Friday, July 20, 2018

Running tackle for the sake of decency and common sense

One reason I end up posting on Mark Shea so often is that several readers are among that growing demographic known as 'Banned by Mark Shea.'  Mark will allow any instinct evil or mortal sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance to be advocated on his blog, as long as you join in his attacks against Christian conservatives and the GOP.

It's true.  I've seen late term abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, state mandated termination of children, gay sex, gender fluidity, radical feminism, anti-Catholic bigotry, hatred of Jesus, Hitler's Pope, and just about everything that a sane Christian - including Mark c.2005 - would consider grave evil and a threat to all that is good and sacred in the world.  These are sometimes debated by Mark but, as often as not, are allowed to be posted with impunity.  The only cost is that the individual come to trash Christian conservatives, Christian non-liberals, the GOP, Trump or anyone who dares challenge the dogmas of the political Left.

Mark's sites are also a repository for the last few decades' worth of Leftist propaganda and talking points.  This includes the idea that pro-life Christians are hypocrites who hate children and poor people and only use the unborn as, in Mark's words, 'human shields.'  That last part about human shields is actually a Mark distinctive.  To be honest, I don't remember most pro-abortion activists suggesting pro-lifers don't care about the unborn.  They might say it's about controlling women or such (ignoring women pro-lifers in the process), but they usually at least concede care for the unborn on the part of pro-lifer.  But not Mark.  To Mark, to the right of center is all wickedness and void of goodness.

If their actions suggest otherwise, it's no problem for Mark.  They may say they love Jesus, attend church and Mass, give to the poor, feed the hungry, donate to charity, and generally insist they care about all people.  But Mark knows their wicked hearts and souls for what they are, based on the fact that they dare challenge the gospel of liberalism.  That's a benefit of liberalism today:  The John Lennon principle.  It's not what you do in your life or how you act, it's that you speak the words of the Left.  That's how he knows that, whatever they do, they are truly evil at heart.  And he does this much to the glee of so many of his regular progressive followers.  Especially the non-Christian ones.  After all, it isn't every day that, as a non-believer, you can get Christians to admit that [those] Christians are a wretched and evil lot.

But those who dare challenge the dogmas of the political Left?  Those who still defend conservative views, or dare suggest that there could be problems among some to the left of center?  Such will get you banned by Mark faster than you can say Bob's your self-identifying aunt.  As a result, there are folks here on the blog and over at Facebook that will feed me the rage, the dumb, the calumny, the Leftist propaganda and talking points that make up the bulk of Mark's literary output today.  After all, they can't challenge Mark since he has banned them.  And they are often desperate to get the word out that this source of toxicity and leftist partisanship should be warned against, however meager my little contribution might be.  Especially since Mark continues to get accolades and high-fives from so many prominent Catholics, Catholic ministries and Catholic religious leaders.

So this one came across my table.  It's basic Mark 101, c 2018.  He vomits all the rhetoric and stereotypes about those who don't conform to liberalism.  There's nothing anyone who has read Mark would be surprised by.  It's just worth an explanation why, even though I avoid his blog like the plague, he is so often referenced.  My blog is merely one outlet for those who have been banned by Mark since Mark has little stomach left for debating those who challenge his devotion to the Democratic party and the talking points of the Political Left.  So there you go.

Fun note: It's already been brought up that a commentator on the post compares the tactics of the right, including Evangelicals, to the Communists of Lenin and Stalin era.  They've also been compared to fascists and Nazis on his blog.  In all cases those making the claims are, at best, not called out.  At worst, Mark condones the comments.  Anyone remember when Mark spent months mocking Glenn Beck for his famous Communist/Nazi dig?  Yep.  Mark in a nutshell.

Thursday, July 19, 2018

Mark Shea is wrong about Dan Rather

OK, as I've said, I wasn't a big fan of Trump's meeting with Putin.  His strange walk-back hasn't changed much of my assessment.  My big problem with it is that I don't think it helped when our situation in the face of Russia needs serious help.  But nothing happened.  Trump could have been meeting someone for dinner and a movie.  Sure, I hope relations between our countries could improve, but it will take more than this.   In the end, I can't help but think Trump was hoping for a Reagan/Gorbachev Geneva moment.  Just have a meeting, and it will all work from there.

Ah, that was a magical moment, I'll admit.  It was fall quarter of my freshman year of college.  Naturally the media spent days leading up to the meeting lamenting how Reagan would screw up glasnost and embarrass us and all that jazz.  Likewise, I remember well the hysterics when Reagan grabbed Gorbachev and "condescendingly" walked him to the stairs.  Boy the outcry, the hysterics.  Sometimes the current coverage of Trump brings back old memories.

Still, once the meeting was over, the fish was replaced, and Reagan came home to address the nation, all the partisan bickering and sniping stopped and the world heaved a massive sigh of relief.  For even the briefest of moments, critics gave Reagan a thumbs up, and we all believed we might make it through the Cold War without the catastrophic annihilation of humanity.

I can't help but think that's what Trump was hoping for.  Well, sorry to say, he failed.  At best it wasn't a disaster.  But at best it was a big nothing burger.  It was a photo op, a private meeting, and a press conference where Putin's blah demeanor was only surpassed by the loony questions coming from the American press.

But back to Mark's little Trump attack.  Personally, I don't give a damn about Rather's feelings, snowflake or otherwise.  I reject Rather's assessment because he is one of the most glaring examples of just why Trump is in the White House in the first place.  Do I worry about Russia?  Sure.  I haven't stopped since the end of the Cold War.  I've studied too much history to think all that animosity was a thing of the past.  I also worried about it in 2012, when Romney pointed out the obvious and was mocked by Obama for his troubles.  This is because Russia is a complex place, with a complex history, and should never be underestimated, even by the foreign policy guru Obama.

But I'm more worried about the internal threats to our democracy, liberty, freedom and civil rights.  I'm worried about the obvious collusion between various power-brokers and public and government institutions for the purpose of aiding one particular political philosophy and party even against the voters' wishes.  I worry about the institutional corruption, the lies, the deception, the systemic falsehoods, and a contempt and loathing for a growing portion of Americans that is being promoted by the very agencies that should be protecting us.  I'm worried that all of these things are joining together to stack the deck and even take away the desires of the average voter for the sake of the powers that be. And I'm worried that they are teaching more and more Americans to jettison the very ideals we are supposed to embrace, all for the sake of eliminating everything it meant to be American.

I worry more about this because, ideally at least, we can always come together against an external threat to our nation.  Despite the lessons we've learned since 9/11, we might still be able to unify and seek common cause against a hostile foreign power.  But when that enemy is within, I fear we are too divided to care. Just the circus and freak show that has been the DOJ and FBI kerfuffles over the last two years, beginning with a secret, private meeting between Bill Clinton and the woman in charge of investigating his wife, is enough to send chills down a normal spine.  That so many defended it, dismissed it, and attacked those who were bothered by the event, showed that it was clear we no longer cared about law, justice, truth or our nation.  We cared about winning for one side only.  Even if the win is at the expense of America itself.

