The Biden problem for Democrats

Is Biden.  His latest gaffe is one in a long line of statements that lends credibility to the growing belief that Democrats take black Americans for granted.  Worse, it could make people wonder if Democrats as much (if not more) than anyone have truly racist attitudes toward the black community. 

Biden's statements that embrace sweeping stereotypes of the black community have been unpacked before.  We needn't rehash those.  In fact, the only thing shocking about his latest statement regarding the supposed lack of diversity within the black community is that it isn't really shocking.  Not to anyone who has watched Biden over the years. 

In the 1960s, after failing to stop the Civil Rights movement, the Democratic party adopted a new strategy.  The WASP strategy.  That is, take those old attitudes about black America and replace them with 'WASP' (that's White Anglo Saxon Protestant) America.  I remember well sitting in fourth grade social studies and learning about those dark days in American history when our country was dominated by those rascally WASPs. That would have been around 1976/1977.  So already, in barely a decade, we had adopted the idea of who it is Americans should really despise.  And it was a broad enough umbrella that all types of Americans could fit under the 'oppressed by WASPs' label (I'm looking at you Catholics).

Meanwhile, almost overnight the entire black community jumped on board the Democrat bandwagon.  By the end of the 1970s, the black community could be counted on to almost always support the Democrats.  When I was majoring in Political Science in 1986, it was so flagrant that a Democratic candidate whose campaign I was working with quipped that if the Democrats nominated Hitler, 90% of blacks would refuse to vote, since they would never vote for Hitler.  That is, no matter what, they still wouldn't vote for a GOP candidate.  And that was about two decades after the Democratic Party's failed attempts to stop the Civil Rights movement.

Nonetheless, in recent years some black Americans have begun to wonder just what their investment in total fealty to the Democratic Party has yielded.  They've noticed that most of these horrible cases of cops killing unarmed blacks happen in Democratic regions.  They've noticed that the ongoing squalor, poverty, drugs, crime and dependency typically exists within cities that have been held by Democrats for generations.  They've noticed, like some religious conservatives noticed about establishment Republicans, that there is a lot of talk about what the  Democrats will do for blacks, usually around election time, but years later little has changed.  And worse, they've begun to wonder if the Democrats are just taking them for granted. 

That's why Biden's continued 'you see one black, you've seen them all' flubs are so devastating.  Clearly there is something in the back of Biden's mind that he can't help but let slip.  It's not hard to imagine that if he was a Republican, the universal consensus would be that these statements prove his racism, and his taking the black community for granted.  He can only continue to clarify what he consistently says for so long before even those who are most passionately sympathetic to his campaign begin to wonder.   And worse, it could start getting people to begin wondering about not just Biden, but about Democrats in general, and all those good, white liberals who insist they're the brave heroes rushing in to save the hapless black Americans from their real enemies over there.  

Another reason to hate cheerleaders

For a position every girl was always measured against, there have been few things you could do that brought more ridicule and lampooning than being a cheerleader.  How many movies and television shows have mocked and laughed at cheerleaders for being vain, shallow, stupid and pompous over the years?

Well, happy is it to live in American in the 21st Century!  We have a new reason to hate on cheerleaders!  At least cheerleaders in the South.  At least white cheerleaders in the South.  At least white Cheerleaders in the South who took a picture saying they loved Redneck boys with a confederate flag.  I mean, outrage has already ensued over the school not promptly throwing them off the team like they deserve.

That's called a tolerant, diverse and enlightened society by the way.

On that train of thought, has anyone noticed that the national press has not even bothered to analyze the Black Lives Movement and its claims?   Has anyone else noticed that the press in almost 100% agreement, has promoted, lauded, praised and endorsed the whole BLM and its claims?  I mean, they aren't even trying to be unbiased in this.  They are almost the marketing agency for the Left at this point.  They aren't even pretending to look into its claims.  As far as I know, there hasn't been a single news outlet to even bother with an alternative viewpoint.  

You'd have been better off celebrating communism in the 1950s than saying Black Lives Matter isn't truer than the Gospel.  And with that angular mandate, almost everyone - entertainment, sports, businesses, education, religion, even people's homes - are increasingly called upon to approach the altar and lay down the appropriate sacrifice. 

