Liberals don't understand rights

From the Huffington Post, we read this new tactic of one, radical liberal who wants to foist gun control on us:

The Second Amendment is highly contested. There is no doubt that people do have the right to carry and have a stockpile of guns (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) and a state has the right to organize a well-regulated Militia. But, the main issue is on the right to self-defend with a firearm.

The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.

OK, so it's not that new – I've heard variations of this argument before. I just think it's hilarious. I really don't think such an assault on common sense could ever gain much popularity among the population at large and certainly couldn't become law. Still, liberals have surprised me before so I never take their crazy ideas too lightly.

Do I really even need to explain what's wrong with the idea of making self-defense illegal? Such a bizarre concept can't even stand up to its own logic: The constitution also says I have the right to life, liberty, and property. Therefore, an attacker who intends me harm or an intruder who intends to steal from me has already infringed upon my rights. So the liberal's solution is that I should let this person victimize me so he can face a fair trial later? This is why I say liberals are brain damaged.

I believe the flaws in this argument are self-evident so I won't waste any more time pointing them out. Instead, I want to use this as an opportunity, once again, to educate liberals in the concept of rights.

Our founding fathers believed our rights are endowed by our Creator. It's not the government or the constitution that grants us our rights. They are literally, God-given. We establish governments to do things like keep the peace, build roads, and defend our borders. We give them the power to make laws and we agree to live by those laws. We also understand the government needs money to do the things we expect it to do so we also agree we'll pay taxes.

When we grant the government so much power, we risk creating a tyranny. To help prevent this, the founding fathers placed specific restrictions on the government saying there are certain things we will never allow it to do: it cannot infringe on our right to practice our religion, for example, or to speak, or to assemble, or to own guns. The government can't search our homes without a cause and, if we're ever accused of a crime, we must have a speedy trial and be judged by our peers – not by some bureaucrat. The thing to remember about our Bill of Rights is that the restrictions are meant to limit what the government can do and protect us!

Private citizens aren't restricted by the Bill of Rights. One right I have is the freedom of speech. This specifically means I am able to share my thoughts about politics or religion or whatever strikes my fancy and the government cannot censor what I have to say. Believe me when I say I have a lot of opinions and I exercise my freedom to speak every time I blog. If you have a different opinion than mine, go start your own blog but don't expect me to open my blog to you so that you have a forum. If I want to censor the comments people leave on my blog, I will. If I should censor someone's comments, I'm not “violating” his free speech. He's free to speak somewhere else. I'm not obligated to provide someone else a forum to speak but neither can I stop him.

Liberals have a misunderstanding about rights. They believe the constitution gives us our rights and that it's the job of the government to guarantee that we get to exercise our rights. For example, liberals believe there is a “right” to health care. Therefore, they want the government to either provide medical insurance (like medicare or Medicaid) or force private employers to provide insurance. In other words, if someone doesn't have medical insurance, liberals think everyone else is obligated to provide that person with insurance so that his right to health care is not infringed. This attitude about rights is exactly backwards. It grants more power to the government and places more burdens on citizens.

The liberals' abuse of rights can be seen in many forms. I've already talked about the “right” to healthcare. There's also some imagined right to birth control so Obamacare requires insurance companies to provide contraception for free. There's a right to have an abortion so federal funds are made available to groups like Planned Parenthood. From time to time, liberals bring up the fairness doctrine that would require radio stations that air conservative radio hosts, like Rush Limbaugh, to provide equal time to people with a liberal point of view. They believe this “protects” the freedom of speech by ensuring the speech is “balanced.” That's funny, I don't remember the word “fair” being part of the first amendment – only “free.”

So now liberals want innocent, law-abiding citizens to become victims so that rapists, murderers, and burglars can be guaranteed their right to have a trial. I'm sorry, but that's not my job. The criminals are the ones who are putting their lives and liberty at risk when they choose to commit crimes. If someone tries to harm someone in my family, I will let God judge him; I'll also do what I can to arrange the meeting.

Brain Damaged Liberals are at it Again: Public School Principal Bans Christmas

Santa Claus is banned. The Pledge of Allegiance is no longer recited. “Harvest festival” has replaced Thanksgiving, and “winter celebrations” substitute for Christmas parties. New principal Eujin Jaela Kim has given PS 169 in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, a politically correct scrub-down, to the dismay of teachers and parents.... A memo last month from assistant principal Jose Chaparro suggested a “harvest festival instead of Thanksgiving or a winter celebration instead of a Christmas party.” He urged staff to “be sensitive of the diversity of our families. Not all children celebrate the same holidays.” (NY Post, December 13, 2015)

I'm sure I've mentioned before how liberals are brain damaged. We see yet another example in Public School 169 in NY where a new principal has “banned” the Pledge of Allegiance, Thanksgiving, and now Christmas. There's no secret about their motive; they've done in for the sake of sensitivity and diversity. Blah, blah, blah. It's typical liberalism: trampling the rights of everybody in order to be fair. I guess they don't see how their move might be insensitive to the families who do celebrate Thanksgiving and Christmas, do they?