Of course that was only a small part of the last decades of growing collusion between an expanding number of powerful individuals and institutions. And it's in these decades of development that Mr. Rather became one of the faces of the new alliance between the industry once known as the news media and the Democratic National Committee.  An alliance that continues to this day, often to the detriment of the will of the people.

When I look at Russia, I see an old adversary that could become a threat if we continue on as we have for the last couple decades.  I see it has already tried to compromise our democracy.  But I see the clear and obvious attempt to throw away all values, morals, ethics, principles, truth, consistency and common sense, while demanding we ignore the obvious about the collusion and corruption in our own power centers, as the greater threat. Especially since one of the byproducts of this internal movement has been to convince a growing number of people that the world would be better without America in it.  At least Russia merely wants to get the upper hand on America, and not see it eliminated from the global stage.

That is why I don't care about Rather's opinion Mark.  Not because Rather is a snowflake, or because I'm beholden to Trump.   It's because I have a brain, eyes, ears, and the ability to see the way the wind is blowing, and just who's blowing it.

NOTE: As I prepare to hit 'Publish', I am made aware of yet another Shea-Gem.  Here.  Seizing upon the stat that 16% of Republicans have a favorable view of Putin, he embellishes, including jumping on the story of the young Russian woman accused of being an agent for Russia.  He calls it collusion, despite the assertion that she was a spy - that is, those working with her wouldn't know she was an agent.  And of course we still don't know.  She's only been accused.  But that doesn't matter. 

Few people demonstrate more clearly than Mark's zealous embrace of the RME's* 'why wait for evidence when we can hie to the noose!' mentality as to why the real threat to our democracy and our future of liberty and freedom isn't necessarily on the other side of the ocean.

*Roy Moore Era

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

If a Republican called for a military coup

All hell would be breaking lose.  And yet I've not heard the press mention it. Yet again, the barking mad crazy of the anti-Trump lemming brigade shows an inexplicable capacity for making the worst of Trump's blunders look brilliant and sane by comparison.

As I'm sure we can all see by now, the Left all but seems to be calling for war with Russia.  At best they are screaming that we've been in a Cold War with Russia all along.  Except for October 22, 2012, when Russia was no big deal.  A year ago, they were screaming nuclear war with North Korea.  And now you have a Democratic congressman calling for a military coup against the president:


When I was young, I always chuckled about the GOP's Hollywood reputation of being the warmongers.  In my college days, that was the pop culture narrative.  It was always the Republicans itching for war; gunning to invade the nations of the world for the American Way.  The Democrats only and always wanted peace, love and John Lennon songs.

And yet, almost every major war and conflict of the 20th century happened - drum roll please - during a Democratic administration.  WWI: Wilson (D).  WWII: Roosevelt (D).  Korea:  Truman (D).  Vietnam: Kennedy/Johnson (D/D).  Our attack on Serbia: Clinton (D).

Only the first Gulf War (and, if you insist, our invasion of Grenada) occurred during a GOP administration.  Otherwise, the wars of the last century hang on the Democratic name tag.  Just thought I'd throw that out there since much of the progressive movement benefits by insisting it's not what we do, it's what we say that matters.  They say they want peace and Republicans want war, so it's true.  Please ignore reality since that doesn't count.

Therefore when you have them come out an actually say 'I want the military to step in and do something about this president', you had best sit up and pay attention.  For the Left, it's all about the words.

HT: The American Catholic.

Obama's disastrous Russian policy unpacked

By Politico.  No, that's not the point of the article.  The point is to whip us into a frenzy of panic so as to think Russia has attacked America every bit as much as Imperial Japan at Pearl Harbor, or terrorists who were coincidentally Muslim on 9/11.  Nonetheless, you can't help but read it and shake your head.   You can't help but think if Obama had of taken Russia seriously in 2012, perhaps Russia wouldn't have declared war on us in 2016 by destroying our elections.  Of course that won't be the angle Political, much less any Leftist pundit, takes.  It's enough to say Russia has been a threat for years, except for October 22, 2012.   The difference is that now it's politically expedient to say so.

America and Russia under the Obama years

Trump critics heart war with Russia

Yep.  There is almost a desire for it.  We have everyone running around insisting that Romney was right* and we're in the Next Cold War with Germany Israel Britain Russia over ads targeting our elections.  So barking mad insane is the anti-Trump movement that when it comes to war with Russia, to paraphrase the great Sally Field: They want it!  They really, really want it!

Best response to the sheer brain-melt psychotic nuttery that has erupted over the last day, from Washington to the National Press to the Internet and Social Media, has to be this:



Yep.  Burying legitimate criticisms of Trump in a heaping, helping mound of crazy.  That's today's Worst Generation.

For some sane observations regarding the collective meltdown and end to sanity that we're witnessing, read here, Rand Paul, of all people, brings calm analysis of the big picture to those who care nothing about any picture, but only care about defeating the enemies of the Left at all costs.

*In an almost unbelievable level of skull-void, some are actually insisting we're at Cold War with Russia and that Russia has been this evil empire for years, and yet amazingly Romney was still wrong and Obama was awesome when Romney said Russia was a threat and Obama mocked him for it.  And these are the people pushing us to at least Cold War, if not outright war, with Russia.

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

The murder of Tsar Nicholas II and his family

Is remembered by Donald McClarey.  Americans are blessed, and spoiled, and forgetful.  Because our revolution ended with our Founding Fathers working to keep their promise, we assume all revolutions are like that.  In fact, in a strange twist of dumb, ours is the one revolution that progressives will likely trash above all others.  And yet even a one minute glance at the historical record will show that ours was a fluke, while the bloodshed and barbarism resulting from the Communists, Nazis and other political upheaval over the last couple centuries is more often the norm.

The almost automated devotion to State above all things that could lead to an entire family lined up and sadistically gunned down was a portent of things to come.  It would define the Communist way, and the way in which so many Socialist experiments would end up, for many generations.  That so many today are mindlessly enthralled of Socialism and all it brings just shows how such blank devotion to a cause can infect even the most educated among us.

UPDATE: Rod Dreher has some info as well, including grizzly details about the murders themselves.  Truly a horrible crime, but all too common in what Rod calls the 'hellish 20th century', or the century that more than prove the existence of Satan and the demonic.

When I hear the growing drumbeat for war with Russia

All in the name of defeating Trump at all costs (even the odd mushroom cloud here or there), I think of nothing so much as this:



I mean it.  Given our weekly dose of ginned up mob hysterics, culminating in the last 24 hours' worth of proclamations of our war with Russia (missed that one in the news), all while ignoring other countries that have done the same thing but with whom we are not at war, I can't help but think we've somehow reached terminal velocity whereby whipped up lynch mobs are concerned.

This yearning for a new Cold War is beyond the most ridiculous caricatures of old warmongering conservative patriots from back in the day.  And what's worse, it's happening from the press all the way to Washington.  If you want war, then say so.  Because clearly what is happening has nothing to do with the big picture, the whole truth, or the slightest iota of consistency.

