I've come close to harping on in this blog, white HS graduates with no college are dying in droves.  When you die at 40 or 50 your FICA collections aren't very good.

The research from Mr. Chetty and his colleagues indicates that the richest 1 percent of Americans gained three years of life expectancy from 2001 to 2014 alone, while the poorest had almost no gain (0.3 of a year).

People are EQUAL BEFORE GOD ... we all live and then die in a short span, and then comes the long eternity. Any kindergartner knows they are FAR from equal in any other way -- size, strength, intelligence, pluck, emotion, musical ability, athletic ability .... the list of differences is thankfully INFINITE! Thanks be to God!
But as Burke so eloquently told us "sophists, economists and calculators" seek to convert each eternally unique human into a number to be dealt with as they desire.

Life used to be a battle to maintain food, shelter and clothing in the face of nature. Now it is a battle to maintain a wisp of independent life in the face of cloying government intervention. When you lose your life to Christ, you gain it, when you lose your life to government, YOU LOSE IT!

'via Blog this'

Prince Jehovah's Witness, I'll Have A Double!

Soup With Prince - The New Yorker:

They say you learn something every day, I certainly did today! Prince became a Jehovahs Witness in 2002! I find a few of his songs to be fine -- at one time I think pretty much everyone couldn't avoid "Party Like It's 1999" or "Purple Rain". Who knows why a little skinny guy is dead at '57 -- I suppose we will find out. He isn't an artist that I will be missing a lot, but OTOH, 57 is certainly too early to go for ANYONE, he certainly did have talent. LOTs more than me!

Since Curt Schilling is in the news, I found the following paragraph interesting from the New Yorker.

"When asked about his perspective on social issues—gay marriage, abortion—Prince tapped his Bible and said, “God came to earth and saw people sticking it wherever and doing it with whatever, and he just cleared it all out. He was, like, ‘Enough.’ “"

So how is it that the New Yorker does that interview and nobody comes out with a massive "we gotta boycott his records!" campaign? We know that being black isn't as good a protection as it once was -- Cosby is an example of that. He only left the reservation enough to say that "black people need to take SOME personal responsibility" and all of a sudden his Slick Willie level of sexual license goes poof!

In the Secular Humanist religion is it possible to gain enough immunity so you can freely speak your mind if you androgynously slither around stage for enough years looking like you are "sticking it wherever and doing it with whatever"? He is even pretty clear that he thinks "The Party" has it wrong ... but then so do the Republicans. He might have been a 3rd party guy!

So here’s how it is: you’ve got the Republicans, and basically they want to live according to this.” He pointed to a Bible. “But there’s the problem of interpretation, and you’ve got some churches, some people, basically doing things and saying it comes from here, but it doesn’t. And then on the opposite end of the spectrum you’ve got blue, you’ve got the Democrats, and they’re, like, ‘You can do whatever you want.’ Gay marriage, whatever. But neither of them is right.”

How does a famous guy get away with heresy like that -- and poor Curt Schilling loses his job because he thinks people with dicks need to be in the mens bathroom rather than the women's. Hell, up to about 10 min ago that wasn't even an issue!

Somebody posted on FB that Prince was a Jehovahs Witness and I just didn't even believe it! If someone had said "Prince is a religious guy, what is he?". I would have said "Muslim ... Black Muslim like Mohammad Ali".

There must be something here that is so painful for TP it is like the Catholic Hierarchy finding out that they have a bunch of gay priests molesting little boys -- it is just too terrible for them to conceive of, and they just can't accept the reality of it. It is kind of like you are sitting in the local BWW, turn around and see Godzilla walking across the parking lot (or at least his feet and tail), but people are still going in and out and everything seems to be fine. Or Obama gets elected.

The smart thing to do is to just call up the bartender and say "I'll have a double!". That must be what the left all did when they read about Prince the Jehovahs Witness!