The NY Post article says that “Ninety-five percent of the 1,600 kids at PS 169 are Asian or Hispanic.” Hmmm. Why do you think they would cite that statistic? Is it because they assume most of the kids – or as least a large number of them – don't observe these holidays anyway? “Asian” is a very broad term because there are a lot of different kinds of Asians including both Orientals and Indians. There are also a lot of places where the natives could be called Hispanic – Spain, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and many Central/South American countries. These various places all have people with different beliefs but wouldn't it be stereotyping, for example, to assume someone of Asian descent – living in the US – doesn't observe Christmas? Wouldn't a more relevant statistic be how many of the 1,600 kids in the school observe these holidays? But liberals are racists and so they assume people of color don't (or shouldn't) celebrate “white people's” holidays.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that only a tiny fraction of the student's at PS 169 observe Thanksgiving or Christmas. In that case, I might agree it's not necessary to organize special activities geared toward holidays these students don't even recognize anyway. But that's not what is happening. It's not that they're not celebrating these days – there's an outright ban on anything related to these days. The PTA president said in the article, “We can’t even have a star because it can represent a religious system, like the Star of David.” The Business Manager for PS 169 said in a memo even Santa is banned banned because he “is considered an ‘other religious figure.” So even if it were a tiny minority of students were Christians who thanked God on Thanksgiving and celebrated the birth of Christ, the staff can say or do nothing that might acknowledge those beliefs.

Remind me again, aren't liberals the ones who want to educate kids in cultural diversity? They talk about diversity and respecting people of other cultures but that surely cannot mean all cultures because they don't want to talk about American or Christian traditions. I copied this from an educator's blog:

How can we celebrate diversity and help students build on positives while paying special attention to disenfranchised students? The first way is to open a dialogue on the topic. One of the first discussions I have with teacher candidates is to explain what it means to be culturally responsive in teaching. As an educator, you have to understand how language and culture affects a student’s self-worth.

Am I right?  Aren't they saying we should "celebrate" diversity but we have to be especially sensitive to the disenfranchised (aka, “minority”) students?  And in order to protect their fragile “self-worth,” we have to have discussions about their language, their cultures, and their beliefs – except Christians of course. Christian traditions and beliefs like Thanksgiving and Christmas are offensive.

Racists. Hypocrites. Liberals. Yes, they're brain damaged.

Merry Christmas.

ABC is a bunch of intolerant bigots

Several months back, I wrote about how many, large corporations seem oblivious to the feelings of millions of Bible believing Christians while simultaneously being hypersensitive to even the slightest offense against gays. When one member of the Robertson family on A&E's “Duck Dynasty” made a comment in support of traditional marriage, A&E's first reaction was to throw him off the show. A southern cuisine restaurant chain, Cracker Barrel, pulled Duck Dynasty merchandise off the shelves. However, the public outcry against both companies was so severe, they almost immediately reversed their positions. Both companies offered half-hearted apologies.

Now, ABC, a subsidiary of Disney, has a show slated to air this fall called, The Real O'Neals. The show has been described as a “semi-autobiographical” comedy inspired by Dan Savage – who is also credited as the show's executive producer. I've written about Dan Savage on my blog before. His bio champions him as the founder of the “anti-bullying” movement known as, It Gets Better. He's more notoriously known for his perverted sex columns, his incendiary anti-christian comments, his invitations to GOP presidential candidates to perform oral sex on him, and for just being an abrasive jerk in general.

So let's get this straight: A&E wanted to throw Phil Robertson off their show based on his views on gay marriage while ABC gives a bombastic theophobe his own show. Obviously, Hollywood has made its priorities clear. A&E, of course, reversed their decision in the face of public protest. ABC, on the other hand, has stood firm on its decision to air the show in spite of the protest it has received.

I've watched the official trailer for the show. It begins with the narrator saying, “The O'Neals are your typical, Irish, Catholic family.” Really? From the video we see that the parents are divorcing, the older son admits to an eating disorder, the daughter runs scam fund raisers and pockets the money, the family priest drives a Lexus - oh, and the main character is gay. Yeah, that's a real typical Catholic family. //RKBentley rolls his eyes//

In one scene, a young girl in a Catholic school girl uniform is pressuring the main character (the gay one) into having sex (how cliché) when she produces a giant box of condoms. The scene cuts to the boy standing in front of the mirror admiring a male, underwear model in a magazine. I guess he's trying to psych himself up for sex with the girl. He chickens out and flushes the condoms which causes the toilet to overflow. Desperately plunging the toilet, the boy pleads to a statue of the Virgin Mary on the toilet by saying, “Come on, girl. You've got to help me out.” Hmmm. Can't ABC see how this might be offensive?

Now, ABC has every right to make the show. But I also have the right to say I will refuse to watch it. I also have the right to tell everyone I know not to watch it. I have every right to say I hope the show fails miserably (which I'm sure it will) and that ABC will lose millions of dollars just for having produced it in the first place. I have the right to wish that every company who advertizes on the show will hear a million protests from angry consumers, all promising to boycott their products for supporting such trash. Finally, I have the right to say that I'm sick and tired of corporations that thumb their noses at their Christian consumers all in the sake of “tolerance” and “fairness.”

ABC! You're not tolerant or fair. You're a bunch of anti-christian theophobes who has embraced the crowned Prince of intolerance. Savage is a bigot of the worst sort who has nothing in common with the values once held by Walt Disney. You have made your bed and now you will lie in it. It's values like this that have contributed to the overall decline of TV and movie audiences. You habitually offend the beliefs held by millions of people. ABC, if this show represents your corporate values, then your viewership will continue to decline. Maybe later, you'll regret having aired the show. You were warned.