BTW the offending picture and the BLM agent seeking their eradication from the sporting program:

Not to nitpick, but I count at least six cheerleaders.  Is it only four because it is four who touched the unclean thing, or is there another reason only four are being singled out?  Curiosity on my part. 

The Feast of the Transfiguration

A nice reflection from Frank Sheed's To Know Christ Jesus, courtesy of The Catholic World Report. 

Another good set of readings from the always conveniently designed website for all things Catholic, Fish Eaters.  

Prayers for the victims of the Beirut explosion

By now, you've probably heard of the horrific explosion in Beirut.  It seems as though already a hundred victims have died, and hundreds more have been injured.  Some of those injuries are probably life threatening.  

The cause of the explosion is up for grabs, but it doesn't matter now.  This is when the humanity side of us kicks in and we offer prayers and thoughts and anything we could do on this level, simply that God will reach down and comfort those who are mourning, and embrace those who have lost everything this day. 

It's also a reminder of just how fragile we are.  No matter what the cause, nobody there imagined this would be their last day.  Nobody left home today imagining this.  Are days are like the grass after all.  We are dust.  We are here on borrowed time, and it's only God who knows when we will take our last breath.  

So God grant that peace that surpasses all understanding to those lost, those suffering, and those who will live with the grief and horror of what has passed.  And help us all not to squander a moment of the life you have given. 

The Health and Wealth gospel, Liberal style

Ah yes, the Health and Wealth gospel.  We know it well.  And sometimes we know it by other names too.  You've heard them: Health and Wealth, or Name It and Claim It, or Blab It and Grab It.   The style is well known, and generally exists within Protestant circles, off the branch loosely designated Evangelicalism.  It's characteristics are a somewhat fundamentalist, literalist interpretation of the Scriptures, with a healthy dose of modern worldly priorities, like money, wealth, success, big cars, bigger houses, or smaller houses but a life fulfilled by being fulfilled and thinking well of yourself for having a fulfilled life.  To that end, God exists to make sure this happens.   In some ways, Rick Warren't A Purpose Driven Life was simply a more theologically grounded example of this, whereby the star of the book is still me, and the end result of things is my life having purpose.

Which is really the big heresy of the movement. God is reduced to more or less a grand, cosmic Santa Clause, who wants us to be really super-happy, and will do whatever it takes for us to be happy.  Oh to be sure, no H&W preacher would condone greed or corruption or narcissism or selfishness.  Not that they will call out such things by name (unless socially acceptable to do so).  They will simply insist that our fulfillment it best served by a happy, feel good life, and God's just the god to make it happen.  Think Smilin' Joel Olsteen.

Now, anyone who had more than basic Christian Theology 101 can see the glaring flaws in this.  This is a not an approach to Christianity that works well with Matthew 9.23-24.  Not that they would deny that.  They would, again, merely see taking up one's cross as a means to an end, and that end being a happy and fulfilled life now.

Because of its popularity, especially in America, this approach has come under some  heavy fire.  I had people in my churches that lapped this sort of thing up with a spoon.  They didn't always take kindly to those who suggested that God didn't create everything in order for me to have an awesome life defined by the latest definitions of awesome.  Many more conservative and traditional - and in recent years, post-conservative - Evangelicals and Protestants spent more than a few trees writing screeds against this perversion of the Gospel of the poor and meek.   We won't even get into how those more liberal and progressive Christians have manhandled the H&W approach to Jesus.

But here's another consideration to kick around.  In looking back at my sojourn with Protestantism, and the fairly large number of progressive minded Christian leaders I rubbed shoulders with, it dawned on me that, in many ways, most of liberal Christianity is simply a variation on the H&W mindset, from a  different angle.

Years ago I served as an associate on the staff of a large, flagship church within the state convention (that's like an Evangelical diocese).   The senior pastor was someone I did admire.   He was no friend of the Al Mohler revolution.  It was also clear that his political leanings swerved left of the center lane.  Nonetheless, I found him insightful, honest and generally a good guy.

So it came as a shock when the subject of abortion came about in a class he was teaching. Since he was the father of two daughters (or was it three?), someone brought the issue of abortion up to him and where he would stand as a dad.  He answered truthfully, as he was wont to do.  He said that if one of his daughters got pregnant, he would support - perhaps even encourage - an abortion since why should she have her life and all its plans and potential derailed by an unwanted pregnancy?