UPDATE: I should add that I think there is serious criticism due for how Trump handled himself, how he opted to throw his own country under the bus, and how he insisted that Russia never heard of such as thing as coming after our elections.  I know, the Left adored Gorbachev in the day, blamed the US over the USSR, and insisted Russia was no big deal as recently as 2012.  Nonetheless, criticisms of Trump are at least justified IMHO.  That doesn't mean, however, that this mad dash for war with Russia just to get Trump is anything less than both stupid and evil, if not downright treasonous in its own way.

Heh


A little dose of reality in the wake of the latest hysterics.

Monday, July 16, 2018

A story worthy of international attention

The BBC, Britain's own beloved news agency, has brought to the attention of its global audience this important story.  A state lawmaker in Arizona was caught speeding.  He even admitted he often speeds while driving.  The Fraternal Order of Police has, as a result, revoked its endorsement of him.

I know.  How does a state lawmaker in Arizona getting pulled over by police for speeding warrant a story in Britain's primary news outlet?  Why would people in England, or anywhere else in the world with access to the BBC, care that a state lawmaker in Arizona got a speeding ticket?  Why out of all of the stories coming out of the US and Canada did it see fit to mention this one?

Did I mention the lawmaker is a Republican?  Nuff said.  Next silly question.

Catholic feminism in all its glory

Is here. I won't really comment on the article.  It's typical progressive 'after 2000 years our generation will get it right', with a feminist spin.   But read the comments.  From 'give us your sperm then shut the hell up until we say so' to the groveling man singing of the superiority of the feminine, to the clear and obvious fact that even Salafi Muslims are more enlightened about gender equality than those wretched Catholic misogynists, it's all there for your reading pleasure. 

A movement based on 'however many demographics hate each other is irrelevant, as long as the last vestiges of the Christian West are swept away' won't last long.   My boys were debating Trump and his SCOTUS picks and what it might mean for the long term.  Their primary hope?  The Supreme Court can't change everything, but maybe having the right judges on the court will keep things in order until a generation arises that realizes we can't keep on like this.

If the comments in that comments section are any indicator, that's a long shot hope. But hope is always a precious commodity, so let's not minimize it.

When guns prevent crime

I know from experience that when you  bring up the idea that a gun can be used to prevent crime, you'll be laughed out of the discussion.  Gun Control Advocates will smack down the idea that gun owners use guns to stop crime as if it's believing in Big Foot, Unicorns or Eskimos.  

Yet, like so many things that seem associated with progressive agendas, there is a Himalayan sized pile of evidence that the Gun Control Advocates seem to ignore.  There's been a bit of a buzz over the last few months regarding a study that suggested a whopping 2.5 million cases (that's million, with six zeroes, or .00001 of Bill Gate's net worth in dollars) in which American gun owners used their firearms to defend themselves.  

I must admit that I don't do stats because I know stats can be easily manipulated to say whatever.  The push-back by Gun Control Advocates seems to be that such a figure is grossly inflated.  The problem is, in all the criticisms I've read, nobody suggests what they think it should be.  They just say it's an exaggeration, it's impossible, it's too high, it's overblown, but they never say what they feel it probably is.  And that got me to thinking, as I am wont to do.

Let's assume it is exaggerated.  Let's assume guns weren't used to defend against a crime 2.5 million times in a year in America.  How many times do we imagine they were used to defend against a crime?  2 million times?  1 million times?  Half a million times?  Let's just say a quarter of a million times.  250,000 times guns were used in self defense in a year.  That's a far cry from 2.5 million.  That is crazy off the study.  That number is nowhere near the claim made by Gun Rights Advocates.  

And yet, it's 250,000 times guns were used for self-defense.  Even if we drop it down to a paltry 25,000 times that guns were used for defense, that's still 25,000 Americans who are alive and happy and not victims of a crime, perhaps a violent one, all due to a gun.  I mean, that's a lot of people.  25,000 people not victims of crimes, be they violent or not, isn't bad.  

Think on that.  Even if the study is a whopping .01% of the truth, that's still tens of thousands who are not victims of a crime.  Given that around twice as many Americans are murdered by guns a year as die of HIV/AIDS (that would make it around 12,000/year give or take), that's still half as many killed by guns as crimes prevented.  That's assuming an epic fail on the study's part of missing the reality by 99%.  Sure, many of those would not be violent crimes.  But even so, what in the world are Gun Control Advocates doing acting like you just declared faith in a flat earth when you bring up guns being used for self-defense?  

What is one reason why am I more skittish about the Left than the Right, about progressives more than conservatives?  Because this line of argument seems to be common from top down and side to side when it comes to various progressive causes.  What would be laughed off the map if done by some wacky right winger in the back hills of Montana in his parents' basement, is often the line of arguing you here from mainline progressive pundits and leadership.  Whether #MeToo or abortion or transgender or gay marriage or open border immigration or tearing down Confederate memorials or gun control or whatever, there always seem to be this giant pile of facts and data that are not only ignored, but any who appeal to those are mocked at best, attacked a worst.

Forgive me, but if your entire argument is best summed up with 'please focus on the molehill and ignore the mountain range behind it', there's a good chance you'll lose me every time. 

Saturday, July 14, 2018

How the news media does it

So CBS This Morning had a segment about a young African American teenager being attacked by a white woman.  From there it unpacked the greater story, linking it to other cases of Americans attacking each other.  Well, Americans attacking ethnic minorities.  Well, not really.  Americans who are white attacking non-White Americans.  Or at least non-White non-non-Hispanic, which in this case is suddenly not white, as opposed to George Zimmerman, who of course was not Hispanic at all, but only white.  I hope you're keeping track.

What was missing in the report was this story. It initially broke, and as the link shows, some jumped on it immediately as proof of America's inherent racism and the genetic racism that is revealed by white skin.   The problem is, it was a woman (who are supposed to always be victims), and an African American.  And unlike the others, most of whom were merely engaging in some form of verbal aggression, she got medieval on the immigrant and sent him to the hospital while telling him to go back to where he came from.

That was not mentioned at all in the CBS report.  I'm sure you know why. The purpose of the press is to establish truth, not report it.  It benefits the Left to make America into some Aryan Nazi Nation filled with white skinned Nazis just itching to kill them some dark skinned and swarthy types.  As a result, the minute they discover something horrible done by a person without white skin, it will be mentioned, reported once or twice, and then banished to the outer void of 'that which the propaganda ministry cannot report.'

Friday, July 13, 2018

The Stalinizing of Papa John's continues

So it's official.  Papa John's will erase the image of Founder John Schatter from all logos.  This from the outcry that came about due to his criticism of NFL players who protest the National Anthem his use of the Word Beloved of Rap Stars Everywhere.  He, having white skin, cannot use the Word Beloved of Rap Stars Everywhere, even if to illustrate a point.  Those who have dark skin may do so with impunity.  It's all about the race, as MLK used to say.

This is the world we live in.  With no real power, the Left is making it clear what kind of country it will be when they have power.  Of course this was mostly about Schatter's criticism of the NFL's anti-anthem protests.  Since he was a visible and well known corporate leader (think Dave Thomas or Harland Sanders), we couldn't have him speaking against the Leftist agenda.  It was only a matter of time before he made a mistake.  Or spoke in a way that could be spun as a mistake.  Or simply existed while not conforming to the Left.