By the way, I won't accept any apology. My rant is over. Carry on.

What about my rights?

There isn't a law that says gay people can't marry. It's just that there hasn't been a law compelling everyone else to recognize a gay marriage.... until now.

You've probably already heard that the Supreme Court has just ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry nationwide. But I say again, whoever said they didn't have the right to marry? I don't know every law on the books in every state but I do know that most laws against sodomy were overturned years ago. There is no law, to my knowledge, that says same sex people can't marry. I'm sure they can find a pastor, have a ceremony, exchange vows, and live together happily ever after without fear of anyone from law enforcement knocking on their door and hauling them off to jail for it. Gay marriage isn't “illegal.”

Alas, gay couples weren't content with just having the right to marry. They also wanted everyone else to recognize their marriage as being legitimate. This ruling, then, doesn't free gays from some imagined shackles and finally allow them to marry. They already had that. Instead, it places shackles on me and forces me to acknowledge gay marriage as being normal. The ruling doesn't affect the 1-3% of people who are gay; it places a burden on the 97% plus of us who aren't.

So let's say I owned a piece of property and, because of my religious convictions, I did not want to rent it out to a gay couple? Then it's too bad for me. What if I, as a Christian business owner, did not want to spend money buying benefits for the gay spouse of my employee? Again, too bad for me. If I owned a catering company that doesn't want to cater a gay wedding, the gay couple is free to find someone who will. But that's not enough for them. They want to sue me. They want to use the law to force me to violate my religious convictions.

My right to exercise my religion is pushed to the back of the bus whenever a gay person wants to sit down. There wasn't a law against gay marriage but now there's a law that can close my business, take my property, and maybe put me in jail for standing by my religious beliefs. I've said it before and I'll say it again: liberals are tyrants!

When Jesus was asked about marriage, He said:

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female... For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (Matthew 19:4-5)

God created marriage and He defined it as one man and one woman. I don't care what the Supreme Court says. I don't care what the gay community says. All the gay “couples” out there, listen to me very carefully: You're not married!!

So there! Sue me!

Liberalism: The Cult of Intolerance

My recent visitor, Carvin, has given me a lot of points to discuss. In a reply to him, I mentioned I would make use of some of his comments to write future blog posts. Many of the points he raised are of interest to everyone.

His first comment was to a post I had written titled, “And You Think We're Embarrassing?” You can read the post for yourself, of course, but my main point was how certain liberals (like Pam Platt of the Courier Journal) seem embarrassed by Bible believing Christians while liberals seem to embrace outrageous antics like those seen at Gay Pride parades. In his response to my point, Carvin said:

[M]ost liberals are perfectly fine when you limit your trouble to an opinion which you express. Your certainly do run the risk of being considered homophobic, but that comes with the territory of the fundamentalist view of homosexuality- it is, in fact, homophobic. It is a Biblical interpretation that is used in the oppression and control of non-hetero people. Again, just having a view on this is still fine. Most liberals would be quite happy if the fundamentalist view was kept within house- that is, if you feel it is wrong to be in a homosexual relationship, this is fine: just don't force anyone else to live by your standard.

If liberalism were just someone's opinion, I would happily agree with Carvin. Everyone is entitled to his opinion – even a wrong opinion. Liberals are wrong about a lot of things and I can live with them being wrong. The real problem, though, is that liberals aren't content with expressing their opinions. Liberals are elitists who not only think they know what's best for every, they aggressively seek ways to impose their standards on everyone else.

Do you think I'm exaggerating? I've been writing this blog for almost 7 years now and I have more than a few examples of this occurring. Let me remind you of just a few that I've already discussed.

Compelling Christians to comply with secular standards probably occurs most often in public schools. In June, 2006, valedictorian, Brittan McComb, was asked to give a speech to her graduating class. She was a Christian, and wanted to give thanks to God for His role in her life. School officials warned her to omit references to God and on the day of her graduation, when she began making reference to God, the school officials turned off her mic. This was her speech talking about her achievements yet school officials didn't think she should be thanking God. I guess it would have been OK if she thanked Oprah.

When the Creation Museum opened, a group called DefCon attempted to thwart their efforts. A board member of DefCon was also an elected, public school official who encouraged public school teachers to sign a petition against the museum. What ever happened to the supposed “separation of church and state”?

Nature wrote an article called, “Dealing with Design” wherein it explained to educators how they should teach students to reconcile their religious beliefs (as in the creation account in Genesis) with “science” (meaning “evolution”). This is not just teaching evolution; it's an active attempt to dissuade a student away from his biblical belief and accept a secular belief.

Do I even need to talk about the National Center For Science Education? The groups stated purpose for existing is to combat a belief in creation among students. More recently, the group also has been recruited to combat doubters in global warming.

But of course, liberals don't just limit their attempts to control to just students. In 2001, a lesbian couple sued two Christian doctors who had refused to provide artificial insemination on the grounds of their religious beliefs. The lesbian couple was able to get the service elsewhere but sued in order to punish the Christian doctors for not complying to the liberal lesbians' standards.

Because of his support of traditional marriage, the president of Chick-fil-A was told by an Chicago alderman, “There are consequences for freedom of speech (and) in this case the consequences are... you're not going to have your first free-standing restaurant in Chicago.” So, in this case, who is forcing their standard on whom?