ADDENDUM: A current article covering the Jehovah's Witness conversion / life in more detail. http://www.wsj.com/articles/princes-little-known-life-1461542745?mod=e2fb

Will the media turn on Prince because he was a "terrible bigot" who did not approve of gay "marriage"?

'via Blog this'

Canning Schilling Not Chilling

Curt Schilling, ESPN Analyst, Is Fired Over Offensive Social Media Post - The New York Times:

There was a time in America where the "maverick", the straight talking, honest, look you in the eye sort, that believed in the American right to say what was on your mind with the understanding that other Americans had that same right was highly respected. Being a mature, capable, member of the community meant that you could and would state your position and others DID respect people who did so because they believed that was at the core of the American ability to partially self-govern.  Freedom of thought, speech and belief were core values, and tolerance of others who differed in thought was considered a critical part of being an American. There was a solid reason we once had a First Amendment -- the government was required to follow it, but we all accepted and spoke up for others rights to their opinion.

Those times are long gone. Oh, you can burn the flag, march chanting "Pigs in blankets, fry'em like bacon", march naked down 5th Avenue espousing gay sex or attend an Islamic church that espouses raping women and "marrying" girls under the age of 10, but those things don't really count. They are 100% in line with the dogma of "The Party" (TP-D) -- wholly vetted, approved and required canonical beliefs that all good membership of TP MUST espouse whole-heartedly, and which disagreeing with can and does cause the loss of employment, friends, community standing and increasingly IRS and other alphabetic named named TP "investigations".

Can religion become too powerful? Yes, we hear about it endlessly, "The Spanish Inquisition", heretics being burned, etc. The Constitution prohibits a STATE CHURCH, but it DID NOT establish "freedom from having to see anything about God".  The Church is not a "perfect human institution", but contrary to what TP would have you believe, there are NONE of them, and Government is certainly not about to become even close to perfect.

Can government become too powerful? **NO**!!! Pay no attention to Socialist Germany, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Mao's China, Pol Pot, etc ... nor "that man behind the curtain"!

We have reached the point in this borderless land of the offended where things are simply not to be "discussed". If you don't get your mind right you are to SHUT THE F UP! and be damned quick about it. There are plenty of things that TP will tell you to scream about if you want to scream -- your "freedom" to follow the crowd is immense. They will even assure you that you are "courageous".

It's pretty obvious that Schilling had to be fired -- on FB he made himself out to be nearly as awful as can be imagined today.

Schilling describes himself on his Facebook account as a “Conservative pro life pro 2nd amendment American who wants to help those that cannot help themselves.”

Had he declared himself "Christian", he no doubt would have been fired long ago! As it is, ESPN was very open minded in keeping him on as long as they did -- modern society needs to have strict limits on how offensive it's citizens can be allowed to be!

He must have been awfully confused about what it meant to be "American" -- or at least he is now!

'via Blog this'

The Rochester Mayo Fishbowl From Visiting Fish

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/catherine-armsden/an-alert-well-hydrated-ar_b_9655460.html

I haven't read this whole series and doubt that I will. The Internet allows me to sign up / set up various "clipping services" that waft things with "Rochester" or "Mayo Clinic" and such by my stream of viewing from time to time. This is just one of them -- it isn't long, it is a couple of artists with neurological issues from Missoula MT interacting with the healthcare system and doing art.

It's like looking at your place from Google Maps -- which BTW has updated the Rochester view to I believe fall of 2014 when my pond was just installed.

We go out and walk around seeing a bunch of people, some of which we can sometimes guess are Mayo patients, "just visiting". This is our home fishbowl, we are used to it -- some of the features are different and strange to them.

But at least, unlike me, she knew where we were going. Many times in the past six days she’d traversed the underground arteries that branch from the mother ship Mayo; they minimize a person’s contact with Rochester’s harsh winter temperatures that average between 12 and 27 degrees. Fast food, fast souvenirs, fast art — in the mall, they’re all available for the 35,000 people who work at the Mayo and the thousands of patients who are killing time between heart-pounding visits to the medical specialists who’ll send them back to Riyadh or Rome, Marseille or Missoula with the most costly souvenir of all: a diagnosis that will change their lives.