Since Marx had little use for things like mercy or forgiveness, and much of the modern Left echoes, if somewhat wearily, the ideals of Marx, we shouldn't be surprised that we've reverted to the very kind of witch hunt mentality that liberals of old once decried as emblematic of the tyrannies Marx helped build.

FWIW, I will never eat at Papa John's again.  I was never a fan.  Nonetheless every now and then its pizzas scratched a certain itch.  But no more.  Whether because of cowardice, or simply the growing sense that Madison Avenue would gladly go Communist and bury the Church and America if that's where the money is, I don't know.  But either way, when I think of Papa John's now, I'll think of nothing so much as this:



The reason we have Fox News

I'm sorry NPR, but Boo Hoo.  So I've seen a string of stories bemoaning the fact that Donald Trump and Fox News have become one flesh.  Sure.  Fox was no fan of Trump during the 2016 campaign, but once he got the nomination, the network swung to Trump.  Mostly.

But you know what?  The reason Fox exists is because there became a market for an alternate media outlet in the mid-90s.  And why, NPR, did this market arise?  Because it was the mid 90s, and to use your terminology, there was increasingly almost no daylight between the National Press and the Clinton White House.

The most flagrant example came from the stalemate that led to the government shutdowns in 1995 and 1996.  Of course during the Obama years, we heard journalists point out that, unlike Bill Clinton in the 90s, Obama was not to blame for any shutdown that occurred.  Clearly Clinton was being as belligerent as the Republicans and Newt Gingrich!  But not Obama.  He was pure and innocent and righteous and holy - as always, per the National Press.

That was not the story in the mid-90s, however.  Back then it was Ebeneezer Newt.  It was How the Gingrich Stole Christmas.  It was 110% the fault of the GOP, who gleefully shut down the government just so they could rejoice over all those poor kids not having any presents under the Holiday Tree.  And that wasn't the White House press releases. That was the National Press.

Hence Fox.  Back then I was in seminary, many of my friends were of the more moderate branch; the ones that were being pushed out by Dr. Mohler, Russ Moore, Greg Thornbury and the gang.  We often hung about together, even if I tended to be a bit more traditional and conservative.  One time I remember being at a KFC (that's Kentucky Fried Chicken to you), and talking about this strange development where it was becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference between the White House press conferences and the nighttime news broadcasts.

Several of my friends were proud Democrats, but I remember them sitting there, with spork in hand, saying this was no good.  They weren't fans of Clinton in the first place, fearing what long term ramifications that the obvious moral compromises he demanded might bring to our nation.  As a result, they were far from happy to see the press and the administration walking down long beaches together, basking in the glow of each others' radiance.

None of this includes the media's wagon circling during the Lewinksy trial, the press's parroting of the liberal narrative regarding the 2000 election, the MSM's collusion with the Democrats for the 2004 October Surprise, the 2008 praise and worship service that was the coverage of Obama's campaign, and of course the eight year long love affair between the news media and the Obama White House.  And it certainly doesn't include the multiple examples of erroneous reporting during the Trump administration*, every example of which painted Trump in a negative light, at least until being debunked.

The worst anyone can say is that Fox is as bad as the other outlets.  Not as bad really, since FOX has commentators who admit to being biased, while the rest of the news media is ostensibly unbiased or, dare I say, 'fair and balanced.'  Anyone who believes that is either a fool, a liar, or both.

*Last Sunday, 07/08/2018, CBS This Morning ran a segment on this, and admitted to the multiple errors during the Trump administration.  It even admitted they all seemed to err on the side of negativity toward Trump.  Of course the gist of it was less 'this is horrible' as much as 'this is helping Trump'.  And no, CBS did not include itself in any of the multiple examples it mentioned.  Nonetheless, at least it was something, and those who would deny this or the obvious bias behind it are, again, at best useful idiots.

Thursday, July 12, 2018

Papa John and life in the American Soviet

So you won't see Papa John peddling his pizza pies anymore.  He's out. Why is he out?  Per the news reports, because he used the "N-Word" in a conference call.  You know the word I mean.  That word that is used by rappers and Black entertainers as a matter of course.  But then, they're Black, he's White, and in the 21st century age of Identity Politics, it's all about the race.

That is the headline.  What happened is that he was on a conference call.  It was in light of the kerfuffle that arose from him blaming slumping sales on his ties with the NFL.  Last year, if you remember, he raised the ire of tolerance by coming out and criticizing the NFL protests against the National Anthem.  And as the CEO of Chik-fil-A will tell you, we can't have CEOs bucking the Leftist doctrine.

A marketing firm was brought in to minimize the damage and try to rebuild the reputation.  In May, however, he was on the conference call expressing his exasperation about the whole issue.  During the call, he pointed out that Harland Sanders (that's Colonel Sanders to you), used to say 'N-----'.  He pointed out the levels of racism and racist hostility in the olden days.  And that was it.

No, he didn't call anyone the N-Word.  He didn't use it as a slur.  He said that there was a time when someone like him - head of a major food chain - would actually do something like say The Word, as oppose to merely criticize the actions of NFL players.  Of course we all know that it was his calling out the protests that did it.  Using the Favored Word Among Rappers was merely the excuse.  That was the moment his political foes were waiting for to eliminate a prominent non-conformer.

And that's that.  He's gone.  Career over.  Legacy tarnished.  This is what happens when you live in a post-Christian society.  For most idiots, post-Christian means unlimited sex, drugs, abortion as birth control, greed and a life of hedonism, narcissism and debauchery free of charge.  It means a world focused on the holy trinity of me, myself and I. 

What idiots today don't realize is that it is also the end of a culture that mandated, however imperfectly, a world of forgiveness, mercy, reconciliation, redemption and second chances.  I know, people will point out that Christians never live up to such a perfect standard of total forgiveness, loving enemies, praying for persecutors and all that jazz.  And yet, I fear we're about to learn an ugly lesson.  We're about to learn that you're better being in a society that fails to live up to a high standard than one that lives up to no standard. 

We were told growing up that hypocrisy is having a high standard and failing to live up to it.  No.  Hypocrisy is willfully ignoring a high standard you apply to others.  If you're having a four year long affair while pounding the pulpit about the evils of adultery, that's hypocrisy.  If you believe in the sanctity of marriage and oppose adultery, but slip one night of your life when you're working late with a coworker, that's sin, but not hypocrisy.   Yet we were told otherwise, and a generation concluded it's better to have no standards at all than try and fail, since that would be hypocrisy.  Apparently this includes such high standards as forgiveness, redemption and reconciliation. 

I hope we're OK with this.  A nation where there is no forgiveness; where a single breach of a thousand standards can be cause to ruin a life; where the slightest deviation from political doctrine will result in punishment and retribution.  Because whether we like it or not, I fear it's what we're going to get.

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

The allies of the New Prolife Christians

Here:


The more that New Prolife Christians attempt to lay the blame for all sins at the feet of Capitalists, conservatives, men and whites, the more the emergent Left smacks them down.  They make it clear that it is not because of some financial burden or sexist man that a poor woman has no choice but to abort her baby.  They make it's clear they love abortion, they want abortions, it's power, it's control over life, it's free debauchery, and it's all done increasingly with the tacit approval or apathy of their allies in the Christian Left.   Allies who ironically call themselves New Prolife.