Obamacare is forcing all employers, including businesses owned by Christians, to provide birth control and abortion-inducing drugs to their employees, regardless of the employers' religious objections. Not only is the employer's right to practice his religion made subservient to the employee's unenumerated “right” to an abortion, the employer is ordered by law to pay for it!

There are even more that I have cited on my blog and many, many more that I haven't. People can't buy 32 oz colas in NY because they might get fat. McDonald's can't put toys in their happy meals because parents can't say no to their kids. School officials search students' lunchboxes to make sure parents are doing their job. Parents can't have school vouchers because they might send their kids to white supremacy schools (I'm not kidding). Need I remind Carvin that he himself has endorsed compelling business owners to pay higher wages because the liberal thinks the wage should be more. The list goes on.

When liberals think something is right, they don't just talk about it. They don't just express their opinion about it. They want to force people to comply with it. They do it because they think they're the experts and we just don't know how to take care of ourselves. See this video and hear it for yourself. Time after time after time, liberals are happy to compel people to conform to the liberal standard. I don't blog about liberals just because they annoy me (though they do). I blog about liberals because they are a threat to liberty.

Utilitarianism: A poor substitute for morality

A compelling argument for the existence of God is the near universal belief in absolute morality. People seem to instinctively understand there are such things as right and wrong yet absolute right and wrong can only exist if there is a universal standard that transcends men's opinions. People often use the example of Hitler's Germany as an example of a true evil. The Holocaust may be evil by our standards by what makes our standards more correct than Hitler's? It is only because there is an immutable standard, one given by a supreme Lawgiver, that we are able to know what is always right and what is always wrong.

Because the idea of absolute right and wrong seems to exist and is acknowledged by so many people, some non-believers seek ways to explain how it can exist without a transcendent Judge. One ethical theory is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is basically the idea that whatever provides the most benefit to the most people is “good.” It's a sort of pragmatic approach to morality that says whatever maximizes pleasure or most greatly reduces pain is “right.” Stealing from my neighbor might benefit me, but it doesn't benefit him. Therefore, it would produce more benefit to both of us if we cooperated. Because the benefit to society derived from not stealing seems to align itself with the universal understanding that it's wrong to steal, utilitarianism seems to explain why we could consider stealing to be immoral.

There are a couple of problems with such a concept. First, what makes this the correct standard by which we can measure good/evil? In other words, why benefit the most people instead of working primarily for the benefit of myself? It is only because benefiting the most people sounds reasonable? This philosophy suffers from the same weakness as many other theories in that it is not objective. There is no compelling reason to adopt this belief unless I just happen to agree with it. I could say, “Screw you. I'm only looking out for myself.” You have absolutely no unequivocal grounds to rebut my position except to appeal to my reason and hope to persuade me to your side.

I'm also curious why adherents to utilitarianism would prefer a belief that seems antithetical to a belief in evolution. Natural selection (a driving force behind evolution) is sometimes characterized as the survival of the fittest. Richard Dawkins, for example, wrote an entire book called, The Selfish Gene, where a organism is considered “successful” if is maximizes the chances of its genes being passed along to posterity. This exhibits itself in varied ways. A male lion, for example, earns its right to reproduce by killing or driving off the current male leader of the pride. One of its first acts as the new leader is to kill all the cubs of its former rival. This actually helps the pride in the long run since it ensures the genes of only the strongest males are passed along. How would utilitarianism condemn this behavior if a similar practice were exhibited among people?

Which brings me to still another point. How do we know what response will bring about the most benefit in any given situation? There are various strategies for helping the poor, for example. We could just give them food and shelter, which might sustain them but it will only perpetuate their poverty. It also drains the resources from productive citizens. Or consider a more extreme example: Suppose a person is permanently disabled. He may not only require food and shelter, but may also require extraordinary medical care. Such a person is not able to contribute to society (nor even care for himself) but instead creates a burden on everyone else. His very existence diminishes the prosperity of society in general. If the objective of morality is to provide the most benefit to to the most people, then it should be justifiably moral to euthanize the infirm and chronically poor.

We see then, that utilitarianism fails in many ways to provide an objective, immutable standard for what is good or moral. People seem to instinctively know there is a still higher, moral standard where it is wrong to summarily execute a group of people even if it is for the benefit of many more people or wrong to kill weaker persons for the sake of improving the gene pool. On the other hand, the Bible provides the best solutions to the moral ambiguities not answered by utilitarianism.

In the case of the lions, the Bible makes it clear that we are not like the animals. Out of all creation, only man was created in the image of God and we are accountable to Him. Therefor, we should not behave the way animals behave but we should behave in the way commanded by God. See? Isn't that simple? Mental gymnastics aren't necessary when one directly applies the ultimate standard of morality. Jesus also commanded us to care for the poor, the widows, the orphans, and the infirm. We help them in spite of the cost to ourselves; not because helping them necessarily brings about the greatest benefit to the most people but because it's the right thing to do.

There's an old saying, “The ends justify the means.” Does anyone really agree with that? People just know that certain things are always wrong no matter what good might seem to come from them. It's this very instinct that drives humanists to seek a natural explanation for the self-evident existence of universal morality. Utilitarianism is simply another failed attempt to explain goodness without God.

Should I go to see Noah?