Wow.  I mean, wow.  Note there was no poor, starving girl driven to abortion for food in the equation.  There was no talk of rape or anything where sexist, abusive misogynists were concerned.  His answer echoed what most girls I knew in college said about abortion: I want to be able to jump on any Tom and Harry's you-know-what and still have what I want in life, and that's success, career and a life of happy fulfillment. He didn't even pretend to wrap it up in that small percentage of abortion cases that dominate 99% of the abortion debate.  He said why should anything stand in the way of his daughters having the good life as they define it?

Now, I ask you.  How is that less "Health and Wealth" than anything Creflo Dollar would preach?  How is that any less 'it's all about your life being awesome based on your own desires' than anything Tammy Faye would say to the cameras?  Why is that any different than Joel Olsteen celebrating the Babe born in a manger from his yacht and upper class life style?

Indeed, how many progressive Christians - even Catholics - echo the same thing, but from a different vantage point?  You've heard them.  Why shouldn't people on food stamps, even if it's because of the life they have chosen, not be able to have their share of steak and caviar?  Why shouldn't I be able to have sex with who I desire?   If a woman gets pregnant, and given the horrible injustices and sexism of our patriarchal, misogynist culture, why shouldn't we assume they make the unfortunate, but completely logical, choice of aborting their babies rather than not have sex?  Heck, why shouldn't women be able to put themselves and their interests first above all other priorities?  In short, why shouldn't I be able to have my cake, eat it to, and let others do the dishes?  In other words, a life of awesome fulfillment based upon my particular definition of worldly awesome. 

How are any of those any less 'Name it and Claim It' than that old H&W gospel we all love to hate?  In fact, so many of those on the Left who are quick to blast someone like Jim Baker, or modern Smilin' Joel, stand idly by when Christians on the left side of the aisle convey the same message where sex, narcissism, abortion, and other more fleshly pursuits reign supreme.  They might miss the fact that the same mentality - it's really about the here and now more than the hereafter - pervades progressive Christianity every bit as much, if not more, than it does those limo riding, yacht sailing H&W ministers and their flocks.

It should also help us realize that for all the contempt and loathing those on the Left have for Olsteenanity, much - if not most - of modern, liberal Christianity is based on the idea that my life is what it's about, and we'll merely have to modify the Gospel to make sure it happens my way.   Because, in the end, for all of its posturing, liberal Christianity is no better suited to Matthew 9.23-24 than their more flagrant, and noticeable, Health and Wealth counterparts at a mega-church.

Yep

Why anyone would vote for Donald Trump

This:

Yep. Add to that gathering in large numbers for funerals and protesting in vast numbers when the end goal is glorification of the Leftist State.  

We live in an age where there is a flagrant hypocrisy and almost open contempt for millions of American serfs that is being displayed by our upper classes.  Trump has exposed some of it, though he himself exists among it.  Just what it will lead to is beyond my guessing.  But unless we want to go the way of the 20th century totalitarian states, we had best think about what we'er going to do and do it pronto. 

The face of the modern abortion movement

Here:

God bless and save her.  This is the side that New Prolife Catholics and Christians have all but allied with.  This is the side they say has no choice but to make the unfortunate, but completely understandable, decision to have an abortion,  Since, apparently, they accept the modern Sexual Revolution dogma that, unlike oxygen, food and water, people must have sex to live.  After all, suggesting women not indulge in the Sex culture seems never to be an option.  Plus, like anything today, depending on who you are, your sins are most definitely the fault of others who made you sin.  So the modern confessional will hear variations on 'bless me Father, for those reprehensible reprobates and evil economic policies made me sin.'

Additionally, most New Prolife Christians accept as near dogma the talking points of pro-abortion activists.  They regurgitate such slanders as pro-life advocates not caring about the poor, or doing nothing to help young mothers, or pro-life activists providing no support for expecting women.  All of which are false accusations.  I've seen nothing to suggest people opposed to abortion are any less inclined to do those things than those who support abortion.  The same goes for charity among conservatives versus liberals, but that's for another post.

In addition to these capitulations, another common narrative for the good New Prolife Christian (or Seamless Garment Catholic) is that women do not desire abortion.  They don't want it.  In fact, they'll go so far as to talk in absolutes and say no woman would ever want an abortion.  This is denial almost to the 'what camps in the German woods?' level.