Osteen, Anger, Hell, Homosexuality

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3059879/posts

Somebody posted the linked on FB and I read through it. It is full of discomfort for me -- and as a Christian, I think discomfort is often a good, or at least necessary thing.

First of all, my inclination is to dislike Osteen. He is a TV minister, a class that evokes the same sort of visceral reaction as "politician, used car salesman, etc". Being a Christian means one should ALWAYS feel at least uncomfortable about those reactions. We know we are supposed to LOVE even our ENEMIES.

The writer of the column doesn't get my vote either though -- very much "works righteousness", "holier than thou", "Scribes and Pharisee's", judgmental, etc I have a hard time understanding how any Christian can feel comfortable making the kinds of harsh judgements he is making.

I could go have a long scriptural "verse off" with some of the verses he quotes, but I don't feel like that today, nor do I feel "led" that way.  I went and visited my Dad yesterday and got to hear an MPR discussion about "political mixed marriages" that made "acceptance of homosexuality" one of those "we can't associate with people who fail that test!"

I overeat. I was sick over the weekend, so I've been trying to use that impetus to cut back AGAIN. Overeating is gluttony. Gluttony is sin, and it is just as bad as homosexuality. Do I "feel" that way? No, I find homosexuality especially yucky, not my temptation, but there are plenty of other sins that ARE tempting. Overeating is a nice clear not yucky, not embarrassing one to talk about.

Sexual sins are especially difficult sins. It is my firm belief that at our core we all know that "love, marriage, children,  family, extended family, community" are the human center of life. For those that are believers, God demands that we put HIM at the center of our lives -- which changes the focus of life.

Without (1) the sexual union of one man and one woman, none of us would be here. We also know that we will ultimately (2) face death, either alone or (3)with Jesus holding our hand. EVERYONE that is sane agrees with 1 and 2. Many, maybe even most, will try to deny or avoid thought about 2, but it's there.  We also have no choice on 1 and 2. We are here, we were born -- so we will die, end of story.

All human kind is in this boat. I find the fact there is not more love on the planet to be enough to prove the existence of Satan / evil on it's own! We are all short timers in a boat we did not choose to be in, and we KNOW that it ends in death! Why not love others in our shared situation?

In listening to the NPR show, reading this article  and dealing with atheists over the years, I'm convinced that the desire to judge others as being "less than ourselves" is an absolute hallmark of human nature. When Christ tells us to "love our enemies", he is giving us a command that is impossible for humans to follow -- like "love God with ALL your heart". The fact he would give such a command is proof that he is more than human. Humans have a hard time even conceiving of such things when they hear them, let alont think them up!

Have you ever met an atheist who even gives a HINT of loving their enemies? They are almost always pretty angry at those that disagree with them -- religious people, very much so! They are certain they are completely justified in their anger -- "righteous" even!

We all love ourselves. Even if we hate ourselves at times, it is always someone else's fault -- our parents, someone who abused us somehow, the political system, bad genetics (our parents again), racism, the system, ... maybe even God, sometimes even if we claim we don't believe he exists. We ended up "marooned" here with no way out but death unless we "give in" and subscribe to the "foolish idea" that there is a God and a potential for eternal life with him.

But many CAN'T accept that, because that comes with HELL, which is "immoral" according to  "our morality" since WE are  better judges of morality than the "certainly must be imagined" God who would conceive of such a terrible thing as eternal punishment.

I believe that accepting the moral authority that God has a RIGHT to actually judge us is one of those acts of humility that comes very very hard to many. I wrote on that some here. It is really a very mild humility asked of us compared that of almighty God being willing to suffer even unto death for our sin!