The new Noah movie has been out for a while and I've debated with myself over whether I should go to see it. On the one hand, I hear it's no where near a fair representation of the Genesis narrative. On the other hand, what's wrong with seeing a movie that's not really Bible based? After all, some other movies I've seen lately include The Hobbit and The Hunger Games. Those weren't biblical movies either.  I went to see them simply to be entertained. As I pondered this dilemma, it occurred to many that other people are surely considering this same question. So why not share my thoughts to help them decide?

I first heard about the Noah movie being made about two years ago and I blogged about it then (read it here). In that post I wondered, “will the movie bring out the real message behind Noah? Will it be about a righteous God Who judges sin? Will people know that God has provided salvation to those who believe in Him? Will they see the Ark as a picture of Jesus?” What was I thinking? I mean, I know I doubted it then but did I seriously even think it might? Of course it wasn't going to. In the movie, Noah is not a righteous man at all. He's an ultra-liberal who thinks it's his job to save the “innocent” animals of the world and insure the global-warming causing, human race is terminated. He even wants to murder his grandchildren. Radical environmentalism? Check. Abortion? Check. Straw man caricatures of the Bible? Check. Yep, it's all there in this movie. I must said I nailed it when I said, “I guess it's not always about money for liberals. They have their standards too. Some just can't bring themselves to make a movie portraying the Bible in a favorable light no matter how successful the movie might be.”

But like I've already said, I don't just go to see movies that are biblically themed or biblically accurate. Maybe this fictional story will be interesting. Maybe the special effects will be exciting. Maybe the action will be intense. However, judging by what I've heard from people who have actually seen the movie, this movie has none of that. Instead, it has a weak story that isn't saved by dazzling special effects – kind of like the second Matrix movie.

The majority of the people who've seen the Noah movie didn't like it. In typical, Hollywood style, the movie is loved by professional, liberal movie reviewers who hate anything Christian, while hated by the public at large. In this screen shot from “Rotten Tomatoes,” it shows how 76% of reviewers liked it yet only 47% of movie goers felt the same.

What bugs me the most is that this movie, which bears only a remote resemblance to the Genesis account, is still held out as a being a fair representation of the Bible. When I heard the movie advertised on the radio, it was followed by a disclaimer. The disclaimer I heard was a little different but the official text is as follows:

The film is inspired by the story of Noah. While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis. (source)

So there is the rub.  It's not just that it's not a biblical film; it's that it pretends to be a biblical film. Rather, it deceptively holds itself out as a biblical movie even though Aronofsky knows the movie is antithetical to the lessons of judgment and mercy taught in the biblical account. Let's face it, did God really want Noah to murder his grandchildren to insure the extinction of the human race? Is that a “value” which is a cornerstone of Christian faith?

Let's sum up: weak story, antithetical to christian-values, liberal propaganda. Should I go see the movie? I think the answer is obvious.

Happy 4th of July

O beautiful for halcyon skies,

For amber waves of grain,

For purple mountain majesties

Above the enameled plain!

America! America!

God shed His grace on thee,

Till souls wax fair as earth and air

And music-hearted sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet

Whose stern, impassioned stress

A thoroughfare for freedom beat

Across the wilderness!

America! America!

God shed His grace on thee

Till paths be wrought through wilds of thought

By pilgrim foot and knee!

O beautiful for glory-tale

Of liberating strife,

When once or twice, for man's avail,

Men lavished precious life!

America! America!

God shed His grace on thee

Till selfish gain no longer stain,

The banner of the free!

O beautiful for patriot dream

That sees beyond the years

Thine alabaster cities gleam

Undimmed by human tears!

America! America!

God shed His grace on thee

Till nobler men keep once again

Thy whiter jubilee!

Original Poem, Katherine Lee Bates, 1893

Really, Google?

Yesterday was Easter, right? I mean, it was on the calendar. I've been seeing Easter baskets and candy on display in stores for weeks. I went to Church and heard a sermon about the Resurrection. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was yesterday. Why is it then, that when I logged onto Google, I saw this on their front page:

Really, Google? On the biggest holiday in Christendom, you chose to honor the birthday of Cesar Chavez instead? I guess Google is heading the way of Yahoo.

It's a shame that my blog is hosted by Google. Frankly, I'm getting tired of patronizing businesses that spurn my beliefs. It's old news that retail stores stopped celebrating “Christmas” and adopted the generic “Holiday” themes. Now the word “Easter” is being abandoned for the less religious sounding “Spring” activities. I'm reading more and more accounts of the “Spring bunny” and “egg hunts.”

Oh well. What can I do about it? It's not like I'm going to move my blog because Google is joining the politically correct crowd. If it were an easy thing to do, I would do it but there's more to it than just uploading my posts onto another site. I will, however, use my blog to say how stupid I think Google is being. So here I go:

Google, you're being stupid!

Looking Back on 2012

Many news sources at this time of year publish “Top 10” lists looking back on notable events of the past year. Many of these lists are lighthearted or, at the very least, try to reflect on some of the more positive events of the expiring year. I'm not saying that nothing good has happened in 2012 but as I look back, this year seems to have brought many challenges to the Church. I hate to throw a wet blanket on everyone's New Year celebrations, but here are a few things Christians need to think about and pray for in 2013.

Gay Marriage

Chick-fil-A CEO, Dan Cathy, suffered much political persecution after his personal endorsement of traditional marriages. In a less publicized story, Matt Grubbs, owner of Maryland based, Discover Annapolis Tours, has decided to close shop rather than facing a pointless legal battle with Maryland's Commission on Civil Rights because Discover Annapolis Tours does not offer its services to same sex couples. These are not isolated cases. More and more Christian business owners are discovering that their right to exercise their faith is subservient to an unenumerated right to be gay.