Truly this is a sing that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

"Abortion I salute you!
Women, if you need an abortion, get one!
If you want an abortion, get one! (emphasis mine)
If you're not pregnant and you think you might be and want to order a future abortion, get one!"
All to the cheers and adoration of the Leftist mob

This is the movement with which the post-Conservative and Leftist Christian movement has allied.

The Catholic Left is watching you

Nobody expects the Leftist Inquisition
In a way reminiscent of those old Hollywood stereotypes about the Catholic Church, it looks like a bunch of priests have been caught.  The reaction immediate.  The retaliation swift.  Caught doing what you may ask.  Molesting children?  Engaging in child porn?  Teaching false doctrine?

No!  They attended a Trump rally and responded positively, even when Trump said things that his critics were appalled by.  Alas, but the cameras caught them, and keen New Prolife Catholics were fast to jump on their error.  Calls to alert their bishop were made, and it looks like the Bishop himself got involved.

Ah, I can remember when Internet Catholics were disgusted by the idea that people would call someone's bishop over something like politics, when a priest would suggest an ardently pro-abortion politician might be publicly chastened, or that the Church should even have an opinion on the behavior of its flock. We're all sinners after all.

I remember Catholics laughing along with Obama, or Hillary, no matter what they advocated and it was all OK.  I remember them blowing beer out their noses over liberal late night comedians, even if they advocated intrinsic evil, mortal sin that cried out to heaven for vengeance, or even toyed with blasphemy. If you want to know what the modern Left values - and that includes the Catholic Left - you need only go back ten or twenty years and see what they condemned.  There is an ever increasing likelihood that the two are one and the same.

Not that this Catholic Left Inquisition is new.  I posted some time ago about a prominent Catholic blogger letting slip the dogs of war and calling on her readers to swoop in and derail the career of a judge who dared disagree with her.  The issue?  That would be the shooting of Harambe the gorilla at the Cincinnati Zoo.  So there is precedent.  It looks like calling down the wrath of Holy Mother Church on those who dare digress from the priorities and narratives of the Political Left is becoming quite the thing.  And it looks like ol'Holy Mother Church might be more willing to comply than it was back in the day; back when it did its best Rodney Dangerfield tug-at-the-collar impersonation when asked to punish people over advocating abortion or gay sex.

The Left is in full Inquisition mode, scouring the countryside every day, seeking out those who have fallen from the purer faith of the political Left and the superiority of the latest ethics.  You will be careful if you're Catholic.  If you are a priest.   You can never be good enough.  And all notions of tolerance and diversity and respect for other opinions are out the window.  You've been warned.

Monday, July 9, 2018

Vox reminds us that the Left hates America

Because parliaments work better than our government, thus says Vox
It's true.  If I told one of my sons I wish he never existed - or if I told anyone such a thing for that matter - it would not be seen as a token of love on my part.  Most would not say, "Gee Dave, you obviously love that person!"  Well, Dylan Matthews, at hard leftist rag Vox, lays out why July 4th should be a day or mourning.  Why?  Because the world would be a better place if America didn't exist.  At least if America hadn't split from England.

Now the reasons should be cliché by this point.  Slavery and treatment of American Indians are two of the reasons.  We'll get to that in a moment.  The third reason is the claim that a parliamentary form of government like England's is better than the one we have.  I'll go ahead and let those more versed in Constitutional law and history to debate that last one.  Given what I've seen in some countries that had similar forms of goverment to England (cough, Germany 1930s), I'd say that's a bit 'grass is greener' thinking.

But back to the slavery and American Indian issue.  This is not to say what America did was right.  This is to say what America did was common to human history.   It was common among American and Central American Indian culture, and it was common outside of America.  Slavery was universal.  England might have made actual slavery illegal before America did, and without a Civil War.  But it would spend the rest of the 19th century embarking on a massive acquisition of the world from its rightful owners, subjugating its colonial populations to second rate status, forcing them to work the empire,  and treating them about one step better than slaves.  All of which was based on a similarly racist notion of that famous White Man's burden.

And England wasn't the only country of course.  It was just the best at it. Other countries tried to catch up with England by grabbing their own part of the global pie. Sure, America tried, too.  It's noteworthy that America tired to get in on the Global Empire act just like Europe, once slavery was a thing of the past.  And that didn't just happen in Europe.

By the 19th century, Europe was on the assent.  But it had only been a century or two earlier that other cultures were happily trying to smash through European barriers and do the same thing.  When England was coming to our shores in the 17th century, the Ottoman Empire was knocking on Europe's door, hoping to to the same thing to Europe that happened in America.  Only because Europe was able to resist did the same thing not happen to them.  The same could be said for what went on among Native American populations long before Europeans came to these shores.  Taking what belongs to one's neighbor is as universal as slavery.  And as Russia recently demonstrated in the Ukraine, it's no more a done thing than slavery, which today is euphemistically called Human Trafficking.

So this notion that we would be better off if we didn't exist draws on this laughably idiotic lie about history that says America is the only country that ever conquered land or owned slaves.  Nobody else did it.  Or if they did it, it's OK, because conquest and slavery and imperialism are beautiful, as long as you're not America. 

This piece is not based on facts, history, common sense, truth, or any such thing.  The Left is a revolution, just like the revolutions of the last couple hundred years.  And since Marx and Communism play such a big part in the heart and mind of many on the Left, they intend the same thing that Communist revolutions achieved, and that's the eradication of the society they seize.  Unlike the Founding Fathers, who merely dealt with a couple issues and otherwise sought to keep the best of the culture in which they lived, the Leftist revolutions are like a plague of locusts.  They come in to destroy.

And that's the point.  The Left wants to overthrow America.  To that end, it must teach hatred of America.  America must be uniquely evil and 100% worthless.  So things like this, that are easily debunked, become the narrative of the day.  Despite the ease with which it is debunked, it is becoming the version of history more and more are taught.  Parliamentary systems always work better than our government?  Tell that to European Jews in the 30s.  Slavery was only in America?  Tell that to the countries that labored under British rule throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.  Tell that to a million Africans who were killed by Belgium in the 20th.  Tell that to Africans who continued to live under Islamic slavery until the 20th century.  Americans, unlike anyone else, conquered the Indians?  Tell that to Europeans who lived under Islamic rule for centuries.  Tell that to Ukrainians today.

Like most things on the Left, it's a bag of lies wrapped in dumb, hoping for ignorance, and based on denial.

Apparently science was wrong about everything

At least in terms of sex and sexuality.  That is if the modern Left has anything to say about the matter:


Because all of this rubbish about the male and female of the species, and sex and procreation, and how all of these things evolved, was apparently a giant fail for science.  All of those decades and generations of scientists saying that the sexes evolved differently, that sexual differences were real, that there was a male and female of the species down to the DNA, and that the interaction of them was procreative by design, turned out to be bunk.  