The culture of death is a hungry god, and seeks more sacrifices on its altar, and we're serving them up in ways that would shame the Aztecs on a good day.  To that end, it has successfully met the growing skittishness toward abortion that younger Americans are developing with encouraging others to celebrate and praise the glories of aborted babies and all things abortion.  Be proud of your abortion!  Or so goes the new marketing campaign for Murder, Inc, as it was once referred to by Catholics across the Catholic blogosphere.

So while there is good news - though scant and heavily qualified - on the war against the modern infanticide that STEM built, there is heavy push back.  Those New Prolife Catholics and Christians aligned with this heresy, wrapped in a blasphemy, promising slaughter for debauchery, and delivering only tyranny and the outward persecution of Christ's Church, cannot continue to don blinders for the cause.  Continuing to say no woman wants abortions or celebrates an abortion culture isn't just denying camps in the German woods.  It's denying the camps five years after they were liberated.

Disclaimers and Dragons

Products of our capitulation 

So my boys pointed me to an all too common story about the makers of Dungeons and Dragons going woke and including disclaimers on republished material. This is important in our modern era, in which we stoke our self-righteous embers by heaping endless contempt on those reprehensible reprobates who had the temerity of not existing in our current moment of 'superior to God righteousness.'

Apparently there was push back, especially among older fans of the game.  Youngsters, weened on the superiority of Communist totalitarianism and taught that freedom of speech and religious liberty are stealth Nazi concepts, were quite fine with such an apology from the new game wizards.  Nonetheless, those old timers warned that this would lead to slicing and dicing the materials and republishing them with changes to fit the morally superior wokeness of modern Dystopian liberalism.

Not so, laughed the youngsters (and some older ones who know the eternal infallibility of the dogma of progress).  No such thing would occur since, obviously, that would be rank censorship in a way to make Stalin blush.  All that would happen would be an addition of the obligatory disclaimer that those who came before us were simply inferior to our majestic awesomeness.

Well, that didn't take long.  Wizards of the Coast, the company that now owns the D&D material, has announced it will, in fact, be issuing heavily 'redacted' versions of the old sexist, racist, and generally Nazi infused material from those racists and sexists from TSR of old.  In a matter of weeks.  That's not bad.

Normally the lies of liberalism take some time to unfold.  It took about a decade after the first push for gay marriage, and the concerns that people could be punished for opposing it, before people began to be punished for opposing it.  It took about a decade and a half for those concerned that hate crime legislation could lead to a social mentality of censorship and thought crimes to be proven right.

But liberalism's eternal quest to live up to the slippery slope like nobody ever imagined was particularly speedy in this case.  Why Wizards of the Coast did this, I don't know.  Like so much of liberalism seems to be, was it lies meant to gain ground?  Or did they mean it when they said it wouldn't go there, but in doing so failed to fully appease the Twitter lynch mob and the dystopian fascists yearning for a new totalitarianism?  In which case Wizards buckled because the only thing that really matters is the bottom line.  I just can't say. Either way however, the results are the same.

Again, this was never my cup of tea.  I was not a fantasy fan when D&D was all the rage.  By the time I got interested in fantasy, the great Fantasy Renaissance as I called it, along with the D&D fad, had run their course.  Nonetheless, my sons are in it, and like so many things in our society, they are miffed at the fact that almost every day the Left seems to gain more ground in its quest to turn our country - if not the world - into more than Orwell ever dreamed of when imagining his dystopian nightmare.

Loyola University Stalinizes Flannery O'Conner

Rod Dreher has the lowdown.  Yet again, the young Bolsheviks demand condemnation, eradication and destruction.  And once again the older generation soils underwear and capitulates in kind.  I've not seen anything like this.  Sure, we've been weaned on this for some time, and the move toward totalitarianism has been making strides under the oft laughed at and belittled notion of Political Correctness.

But for it to turn over so quickly.  The Charleston Shooting was the beginning.  When we went from 'remove Confederate flags from state houses' to 'eradicate anything remotely to do with the South', you could see trouble brewing.  When the whole was predicated on 'we judge entire societies, ethnic groups and do so mercilessly and without humility for those reprobates who had the temerity not to be born in our righteously superior age', we should have seen the warning flags.