The tide is turning in America concerning gay marriage. In November, Maine and Maryland became the first states to approve gay marriage by popular vote, breaking a 32-state streak where gay marriage has already been defeated at the ballot box. In some states where gay marriage was defeated in referendum, it has still been foisted upon the people by activist courts or liberal legislatures. Nine states now allow same sex marriage.

Obamacare

Christian owned businesses have also found their right to practice their religion is being infringed upon by The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly called “Obamacare”). In an editorial last January, Catholic Bishop, David Zubik, detailed how the new health care law violates Catholic doctrine by forcing Catholic owned organization to pay for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs as part of its healthcare benefit their employees.

The new law doesn't just effect Catholics. Any Christian who owns a business will be forced to offer these services to their employees regardless of his or her religious conviction.

The Obama administration has set forth guidelines in a weak attempt to defend the religious liberties of Christian businesses but they are so narrow they basically do not exempt anyone except churches.

By the way, since when does the government get to decide which organizations are religious enough to practice their faith?

The DNC Booed God

More and more often, we see God being pushed out of public discourse. Prayer has long since been removed from schools along with the 10 Commandments. High school commencement speeches are scrubbed and censored to insure no student makes any mention of God. In general, any mention of God in the public arena risks swift reprisal from the ACLU or the Americans for the Separation of Church and State.

The recent election shed light on the current administration's attitude toward people of faith. The Democrat platform conspicuously omitted any mention of God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (both of which had been included in the platform in previous elections). Having long been seen as the anti-God party already, the Democrats soon realized that omission was a little too blatant and moved to amend the platform and add the words. A voice vote was taken and the motion did not seem to have the required number of “aye” votes to be adopted. In an awkward moment of indecisiveness, former Governor, Ted Strickland, deemed the motion had passed which prompted a round of boos from the delegates.

On September 5, 2012, Democrats booed God!

Mass Shootings

2012 was spotted with tragic murders in Colorado and Connecticut. The senseless events serve to remind us that evil is real. John 16:33 tells us that in this fallen world there will be tribulation but we can have peace in Jesus.

These sad events have been made even more unfortunate as political opportunists have shamelessly used them as leverage to infringe upon our God given right to own guns. The war on God includes attacks on our liberties.

IN CONCLUSION...

There were many things that happened in 2012 that I could discuss now but I don't mean this to be an exhaustive list. Neither am I saying that these are the “top” events of that past 12 months. I've merely given these few examples to put the past year into perspective.

The New Year is usually a time for celebration and optimism. People see it as a turning of the page – an opportunity to start over on the right foot. I'm not trying to take away from any of that. Instead, I want people to think about some goals we could have for 2013 that might be a little more important than losing weight or going to the gym.

The Yawn Factor

People who read my blog have probably already guessed that I'm very disappointed and a little surprised by the election results. There's been a lot of talk from the right since Tuesday about why we lost the election and theories abound. In my opinion, Obama rivals Jimmy Carter as the worst President in my lifetime. Both are failures in their foreign policy. Both presided over disastrous economies. Both saw fuel prices sky rocket during their terms. At least Carter can be thanked for real estate values rising during his time in office (a silver lining in the gloomy cloud of the high inflation seen in the 70's) but home owners have watched the values of their homes fall below the amounts of their mortgages due to Obama's lack of a plan to save the housing market.

As much of a failure as Obama had been, I was under the impression that there was no way he could be reelected. The disappointment in his policies hasn't just been felt by me and other Republicans, many Democrats have felt the same way. Support for Obama has waned considerably since 2008. Obama was elected into office with 69,498,516 votes. That was nearly 10 million more votes than McCain received. In this last election, 9 million fewer people voted for Obama. If just ½ of those 9 million had voted for Romney this time, he would have been elected. Instead, they must have decided to stay home.

The ebb in Obama support is only ½ the story. If Romney could have held on all the McCain voters, he would have only needed a few hundred thousand more votes to beat Obama. With the eagerness of the right to get Obama out of the office, I would have thought everyone and his brother would drag people to the polls to vote. But it was not to be. Romney actually got 2 million fewer votes than McCain did!

It seems to me that elections are being decided not as much by the engaged voters but rather the apathetic couch potatoes. Conservatism beats liberalism every time and if we had true conservative candidates, people would turn out in droves to vote for him. Every primary, though, Republicans vote for the candidates they think are the “most electable.” They look for moderates who will supposedly appeal to the “independent” voter so we end up with weak candidates like Romney, McCain, and Bob Dole.

There's nothing appealing about Obama's policies. He certainly can't boast a successful record. He should be an easy candidate to beat. Why couldn't we beat him. We don't have a candidate that conservative voters can be enthusiastic about.

Have you ever heard a Republican say he would hold his nose and vote for McCain or Romney? It's because they're not excited about the candidate but would prefer him over a Democrat like Obama. If a Reagan-like conservative were on the top of the Republican ticket, people would turn out in droves to vote for him. As it it now, they vote reluctantly or stay home.

Yawn.