I ask you.  If science could be so catastrophically wrong as to miss something so near and dear and obvious, why believe anything they say now?  It seemed as if they had overwhelming evidence to support their case for the differences between sexes and the relationship to procreation.  Nobody ever seemed to challenge the notion that there were real and substantive differences between the sexes, or that sex actually existed beyond the mind.  Now they say none of it means anything.  There is no sex or gender.  There is only anatomy.  There is only what an individual wishes gender or sex to be.  Turns out they were wrong all along - all of them - and they're finally discovering what everyone wants to know. 



If, of course, the evidence was true, and the "scientists" today are merely buckling to overwhelming social pressure, just as scientists proved Blacks were inferior, Jews a threat to the Fatherland, homosexuality a mental disorder, and women at risk for achieving orgasms - all of which were supposedly the result of scientists buckling under the pressures of the day - is it safe to say science it not some magical fantasy-land where it's just all real objective truth as explained by real objective scientists who are always right?  Is it safe to say only a fool would turn to science to be the final arbiter of what is and isn't real, since clearly scientists can spin things as easily as a political pundit?  Fool me once after all.  

Either way, I feel a sudden drop in the reliability of science and the scientists who study it.  Perhaps a paraphrase of King Edward Longshanks from the movie Braveheart says it best: The problem with science is, it's full of scientists. 

Saturday, July 7, 2018

Teaching children about the glories of sex and nudity


I hate to say it, but I think this is real.  It is not The Onion, Babylon Bee, or SNL. This is real.  From Canada.  This is what happens when liberalism wins.  This is your children.  This is your grandchildren.  And, of course, this is the result we don't speak about:
AIDS deaths worldwide through 2015
But remember, as long as it's other people who make up the stats, it's a sacrifice these kids will learn to be willing to make.  A society hellbent on suicide. 

NOTE: The good news is that the video teaching children to think of genitals, sex and naked actresses, has received over 2000 thumbs downs, and only a couple hundred thumbs up.  There is hope.

Friday, July 6, 2018

Could Jesus be good enough for the modern Left?

I doubt it*.


The modern Left is morphing into some unthinkable abomination, where every day we find out a new list of people who fail to meet The Standards and need to be condemned; their names eradicated from the lists, their lives wiped from our memories.  If that doesn't happen fast enough, a new group of those on the Left rises up and abandons the rest of the Left for failing to live up to their superior standards of complete condemnation. Compared to the modern Left, those puritans at Plymouth are starting to sound awfully lax and tolerant.

So the American Solidarity Party, which has become a darling for many in the New Prolife Christian movement, has lost a member.  That's only one side of what happened of course.  But the condemnation keeps with the almost daily roundups of 'They who must be condemned for not being as awesome as I am now' movement.  Wait a day or two and you'll see more.  It can be people condemned for doing what the Left said to do.  It can be those who perfected all that the Left said was pure and virtuous - yesterday.   But yesterday is ancient history.  That's when everyone was stupid and evil and the cause of all suffering in the world.

In similar news, actress Scarlett Johansson learns a similar lesson.  There are endless ways in which you can fall under the condemnation from the Leftist Inquisition. There is always and only one possibility for being acceptable, and that can change on a dime.  I ask those on the Left, is it really worth all the sex and drugs and hubris and hedonism?  Who knows?  Those, too, may be taken away in the future. And then what will you be left with?

The hope is that a movement promoting suicide, abortion and euthanasia, pushing population control, and increasingly throwing more and more out of their ranks for failing to be pure enough, might just eat itself in the end.  Given the destruction, death, misery and failures it brings, we can only pray for a hasty demise, and that those within it will see the light and flee for their own good before it descends into the void.

*Yes, the whole 'it's dated' is one of the looniest arguments in the history of stupid arguments.  We could argue a perspective from last week is dated.  That it comes from the head of the Library Association goes to show how modernity is a cancerous growth that eats away at basic common sense and intelligence.  But let's face it, you know the problem as well as I do.  She and her views are, by our standards Today(TM), racist.  They just couldn't bring themselves to actually call Half-Pint racist/Nazi.  That's why the appeal to argumentum dumbnum.

Thursday, July 5, 2018

Hamilton the Musical canceled due to Cultural Appropriation

Ha!  Fooled you.  Did you really think that could be true?  Cultural Appropriation is possibly the most stupid thing to arise in a generation defined by stupid.  But it is a one way street, as the smash hit and venerated Hamilton musical, in which the lead role of white American founder Alexander Hamilton is portrayed by a decidedly non-white actor, has demonstrated.

When we say cultural appropriation, what we mean is that people with white skin have no business even looking at what other cultures and civilizations have produced.  It doesn't matter why they would do it.  It doesn't matter if it's celebrating, or paying homage to, or paying respects to those cultures or civilizations.  If you are white, you can't touch those.

That's what happened at the Montreal jazz festival when a mostly white cast was billed to perform songs written by African American slaves as a tribute to the use of music by those so oppressed and beaten down by such forces as slavery and racism.  Problem?  Reread what I just wrote.  A "mostly white cast".  That's what did it. How dare performers with white skin sing the songs of African slaves!

It being the world dominated by the postmodern Left, the retribution was swift and merciless.  So in the name of censorship, the performance was promptly canceled.  The performer herself acquiesced and apologized for blaspheming the modern tolerance.  The jazz festival organizers bowed repeatably and begged forgiveness.

Again, cultural appropriation has, in many ways, been what made our world what it is today.  Even in my most critical courses studying European history, the highlights were often when Europeans or Americans appreciated, and borrowed, from the contributions of other cultures.  Without appropriation of culture, we wouldn't have jazz for that matter.

But this is today, the 21st century, the age of Idiocy.  If it is logical, common sense, good or virtuous, bet your bottom dollar it will be crushed by the Left's never-ending openness and tolerance.

The Samantha Bee Show continues to impress

So one of the writers has come out and bemoaned civility as a tool of white supremacy.  I mean, let's face it, we would all be laughing our butts off at the stark raving madness on the Left if it weren't for the fact that it has so many friends in high places.

Remember, in the early days of Adolf, many dismissed him as some raving lunatic with a Charlie Chaplin mustache.  Fifteen years later people weren't laughing anymore.  Am I saying that this radical element, left unchecked, could end up with such carnage and suffering and evil under its belt?  Sure.  Why not?

I think if white supremacists, racist nationalists or other radicals on the Right were somehow able to wiggle into power, the same evil and misery would result.  And not just for non-whites it's worth pointing out.

But again, and again, and I'll say it one more time, the radicals on the Right are immediately smacked down by the institutions that exist to protect us from such a fate.  Even now, headline news will keep up with the latest from Charlottesville, despite it being a year ago.  Even right leaning policies enacted from our government will receive overwhelming scrutiny and media critiques.  Heck, right now the retirement of moderate swing Justice Kennedy has warranted 24/7 coverage warning of a conservative tsunami.