But in the meantime,  our natural desire is to feel better about ourselves by putting labels on some other groups and calling them "untouchables", "deploreables", ... "the evil".  If you go about 38min into the MPR piece (nearly the end), they finally get down to brass tacks -- "we can't be around people who are homophobic, racist, islamophobic or sexist ... these are non-negotiable". Let's ignore the fact that believers in Islam are "homophobic and sexist" by the MPR definition for the moment, we humans are also inescapably inconsistent. Humans are extremely limited beings.

Christ's forgiveness has no limits. I agree with Osteen that there will be people that have practiced homosexuality in heaven, and they will have sought forgiveness for their sin in this life. I pray fervently that there will be recovering gluttons in heaven as well as those fighting the sin of judging others in heaven, and especially those that have lusted after women in their hearts  -- and that I will be among them. Homosexual acts are sin, not homosexual desires, exactly like man or woman desiring a partner not their spouse. Sin is sin -- without Christ, it is like life, always terminal.

This somewhat long discussion for me is summarized by 1 John 1:8 " If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the TRUTH is not in us."

Christ is the Truth. Homosexuality is a sin, and it is not the unforgivable sin. Drinking to excess is a sin and alcoholics have a compulsion to drink to excess -- we don't tell them "go ahead and drink or you are not being true to your nature". Is it really possible to look at the wreckage of alcoholism, drug addiction, homosexuality, transgenderism and abortion and still say "these are not sin"?

Since ALL have sinned -- and even worse, struggle with sin each day, listing sins ought give no Christian comfort just because they can list a  group which happens not to tempt them personally. Any practicing Christian MUST have no problem pointing to a list which DOES NOT make them comfortable! Being a practicing Christian REQUIRES constant admission of our sinfulness!

Comfort, pleasure, ease ... Christians are NOT to seek these, but rather to serve the Lord!

For me, this analysis makes it clear why those without Christ are pretty much forced by human nature  to establish their own Secular Humanist religion with it's own "mortal sins" (homophobia, racism, etc above), and as the MPR program shows, they have done so, and it includes even "shunning" like the Amish.  I think Sapiens does a good job of covering the secular religion compulsion.

Matt 6:33  "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." We are in what to human eyes appears to be a hopeless situation, however ...

Matt 19:26  "Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Hood Billionaire Brotha Bangle Beeps BO

Rapper Rick Ross's Ankle Monitor Goes Off During Minorty Youth Empowerment Program at White House - Breitbart:

Nothing says BO Whitehouse like a "Brotha Bangle" beeping in the background!

Bringing the role models of the BO world to our nations first house!

'via Blog this'

Michelle Obama's Derriere

Michelle Obama's Derriere : snopes.com:

This meme has popped up enough on the web that I went to check Snopes. The picture is photoshopped, but the women are who they are labeled. Left to Right, Princess Letizia of Spain, French first lady Carla Bruni, and Mooch Obama.

The press enjoyed making fun of Ben Carson's wife's appearance. They naturally didn't enjoy Trump doing a comparison between his wife and Cruz's. So it goes.

The US sheep generally need to be fed a steady diet of propaganda that paints Europeans as "sophisticated, intelligent, discerning, etc" and at least most of the US, certainly the Red State swine, as well, swine.

Strangely, one of the "sophisticated, intelligent, discerning" things those wonderful Europeans do is "compare wives physical features".

Comparing the physical attractiveness and fashion style of the spouses of national leaders is common fodder for gossip magazines and newspaper columns, particularly in Europe.

I think we all knew that. The French didn't love Jackie Kennedy because of her great mind. Interestingly, one of the former lovers of Carla Bruni is supposed to be Donald Trump -- along with Mick Jagger, Eric Clapton and many others. Let's face it, once "virtue" is out, it is OUT!

We can be thankful at least that there is no chance of a "Pippa Incident" breaking the internet when Mooch walks down the street! It is also gratifying to know she is probably able to save valuable personal time by not lecturing the first ladies of Spain or France on their diet or exercise regime! (American school children are not so lucky!).