Bishop E W Jackson's Message to Black Christians

I posted a video recently exposing the intolerance of liberals. Liberals could never attain the level of tolerance they claim to have because they're idea of tolerance is self refuting. They somehow think tolerance means accepting every view as equal. The irony is that they militantly oppose anyone who doesn't hold the same view of “tolerance” as them. So they don't tolerate intolerance! It's insane.

Their intolerance often displays itself in the form of old-fashioned racism. Liberalism has done more to harm black families than 400 years of slavery. Do you think I'm kidding? Let me point out a few, undeniable facts:

In some places in the US, there are more black babies aborted than born!¹ Since Roe v. Wade, tens of millions of black babies have been aborted. It's an American holocaust. Of those who are born, 73% are born outside of wedlock and destined to live their lives in poverty.² I've heard it said that welfare and child support checks have taken the place of a wage earning fathers in the home.

Never mind that the unemployment rate of blacks is nearly double that of whites. Never mind the drop out rates about black youths. Never mind the percentage of black families whose only income is government assistance. What concerns me most about their plight is their blind devotion to the very people who seek to keep them there. Blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats who only promise them more government assistance, longer unemployment benefits, and easier access to abortions.

How racist is it to tell people that they don't have the tools or means to get ahead? How helpful is it continuously say to someone he can't succeed unless you help him? How insulting is it to say to blacks that if a Republican gets elected, they will be returned to chains? How stereotypical is it to expect every black person to think only one way and, if he doesn't, he's reviled for being an “Uncle Tom” and accused of not acting black!

Democrats are happy to have created a group of people who live under the delusion that they cannot exist outside of the liberal plantation. At least one black pastor has had enough. In a YouTube video, Bishop E W Jackson tells black Christians to leave the Democrat party. He says it far more eloquently than I can so I urge you to watch his video below.

This should be a message to all Christians. Liberals are not our friends. We should welcome them to our churches, we should share the gospel with them, but we should not elect them to office where they can inflict their Godless agenda on us.

Remembering On Memorial Day

There's an old saying about soldiers: "All gave some.  Some gave all."  We are given our rights by our Creator but it is our soldiers who fight to preserve them.  

On this Memorial Day, we should offer prayers of thanks to God for our liberty and for those who died protecting it.  

God bless America.

Obama Quote Mines the Bible

President Obama's recent flip-flop on gay marriage really comes as no surprise. The writing has been on the wall for a while. His justice department has refused to defend DOMA; he ended the “Don't ask don't tell” policy, allowing gays to serve openly in the military; and he's a flaming liberal. Hello?! Did anyone really think he was ever sincere in the 2008 campaign when he told Rick Warren, “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. For me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. God’s in the mix”? With his interview yesterday, the cat is now officially out of the bag. His views have “evolved” and now he is in favor of gay marriage. I can only speculate as to why he waited until after the NC referendum to make his announcement.

What really bugs me about his announcement (OK, a lot of things about it really bug me as we'll see) is his lame appeal to the Bible. In his interview, he tried to use his alleged, Christian beliefs to support his position:

[Michelle and I] are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.

I'm already on record as an official doubter of Mr. Obama's Christian faith. Comments like this only serve to reinforce my conclusion that his faith isn't genuine. As I will show below, his feigned piety cannot conceal his true feelings.

Comments like these are squarely at odds with the left's usual disdain toward matters of faith. It was only a few days ago that I discussed the offensive remarks made by Dan Savage. In that instance, Savage, a liberal, attacked the Bible because of its stance against homosexuality. Now, Obama, a liberal, cites the Bible to support his “tolerance” of gay marriage. So which is it, folks? Are liberals having a little trouble deciding on which side to butter their toast?

Also, what about the so called “separation of church and state”? Usually, the left accuses conservatives of wanting to establish a theocracy. Here, Obama is using his faith to justify his position on a political issue. Granted, he hasn't established a gay marriage law but, as discussed already, he has advanced the gay agenda via executive order. Did these decisions stem from his religious beliefs? Why is it a bad thing if a conservative legislates according to his faith but a good thing when a liberal does it?

When liberals cite the Bible to justify their stance on anything, it usually demonstrates their gross ignorance of the Bible. They don't seem to understand that the work of feeding the poor, caring for widows and orphans, and taking care of the sick were jobs given by Jesus to the church! Liberals want Caesar to do the things of God. I am not the least bit interested in shirking my responsibilities as a Christian only to let the government steal money from (aka “tax”) us in order to do the things Jesus commanded His believers to do.

Finally, I'm further annoyed by Obama's obscene abuse of Scriptures. The Golden Rule? Are you serious, Mr. President? The Golden Rule is a fine principle to live by but if it's going to be abused like this, it could be used to support anything. If I wanted to legalize drugs, I could cite the Golden Rule. If I wanted to support polygamy, I could cite the Golden Rule. If I wanted to promote incest, I could cite the Golden Rule. If I wanted to read pornography, I could cite the Golden Rule. In that same vein, Mr. Obama cites the Golden Rule to support gay marriage.

By the way, I just heard today that Nancy Pelosi has also come out on the side of the President saying that her “Catholic faith” prevents her from discriminating against anyone. Ummm, Mrs. Congresswoman, are you aware of the Catholic Church's views on homosexuality?

This is a type of quote mining. Mr. Obama is using a single passage to suggest the Bible supports his view while ignoring the many other places where the Bible specifically denounces his position. If he's going to resort to the Bible, why doesn't his consider Matthew 19:4-6? Jesus Himself defined marriage saying, “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.” This is not a vague platitude that Obama can spout as a “justify anything I want” proof text. Jesus said marriage was intended by God to be one man and one woman for life. It's not a man and a man; it's not a woman and a woman; and it's not one man and many women.