The election of Donald Trump blew the lid off Pandora's box.  Had the Left not wanted the destruction of the Christian West and America, it would have regrouped and reconsidered its strategies that led to such a disastrous and humiliating defeat.  But now we know the goal of the Left is nothing less than a communist styled totalitarianism built on ever changing forms of bigotry, racism, prejudice, judgmentalism, censorship, thought control, persecution and tyranny. 

The shocking thing is the speed with which this took off.  Chart it on a graph, and it's literally exponential growth. Almost every day now we judge and condemn without mercy or humility a growing mountain pile of anyone or anything that came before.  We destroy, we erase, we ban, we censor.  And those who do it are from every corner of the country, including conservatives, traditionalists, Christians and just about anyone else afraid of what has already seized our country.

Again, thinking on all the interviews and biographies and histories I've read about the  various terror states of the last century, one thing always unites the testimonies.  Whether China, or Russia, or Germany, or Italy, or any nation that became swept up in these socialist and communist revolutions, there was always one common lament: they never saw it coming because it happened so fast.  One day it was Mother Russia, two weeks later almost anything to do with Russia was being dismantled.  One day it was the German people, the next day it was the Nazis, and you had best fall in line or else.

What we are seeing happen is what those hapless fools of the last century witnessed, and we're watching it happen just as speedily.  It might be too late at this point.  The Marxists have all of the major power centers of society, and have no compunction about using lies and censorship and attack in order to stop any who deviate.  And they're enjoying a growing number of Americans scrambling to jump on board lest they, too, end up in the Left's crosshairs.  So we'll see.  But whatever, it doesn't look good.

Confusions of a seeker sensitive pope

So a label is born.  Mark Shea is the king of Catholic labelers.  From Gun Cult to Christianist, he's never at a loss for inventing a term that, in the long run, seems to mean nothing more than 'people who don't think like me.'  It's a passive aggressive way of attacking people without accountability.  He can declare a group the 'yadahoohoos', and launch endless attacks and accusations at them, accusing them of anything and everything under the sun.  When you object, or insist it's incorrect, he can scurry behind the helpful shield of obfuscation and insist if the shoe fits, or if it doesn't apply then don't worry, or your objections prove you're guilty, and on and on.

Well, he's now coined a new term: Qatholics.  It would seem to be another variation on 'people (in this case Catholics) who don't think like he thinks'.  Take that for what it's worth.  We'll call that nothing new under the sun.  But he says something in this that was brought to my attention, and I thought it's worth pointing out.  He talks of the 'Qatholics' when it comes to Pope Francis.  And what is one thing this new breed of 'labeled groups' does?  He says this:

"Which brings us to the Qatholic phenomenon again. Because Qatholic, as distinct from Catholic, faith is all about exclusion and elitism. That’s why it hates this pope. That’s why it wants so desperately to turn the Church from a sacrament of salvation for all into an exclusive club for some.

As I have said repeatedly, Francis is incredibly easy to understand. The Qatholics who denounce him as “confusing” aren’t confused by him. They just don’t want to hear what he says. The entirety of Francis’ mission can be summarized in these words: “He has preached good news to the poor.”  

That’s it. That’s all you need to know. He is about evangelism and, in particular, evangelism to the Least of These."

First, appealing to confusion where Pope Francis is concerned is charity on the part of many.  Catholics I know who say they are confused about Pope Francis do so because they don't want to take what he says at face value.  Not because they hate evangelism or the poor, but because they listen to the words he uses. 

At face value, if you set aside confusion as an excuse, then what Pope Francis says appears quite different than what the first 2000 years of popes said.  At face value, it turns out the Church was wrong about eternity like it has been about a  growing list of other topics.  It turns out one religion is as good as another, and your relationship to Christ is irrelevant where salvation is concerned.  It appears as if the problems of the world have little to do with the Spirit, and much to do with socioeconomic issues and injustices, typically as defined by decidedly Marxist inspired liberal socialist theories and policies.  It looks a lot like any sin embraced by progressives, while technically sin, have little to do with one's sanctification or salvation.  In fact, it looks a lot like a Catholic version of those old liberal Protestant theologians who realized it was time to admit the Christian Faith was pretty much just an old myth that  modernity insists is in need of serious re-imagining.