Is it "tacky" to compare how wives look? Sure, but it certainly is done -- apparently more in Europe, but plenty here as well. Is it "tacky" to make fun of NJ Gov Chris Christie's weight in a country where men and women are asserted to be equal? "Standards" are a very funny thing in a nation where there are no standards ... Outside of what THE PARTY DEMANDS of course, Heil BO and goose-step to the lavatory you feel most comfortable in today!

I'm actually glad that the press ISN'T making a bunch of sport of Mooch vs the "Ferrari's". It is hard to imagine if there was an R first lady who forced little kids to have sawdust and gruel for lunch to "keep their weight down" that there MIGHT not be a couple teensy weeny and RARE (oh so rare!) jokes don't you think?

Nah, we have an unbiased press and Europeans are just so mature and sophisticated.


'via Blog this'

Criminalizing Politics (Frontpage)

The Criminalization of Political Activism on the Right | Frontpage Mag:



I've covered this a lot, but every once in awhile I like to post something showing that I'm not the ONLY loon thinking these things!

"What Obama and his party are doing is not Nixonian. Nixon never went this far. Neither did McCarthy. The closest parallels can be found in places like Venezuela or Iran. When the justice system is treated like the regime's secret police, then the Republic is in peril. When the authorities make a special effort to crack down on political opponents, then democratic elections become a mere technicality.

The law is not merely procedural. It is also moral. A corrupt system can selectively use the law to destroy the political opposition. The Democratic Party has begun traveling down that dark road."

'via Blog this'

TV Cesspool

http://nypost.com/2016/04/10/in-a-race-to-outshock-the-viewer-quality-shows-become-ever-more-immoral/

I don't watch very much TV ... just not that interested. I don't consider myself a "prude" -- I managed to make it through "Pulp Fiction". Probably the weirdest thing I ever watched was "Sin City" because I heard so much about how "brilliant and innovative" it was and it had Bruce Willis in it. I guess it's as "shocking" as anything here, but it's not on TV:

Thursday night, on ABC’s “Scandal,” Olivia Pope, the protagonist — long established in the show’s vernacular as a “white hat,” or good guy — beat a wheelchair-bound stroke victim to death by pulping his face with an aluminum chair. 

It was a lengthy scene, and even for a Shonda Rhimes soap that bills itself weekly on “OMG twists” — gruesome scenes of torture and dismemberment, politically expedient murders and illegitimate war, rape, kidnapping, blackmail, and one interminable scene where an imprisoned terrorist chewed through her own wrist to escape — this one was morally and artistically bankrupt.

There is a litany of such things in the article and this is the NY Post ... AFAIK, not exactly a "bastion of puritanism". They close with this observation:

“At a certain point, as always happens in Hollywood or culture in general, a set of superficial things come to stand in for quality: sex, violence, moral complication,” says Martin. “When done well, it’s the highest form of art. If it’s done poorly, and if that’s all you’ve got — the idea that quality is tied to immorality — you enter the realm of the absurd.”

"As always happens in Hollywood or culture in general"? So did Socialist Germany get into "absurd" on the first million Jews, or did it take a few? Did we get there on the first 10 million legally aborted babies, or are we there now at 60 million? Or maybe we have to double it.

"Immorality"? As near as I can tell currently from the culture that would be "Not applauding when an obvious male in a wig and a dress follows your 8 year old granddaughter unaccompanied into the ladies bathroom at the park".

"Morality" is applauding.

"Absurd"? What the hell does "absurd" mean these days?

They seem to think it will "cycle back" and evil will no longer be good and the guys in the white hats will be cheered once again. Perhaps my prayers will be answered.

No Mules Allowed

National Review:

I think Jonah went all "Pharisee" relative to Trump, so I have been miffed -- but I still love him. Usually he is truly "above the issues" in a religious / philosophical sense, not the narcissistic sense of BO -- I believe what our funders intended was for Americans to LIVE and spend most of their mental energy "above politics" in that religious / philosophical sense -- opposing teams in the NFL, not Shia and Sunni seeking to exterminate the other.