The President would like to say his position stems from his belief but it's a lie. He is using his beliefs to shape the Scriptures rather than letting the Scriptures shape his beliefs. He pretends piety while making moral judgments that directly contradict the absolute morality of the Bible. He then wishes to use his twisted understanding of Scriptures to bludgeon us.

I suspect the average Obama supporter would seldom undertake to read anything a large as the Bible. Remember that mobs tend to think in soundbites. But it is precisely because the Bible is so voluminous that they are able to find tiny nuggets of truth they can seize upon. I can almost hear them saying, “This passage is good, the rest is evil.” It is only for the reason of quote mining the Bible that liberals even concern themselves with it.

Faith and liberalism don't mix well.

If I Wanted America To Fail

Here's a provocative video put out by a group called, Free Market America.  The video speaks for itself so there's not a lot I could add except maybe, "Amen"!

The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere

Many people aren't aware that today is the anniversary of the famous ride of Paul Revere. When British troops moved from Boston to seize rebel weapon stores in Concord and to arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock in Lexington, Revere rode ahead of them to alert the local militia and to warn Adams and Hancock. I was going to publish the Longfellow poem describing the event but it's a little too long. You can read the entire poem here but I've edited it down a little and included most of it below:

Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.

He said to his friend, "If the British march
By land or sea from the town to-night,
Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch
Of the North Church tower as a signal light,--
One if by land, and two if by sea;
And I on the opposite shore will be,
Ready to ride and spread the alarm
Through every Middlesex village and farm,
For the country folk to be up and to arm."

Then he said "Good-night!" and with muffled oar
Silently rowed to the Charlestown shore,
Just as the moon rose over the bay,
Where swinging wide at her moorings lay
The Somerset, British man-of-war;
A phantom ship, with each mast and spar
Across the moon like a prison bar,
And a huge black hulk, that was magnified
By its own reflection in the tide.

Meanwhile, his friend through alley and street
Wanders and watches, with eager ears,
Till in the silence around him he hears
The muster of men at the barrack door,
The sound of arms, and the tramp of feet,
And the measured tread of the grenadiers,
Marching down to their boats on the shore.

Then he climbed the tower of the Old North Church,
By the wooden stairs, with stealthy tread,
To the belfry chamber overhead,
And startled the pigeons from their perch
On the sombre rafters, that round him made
Masses and moving shapes of shade,--
By the trembling ladder, steep and tall,
To the highest window in the wall,
Where he paused to listen and look down
A moment on the roofs of the town
And the moonlight flowing over all.

Beneath, in the churchyard, lay the dead,
In their night encampment on the hill,
Wrapped in silence so deep and still
That he could hear, like a sentinel's tread,
The watchful night-wind, as it went
Creeping along from tent to tent,
And seeming to whisper, "All is well!"
A moment only he feels the spell
Of the place and the hour, and the secret dread
Of the lonely belfry and the dead;
For suddenly all his thoughts are bent
On a shadowy something far away,
Where the river widens to meet the bay,--
A line of black that bends and floats
On the rising tide like a bridge of boats.

Meanwhile, impatient to mount and ride,
Booted and spurred, with a heavy stride
On the opposite shore walked Paul Revere.
Now he patted his horse's side,
Now he gazed at the landscape far and near,
Then, impetuous, stamped the earth,
And turned and tightened his saddle girth;
But mostly he watched with eager search
The belfry tower of the Old North Church,
As it rose above the graves on the hill,
Lonely and spectral and sombre and still.
And lo! as he looks, on the belfry's height
A glimmer, and then a gleam of light!
He springs to the saddle, the bridle he turns,
But lingers and gazes, till full on his sight
A second lamp in the belfry burns.

A hurry of hoofs in a village street,
A shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark,
And beneath, from the pebbles, in passing, a spark
Struck out by a steed flying fearless and fleet;
That was all! And yet, through the gloom and the light,
The fate of a nation was riding that night;
And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight,
Kindled the land into flame with its heat.
He has left the village and mounted the steep,
And beneath him, tranquil and broad and deep,
Is the Mystic, meeting the ocean tides;
And under the alders that skirt its edge,
Now soft on the sand, now loud on the ledge,
Is heard the tramp of his steed as he rides.

It was two by the village clock,
When he came to the bridge in Concord town.
He heard the bleating of the flock,
And the twitter of birds among the trees,
And felt the breath of the morning breeze
Blowing over the meadow brown.
And one was safe and asleep in his bed
Who at the bridge would be first to fall,
Who that day would be lying dead,
Pierced by a British musket ball.

You know the rest. In the books you have read
How the British Regulars fired and fled,---
How the farmers gave them ball for ball,
From behind each fence and farmyard wall,
Chasing the redcoats down the lane,
Then crossing the fields to emerge again
Under the trees at the turn of the road,
And only pausing to fire and load.

So through the night rode Paul Revere;
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm,---
A cry of defiance, and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo for evermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere.

It was the next morning, when the militia engaged the British regulars, that the famous "shot heard round the world" was fired.  Longfellow's poem is not entirely accurate in its details but it is stirring nonetheless. You can read Paul Revere's own description of the event here.