That would be taking him at face value.  And there are those who do.  Liberal Catholics, who have jettisoned this old Body and Blood and Purgatory and Demons and Devils rubbish, seem to take Pope Francis at his word.  Most embrace modern liberal values, and see Pope Francis - taken at face value - as a great validator of those views.  Likewise those progressives and liberals outside of the Catholic Faith also take him at his word, and see a pope struggling to tear down the stupid, bigoted religion of Catholicism and rebuild it in the superior image of modernity.  They take him at face value.

So those who wave the flag of 'confusion' are being charitable.  They're saying what they hear is so egregiously opposed to anything historical Catholicism ever taught, that they're praying it's lost somewhere in the translation of the messaging.  They lack the credulity to take Pope Francis at face value and insist there is nothing new and it's all good old Catholicism the way grandma used to make.  That is why, in my experience, those Catholics appeal to confusion.

But to the bigger point. I've seen Mark use his statement about Pope Francis and evangelism's primacy several times.  Here's my concern.  As a former Evangelical, I saw the problems that arose from that same 'evangelism is all that matters' attitude.  It's greatest expression was found in the movement known as 'Seeker Sensitive Churches'.  I won't go into the history of that, and the myriad problems that arose.

Suffice it to say, that's why we have churches in Protestantism that look like concerts in a movie theater.  Seeker Sensitive Churches merely said that evangelism is all that matters, everything else is on the chopping block to make it happen.  The results speak for themselves.

That, to me, is not what Catholicism is all about.  Catholicism is both/and, not either/or.  Evangelism doesn't get to trump what it is we are evangelizing them to.  That's where Seeker Sensitive Churches went wrong.  So desperate were they to grow their churches, they ended up throwing their churches out the window to grow them.  What was left was a hollow shell of a church that often looked more like a musical festival at an Oprah Winfrey convention than anything found in the history of Christianity.

It could be that Mark is right, and the economic and political focus of Pope Francis is merely his way to reach out to the world.  Perhaps he sees the Marxism, the liberalism, the secularism, the anti-Christian bigotry, and has decided the best way to reach out is to modify or reform the Church and get rid of all those bells and whistles that our sophisticated moderns find repulsive.  It might  be that he feels the need to bend over backwards and mitigate or downplay all those parts of Catholicism which moderns reject or despise.  Maybe he feels the need to present a Catholicism that is acceptable to the powers that be who reside in the halls of influence in the modern world.

Perhaps.  If he does, then he'll learn what those strands of Evangelicalism are only now beginning to realize, that if you throw out anything the world rejects in order to reach the world, you'll end up with nothing to reach it for.

So perhaps that's it.  Pope Francis is the seeker sensitive pope, following the strategies of old Boomer era Evangelicals, whereby evangelism is all that matters, is priority one, and all other priorities are rescinded.  If so, then no confusion needed.  Just concern, since we have already seen where that strategy will lead, and it's not a net victory for the Gospel in general, and won't be for Catholicism in particular.

UPDATE NOTE: It was brought to my attention that there is no link to Mark's article.  No there isn't.   Mark and Mark's article really isn't the point as much as the point he makes.  At this point I don't go to any of Mark's sites.  There were too many cases of near heretical teachings, not to mention the sinful bilge and blasphemies that came to define too many of his comments sections.  As a result, when someone sends me something I think warrants an answer, I have no intention of linking to a site I find a near occasion of sin. So it wasn't an accident.  It was intentional.

Liberals attack black doctor

Wow, it is easy:

Just like people who criticize George Soros only because he is Jewish - and therefore they expose their vile antisemitism.  Or people who criticize Colin Kaepernick only because he's black and they're obviously racist.

So clearly the fact that an entire cadre of doctors appears at an impromptu press conference, and the only one that most have attacked is black, I think we can draw some obvious conclusions!  Not only have they attacked the substance of what she said, they have attacked her.  They have mocked her religious beliefs, they have twisted statements and assaulted her credibility as a person beyond merely a doctor.  I mean, they have skinned her.

And she's about the only one being attacked in such manner.  And she is black.  Nigerian no less.  It's worth noting I've learned first hand that good, white liberals have little tolerance for all those black Africans who don't accept the leftist narrative of America as racist Nazi state giving black Americans no choice but to live down to the lowest of expectations.  So it might be the African part more than the black part that has drawn the fire.

Or there could be  a substantive issue at hand.  Maybe there are facts involved and she was the most prominent individual there, and the backlash is based on a disagreement over facts and details.  But who are we kidding.  If this was everything the same except conservatives and a black liberal doctor, what would those same liberals and left wing outlets be accusing conservatives of doing?