But the radicals on the Left?  Hardly.  Whether it be Antifa, other Alt-Left movements, or simply those like the good people at Full Frontal with Samantha Bee who make it clear they hate non-conformers and think there simply are no rules for civility or ethics when it comes to attacking their hated enemies.  And guess what?  You won't find such things on most - if any - mainstream outlets. Heck, even the news that did surround her dig at Trump's daughter was in the form of a 'sure it seemed sort of bad, but could there be an argument?' framework.  You know.  We don't think calling women the C-Word is necessarily good, but could there be cases where it's justified, like if the woman is conservative (that is, evil irredeemably deplorable)?

That's why the Left is far more dangerous than the Right.  Many in Europe (and America) downplayed the rise of the National Socialists of Germany on the basis that they were ardently anti-Communist.  Thinking people had already seen the threat of Communism and how destructive and dangerous it could be.  But they took their eyes off the ball, and fifty million dead later, we saw their error.

Sure the radicals on the right are dangerous.  So are the radicals on the Left.  But unlike the radicals on the Right, who must march and gather and meet in hotel conference rooms in darkened corners, the Left enjoys membership in some of our most influential and powerful venues, basking in the glow of the beloved cultural spotlight.  If we miss that fact, whatever happens down the road will be on us.

Breaking News: Temperatures in the high 80s is not a heat wave

At least not in Central Ohio.  High 80s in July is par for the course.   Heck, days in the 90s are not unusual.  Sure, if you hit multiple days in the mid or high 90s, you're going to have a heat wave.  But only then, and that assumes heat indexes in the high 90s or even low 100s.  Then you have a heat wave.

But despite constant local weather forecasts warning us of dangerous heat conditions, heat stroke, dying of heat, and the multiple safety precautions needed to stay alive, we've only had a few days above 90, and only one in the mid range.  One day over the last four we hit 94.  The rest 91 or the high 80s.  Tuesday we heard tell of how we would enter dangerous realms of heat, even as the weather forecast admitted it would likely not make it past the high 80s - likely 88.  It made it to 90!

Sorry, but this is hysterics for hysterics sake. I'm not saying other parts of the country aren't having it.  Though when we took a family trip out West in the late 70s,  I remember being in New Mexico when the temperature was 113 degrees.  I remember because we stopped at a rest area to have lunch.  I remember choking down the bologna sandwich and hearing the radio station broadcast the temperature.  It was hot.

Likewise, I remember having plenty of days above 90s growing up.  I also remember having days under 75 (the threshold for going swimming).  But it's nothing big, and nothing new.  High 80s are not a heat wave.  Even low 90s days do not make a heat wave.  And it certainly isn't because of Global Warming.  You don't get to call something that isn't (not a heat wave) and then have a segment on how the heat wave (which isn't because high 80s and low 90s isn't a heat wave) is due to Global Warming.

Why are there sane people skeptical about Global Warming?  Listen to those advocating it.  It's a heat wave when it isn't, and that proves Global Warming!  I wouldn't buy a used car from someone like that, much less be willing to overthrow our concept of humanity and human civilization over it.

I have to admit, as a matter of confession, we've had a lot of fun watching the local weathermen try to keep the hysterics up when the temperatures haven't cooperated.  It was supposed to be in the high 90s yesterday, but the most it got was the low 90s for only a brief moment, and after a cold front came through, it went down to the low 80s.  And yet they still had segments on how to survive the fireworks and parades!  After all, it's a whopping three degrees away from the 70s.  If that's not a heatwave that proves Global Warming, I don't know what will.

UPDATE: The fun continues as the local news has spent most of the day with stories about the heat, the heat wave, the dangers of the heat.  They say it's the Heat Index.  I'm not sure why the Heat Index is all of a sudden so high.  It's in the low 90s/high 80s, but they insist the Heat Index is in the 100s, over 110 in some areas.  How the Heat Index makes the temperature go up over 20 degrees I don't know, especially when it's partly cloudy and not terribly humid.  I guess despite the fact that it doesn't feel so bad, it must be horrible.  All of the people they're interviewing say they're barely surviving, and the news casters are warning us of impending death, so hysterics should be the reaction. 

Wednesday, July 4, 2018

America the Beautiful from a different age


When one's politics didn't dictate whether you loved America, or only a vision of America that has yet to live up to your superior values.  Love of country was still a general unifier in America.

The Declaration of Independence


When I was growing up, we learned about slavery and the Trail of Tears and that women, blacks and poor white men who weren't landowners couldn't vote.  But we learned it in light of the positive; the historic benefit the Declaration brought the world.  We knew the Founding Fathers weren't perfect (we knew we weren't either), but they were also taking that first big leap forward, and the world owed them much.

By the time my boys were in school, the lesson on the Declaration of Independence mentioned nothing of its unique place in world history.  A little bit about the surrounding context, why it was commissioned, who wrote it and a few quotes was the sum total.  Most of the lesson focused on the slaves, the women (no mention of white men who couldn't vote), Native Americans, and segregation, Jim Crow and the Civil Rights movement, with an entire page dedicated to Martin Luther King, Jr..

My guess is that it speaks volumes for what half of our country thinks of our country and its past.  For me, to simply know and read and reflect on the document - one of the most important in all of human history - is worth more than all the spins and downplays that our modern age can muster.

Here it is over at The American Catholic (reminding us that being a faithful Catholic is not antithetical to loving our country), complete with a nice clip from the very enjoyable miniseries John Adams (which I recommend).

One thing our Founding Fathers had that we lack


Among many other characteristics we lack, they had the ability to come together despite their differences.  And they had differences.  From how the country should function to such hot-button issues as slavery, the Founding Fathers were all over the place.  And yet they understood the complexities, and they got the bigger picture, one that they ultimately strove for, despite their different beliefs in how to get there.

Our modern Bolshevik Bumper Stick approach, where we want it fast and simple: We are the side of the angels, and they're Hitler, is a travesty to all things good and common sense, is the antithesis of this.

As I've said, I think we spend so much time trashing the past because it helps us dodge the mess we've made of our present.  When pressed, we then turn everything wrong over on 'them'. The other side is to blame.  Not us of course.  We're awesome.  Remember?  We got trophies when we lost and were able to retake tests in school until we passed.  That proves we're always awesome!

No, the rancor and vitriol isn't so much the problem as the rank partisanship, and the growing tendency of many to abandon their principles, values and standards in order to keep up.  I'm not just thinking of Evangelicals who have suddenly made morals and character a bottom 200 issue in order to support Trump.  I'm also talking about those who seem to be swinging left, even if they won't admit it, by downplaying, ignoring or even embracing that which they once called evil.

Hint.  Steve Schmidt, liberal GOPer who worked for anti-Republican McCain (who Mark once warned could jeopardize a person's soul for voting for) and culturally liberal, quasi-Socialist Arnold Schwarzenegger, is hardly a gotcha voice to warn against the dreaded GOP.  That he advocates what once was considered sin among many Catholics seems to be no big deal.  Mark considers it his patriotic duty to attack only the GOP and ignore the sins of the Democratic Party which he now vocally cheers for and supports.

It's that level of partisanship, willing to throw anything and everything out the window, willing to turn a blind eye not just to coming persecution, but the slow evangelization of Christians away from the faith (far more American Catholics embrace the sins of the Left than Right) that is the problem.  The GOP has its problems.  Trump is certainly problematic.  But they are in now way more of a threat than the emerging socialism and anti-traditionalism of the Democrats.