This paragraph especially hit me  (it is in reference to the Billy C defense of his crime bill and spat with BLM):

One fun consequence of all this is that Bill very well could turn out to be a liability for Hillary, which would be kind of hilarious given that Hillary would be just another left-wing activist lawyer were it not for her husband. She rode her Arkansas mule all of the way to the White House gates only to see the sign reading, “No Mules Allowed.”

I stand in awe of how much and how well Goldberg writes -- I liked this as well:

There’s a natural human tendency to think that because you can’t stand the other guy -- or gal -- he or she must therefore be your ideological opposite. The Brown Shirts and Red Shirts weren’t philosophical antipodes, they were Coke and Pepsi fighting for the same slice of the radical market by changing their recipes ever so slightly. Bill Clinton, as president, wasn’t that left-wing and Richard Nixon wasn’t that right-wing. But their enemies started from the assumption that any political opponent we hate this much must have a wholly different ideology from us. And when your enemies hate someone on your “side,” that causes you to embrace your guy even more.

My theory is that when we had RELIGION that was a real actual part of life, if the person you hated was in the church, you were absolutely required to at least fake that you didn't hate them -- and for the good of your soul, even ACTUALLY love them! Even if they were your ENEMY you were admonished to do the same!

We could have a few "ideologies" running around in our heads, but we KNEW that "this is ideology and THIS is RELIGION" -- one is temporal, one is eternal, we don't mix them up because that would be HERESY and that is VERY BAD.

Today,  "The Party" (TP-D) is the combination church/state. It's "encyclicals" -- sometimes actual "law", created lawfully by Congress, but increasingly "fiat" from the executive, some alphabet bureaucracy or the SCOTUS reading "penumbras"; increasingly MUST be obeyed by those who seek to maintain the good graces and favor of TP.  Thus "men in the women's bathroom" becomes a totem that must be bowed and scraped to by ALL. Gay "marriage" must not be just tolerated, it must be CELEBRATED by all -- or jobs will be lost, travel will be cut off, nay,  the infidels who disagree will be banished and purged from the Holy Church of TP!

On the right there is no such power as TP currently. The "Republican Party" is ill organized and has extremely poor "coordination" with the media that calls itself "conservative". Indeed, TP has declared it "illegal" for there to be "coordination" on the right, and in fact has declared that if so accused they are "guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent" in violation of UN human rights law!

Thus we have had "purity" issues for a LONG time as Jonah points out. Hoover, Nixon, W ... he could go MUCH farther. Even the sainted Reagan was far less doctrinaire than a BO on the left. The little history of W the "arch conservative" is painfully funny. I actually think LESS purity is better in this case -- as long as we don't lose track of who we are.

The whole thing is worth a read -- his left/right discussion is worth a refresher. If you haven't read mine on that I think it is decent as well.

'via Blog this'

SCOTUS "Fails To Act" Gambit

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/433888/diskant-gobsmacking-stupidity?7QwhKPQ3FGF62LZi.01

I'm not going to spend any time on this other than to keep track of the insanity if it becomes more widely discussed. We already know that when truth, logic, morality, law, etc are all "questionable", there are NO LIMITS!

Liberals likely feel like conservatives did when Bork was rejected, BO was elected (twice!) and a thousand other little constant things like (unbelievably) a "new" calumny of Clarence Thomas!

The difference is that conservatives have to live with disappointment constantly, liberals believe they are entitled to always have things their way!

In his op-ed, Diskant—who is a lawyer with distinguished credentials—contends that the Senate can be deemed to have waived its “advice and consent” role on a Supreme Court nomination if it “fails to act” on the nomination within a “reasonable” time—and that President Obama could therefore proceed to appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court without the Senate’s ever having confirmed the Garland nomination . (Or, to be more precise, Diskant, in an apparent effort to preserve his professional credibility, claims that “it is possible to read” the Appointments Clause that way.)