The Left cheats and has cheated for years.  It's time to call them out. Either back off the slick accusation of bigotry anytime someone disagrees with a liberal, or accept that  all those trashing this woman have exposed their obvious racial biases.  One set of rules here.  Not two separate ones.

When scientists strike a nerve

Whenever they don't conform to the leftist line of thinking. 

So all of Social Media - and even MSM outlets today - have exploded over some press conference by some doctors challenging the majority opinion regarding Covid-19.  They aren't the first medical pros I've seen question the majority opinion.  And since the majority opinion includes that wonderful observation that large outdoor gatherings can lead to spikes in Covid-19 - unless you're doing it for Black Lives Matter, count me skeptical about lionizing the majority opinion as the same as truth.

In fact, to be honest, almost all we know about this virus is what good old horse sense would have said before we knew about the virus: avoid close contact, isolate yourself, if you get worse see a doctor, keep clean and practice good hygiene, and basically avoid those who are vulnerable since they, as in most cases, will be particularly susceptible to severe reactions to an infection.  Without doctors we could figure that out.  Almost everything else has been contradicted, changed, modified, or in some ways shown to be false or at least incomplete, often without clear and concise information that isn't challenged by other professionals.  So forgive me if I don't just belch "Science!" and think that's the end of the debate. 

But this conference hit a nerve, and almost overnight it turns out the doctors in question are, in fact, the most stupid, evil, worthless, wacked out, idiotic, religious fanatics and frauds and quacks and liars and partisan hacks you ever saw.  In just days the Internet has been flooded with pieces, like here, here and here eviscerating them.   Meanwhile, mainline outlets have come out and all but said they're wrong, they've lied, and Trump is again guilty of spreading false information.

Sigh.  To be honest, I don't know.  Again, all we seem to 'know' of this pandemic is what old timers would have arrived at without no more than an elementary education.  Almost everything else has been modified, dismissed or proven wrong. Or we're waiting for that grand breakthrough that science has done on occasion so well over the years.  Therefore I'm not wading into what the doctors say or not, and which is right or wrong.  I'm not a doctor, and there is no way to tell.

I certainly won't, however, let the press's character assassination influence me.  That's one thing the press does now, and that's act in the person of the Left's Secret Police (think Brett Kavanaugh).  Raise your head and challenge the leftist narrative and you better not have been less than perfect in your life.  The press will find the slightest imperfection and throw it out to expose you and hopefully destroy you.  If you're on board the good ship Marxist, of course, there's no such scrutiny.  For all I know, Dr. Fauci ran guns to communist rebels or was master of a child sex slave operation.  I know nothing about Dr. Fauci except what the press has focused on, and that's just enough to nominate him for Fourth Person of the Holy Trinity.  Because, at the end of the day, Dr. Fauci says what the Left clearly wants to hear (personally I'm sure he's a fine person in a difficult situation who had best be careful about the intoxicating lure of media adoration).

I just know that when the Left/Press reacts this swiftly and this brutally, something important happened.  I'm not saying the doctors aren't quacks. For all I know they got their medical licenses through a mail in service from Bob's Medical School and BBQ Pit.  I just know there is only one reason why Dr. Fauci has been lauded as a rock star who is only slightly lower than the angels, while in a matter of a day or two, I've learned these people are like the Waffen SS but without the whimsy.  That alone is enough to make me pay closer attention in the coming weeks.

Thank goodness parents are not spanking their children

Before our kids developed the mass murder approach to problem solving

Yep.  Apparently, once again we find that fewer parents than ever are spanking their kids.  That number has been dropping for decades.  The majority of parents 50 years ago spanked and used other forms of traditional means for raising children.  By the 1990s, that number had hit the halfway point, being around 50%.  Today, it's down to about 35% of parents still spanking.

And isn't the world a better place for it! The world of doctors and experts rejoice, of course, for they have been preaching for years that parents should not use negative reinforcement, but should use positive reinforcement.  You know, the Time Out approach. 

Here's my thing.  As I've said in other areas, I believe never before have those who would reclaim a traditional understanding of Creation, and its subsequent values, had the chance to make the argument like today.  Consider this. These 'experts' in child behavior laud parents for listening to them and changing traditional wisdom where raising children are concerned.  And in what context do they do this? 