The Founding Fathers were a gift to America, and the world.  We have squandered them.  We let forces hostile to the Faith, the Country, and our values creep in and begin to erode what we inherited.  If you think the GOP alone is some threat to our democracy Mr. Schmidt, or Mark Shea, then you, in fact, are the ones who are the threats to our democracy.

Would that we would be gifted by the likes of the Founding Father again.

UPDATE:  It's been brought to my attention that I missed a key problem in Mark's post.  It isn't that he's obviously just using it to gin up support for the Democratic Party, for which he is now a vocal cheerleader and advocate.  It's the fact that he contradicts himself.  He says that we should be worried about selling our soul, rather than any persecution.  But if we don't care about persecution, why care about preserving our Democracy?  What Democracy does Mark envision saving that includes persecution?  Why is it fine to fight for Democracy, but not big deal when it comes to worrying about persecution? 

Of course, again, this is Mark, one of the loudest advocates for the Democratic Party in modern Catholicism.  Since attacking religious rights openly and through the courts is the tactic of the Democrats, it stands to reason he will downplay that.  But it also shows a contradiction in those Christians trying to align with or compromise with the Left.  Let's dismiss Mark's clear and obvious ignoring of those who have already been persecuted, and his denial that there exists anywhere a radical Left.  That's stupid and shows a wanton cruelty when it comes to tolerating the suffering of our fellow believers merely because they are suffering under the Party he now supports.

Let's look at this little trend at face value. I've seen many now say this sort of thing, including Russell Moore of the SBC.  Basically, it says we shouldn't worry about being persecuted or even preserving our nation.  After all, we'll always have heaven.  Countries come and go, persecution can be a badge of honor.  But it's our spiritual destiny that is important.

So couldn't we argue the same about Global Warming?  Couldn't we argue the same about anything, like healthcare or Open Border immigration?  I mean, can't we just say none of it matters, we'll always have heaven?  They'll have heaven?  Heaven trumps all? 

Obviously it's a lame excuse, yet is popular among those trying to pound that square peg of historical Christianity into the round hole of the modern secular, Marxist inspired Left.  The lameness of it should set off bells and whistles.  Especially if it occurs in the same argument in which the advocate of not caring about anything but our souls suddenly aligns with caring about our precious Democracy that, apparently, can easily include persecution of Christians.

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

Happy Birthday Olivia de Havilland

Donald McCleary has some good clips from the legendary actress.  My parents had a couple things I associated with them.  My Dad was Frank Sinatra all the way.   I was mildly aware of rock music in my younger years. My Dad did like some of the Beatles' songs, so I grew up learning to appreciate them.  He did not like Elvis.  But he was all Sinatra, and when we moved out into the boons, away from friends and community, I found myself reading the books left over by the house's previous owner - a school teacher - while listening to his collection of Sinatra, Big Band and Classical music.

My Mom, on the other hand, had two dear favorites.  One was that wacky redhead of television comedy, Lucille Ball.   The other was Gone With the Wind.  That was her all time favorite movie.  She liked others of course.  She didn't like James Cagney, Humphrey Bogart, and Edward G. Robinson. I thought I'd throw that out there.  She did remember the original Universal Frankenstein and Dracula with fondness.

But Gone With the Wind was her favorite.  When video tapes came  out, one of our first big gifts to her was a big celebratory Gone With the Wind tape feature, complete with books and music and videos and 'Making the movie' documentaries and the works.  I never saw the movie until then, and I must admit, I was impressed.  I remember students in college watching it for the first time who were also impressed by it.  When our youngest was first born, one night we swung his baby chair near the TV and plopped down with our boys to watch the entire movie.  They all - including our youngest - watched the entire film.  At the end, they were stunned at how brutal it was, how there was so much death and misery, and yet no real clear 'good guy wins in the end' finish.  It was all so, well, realistic, like life actually is.  Something they weren't used to with the movies they were growing up with.

Because I heard so much about the movie, and also grew up loving other movies like The Adventures of Robin Hood (a family favorite), The Heiress (a favorite of my boys), Captain Blood, and a host of others, I knew of Ms. de Havilland long before I had heard of some of my own generation's icons.  Her relationship with Errol Flynn was the stuff of Hollywood gossip and almost lived up to their screen personas.  But over all, a classy lady from a classy time.  Happy Birthday, and thanks for all the enjoyment we've received, and especially my Mom.


I wonder if John Adams is repenting from Heaven yet


Let's face it, we've made a mess of things.  So far the only thing Christians in America have to put on our resume is 1) watching the 2500 year long march toward freedom, liberty and Democracy waver and disintegrate under our feet and 2) stand watch during perhaps the greatest exodus from the Christian Faith in the 2000 years since the Apostles trod the earth.  Our big defense is convincing ourselves, against all logic and reality, that our heritage was the only real force of evil in the world, so everyone will be better off when it's gone the way of the butter churn. Not a great legacy if you think about it.

I sometimes think that is why presentism, and a harsh, almost cruel judgmentalism and quick condemnation of the past, has become so prevalent in our age.  When those two resume fillers are your big accomplishment as a generation, what choice do you have but find fault in those who came before?  I suppose it helps take the focus off of the stellar legacy we continue to build and our own problems we continue to ignore.

Monday, July 2, 2018

Remember all those nationwide protests against immigrant deportations under Obama?

No?  Neither do I.   Perhaps it happened.  I know the press did mention the deportations and family separations that occurred during the Obama years were sometimes covered.  Right wing and Left wing media mentioned it.  Stories here and there.  Some liberals were upset.  Sort of.  They got upset.  A bit.  c. 2014.

Of course today it's Holocaust! It's Auschwitz!  ICE is Gestapo!  Hitler/Trump!  Babies being tortured and killed!  Billions are dying!  To war!

The media does this.  Did it cover Obama's immigration deportations and the various issues, such as the separation of families back in the day?  Yeah.  Hear and there.  But this has become Puff Immigrant!  24/7!  Headlines!  Inflamed rhetoric!   Drop the most horrific adjectives!  Assume the worst motives!  Find the worst images! Rally the base!  It's time to exploit that human suffering for the cause...

And those who see the advantage of exploiting the problems snap to it and rally to the banner.  Christians, too.  They are being taught well the doctrine that the sanctity of human life stops dead where its advantage to the political Left ceases.  If Hillary Clinton was president, and all other things equal, you wonder how far down on the reporting meter this issue would be.

Oh, and as for the 'Make America Care' again signs, how about all the tears shed for those families who lost loved ones to illegal immigration?  Or even the families and children who died en route to the US?  Anything there?  I know, everyone says those families were just cheaply exploited by Trump for political gain.  So?  They're still families who suffered.  Do we really think there isn't exploitation going on now?  Should that mean we should therefore not care about immigrants?

Wouldn't it be nice if we could get anyone to say we should care equally about both?  That we should care about the Lest of These born on either side of the border? Heck, I'm not sure we can lay that claim on Pope Francis!  What's wrong with the world?