That would be a world where drugs and drug addiction, in addition to mental health crises, among youth and children are at all times highs.  A world in which teen suicide is at its highest rates ever, and for the first time suicide is a leading cause of death for children as young as ten years old.  Did you get that?  Suicide is now a leading cause of death for children as young as ten!  That's my youngest's age.   We won't even discuss that we are having a national dialogue about arming teachers because of the all too common mass murdering happening in our schools between students.  Nor does it count the rise in violent crimes in general among our youth. 

It takes a certain level of moxie to say 'ever since you've listened to our new game plan, we've had one losing season after another ... great job!'  But that's just what is happening here.  And it's happening beyond just the world of child psychology.  How many things today are we told the experts have been right about that a plain and common sense appraisal screams otherwise?

My wife and I say that nothing makes you question the 'child experts' more than having kids fourteen years apart.  When our youngest was born, it seemed as if half of the things those experts told us we must do for our newborns in the 90s were the opposite by 2009.  The most glaring was the idea in the 90s that newborns must be forced to sleep on their sides to avoid death by SIDS (that's Sudden Infant Death Syndrome - meaning babies die and we don't know why).  When our youngest was born, they said newborns should be forced to sleep on their backs to avoid death by SIDS.  We brought up putting him on his side and were told no way, that could be fatal.  So what could kill our newborn in 2009 is just what you told us we had to do in 1995? 

We still live in the 'scientists, experts and researchers rock!' world where we assume coffee must be bad for you since the new research suggests last week's research about the health benefits of coffee is wrong.  And we do that with, well, everything.  Not just medical, not just behavioral, and not just dealing with children.

I'm not saying grab clubs and start beating you kids.  To be honest, I've seldom spanked our kids, saving it for the most extreme punishment for potentially life and death violations on their parts.  For that matter, I seldom yell or raise my voice.  But is it possible that at least something has gone wrong in our approach to  child rearing?   Certainly it wouldn't only be this one subject.  For instance, I'm not saying we ignore the impact of both mom and dad scurrying into the workplace and letting minimum wage workers raise our kids in their formative years and the impact that could have.  But is it worth at least considering the possibility that following the experts on this hasn't led to a better world for our kids? 

Or is it just Trump's fault?  I guess it could be that.

A radical thought about Biden's VP pick

So my family was discussing politics, as they are wont to do.  One of them floated the possibility that Biden - who MUST pick a black woman as VP, black and woman being the only two things that matter - will pick Michelle Obama. 

Hmmm.  I wonder.  The Obamas were all but worshiped by the press during the Obama years.  No human suffering or death was enough for the press to scrutinize Obama.  No scandal got anywhere near Pennsylvania Avenue.  Obama was 90% of the time lauded and praised, and on the rarest of occasion, humbly asked why he wasn't perfect.  More than that, the press all but sanctioned the accusation that anything short of deifying Obama was tantamount to Hitler inspired racism.

Michelle Obama, beyond her husband, received more veneration and adoration than the Blessed Mother.  Every story about her oozed with near religious devotion.   She was, as far as I know, the only First Lady to get 100% positive press from the "news media."  To that end, poll after poll has found her popularity somewhere between The Beatles and God.

So you never know.  Power is clearly not something that the Obamas shrink from.  The humiliating defeat of Obama's Secretary of State, attempting to ride firmly on his coattails, had to have been a major hit.  Ever since 1988, the "news media" and the Left (but I repeat myself) have been trying to elevate a Democratic president to the point where his VP would then sail into the White House with the same ease that Bush did with Reagan.

So we'll see.  It's not out of the ballpark.  Remember, 2020 was the year the Left declared war on America so that Trump would be defeated.  It's willing to turn Democratic strongholds into demilitarized zones of arson, violence, destruction and death.  It's willing to destroy the lives of millions of Americans.  It's willing to throw millions of poor under the bus.  It's willing to turn as many millions of Americans against each other as possible.  I'd say propping Michelle up as the first truly immaculately conceived woman in history that she may also be the first female president - for how long would Biden last as president? - isn't the craziest theory I've heard.

Prayers

This is sad, a parent's worst nightmare.  I know little about golf and, unless the press is hyping someone like Tiger Woods, I know nothing of those who play it.  I tried it once in life.  My first swing made the other guys think I was a ringer who had lied about my lack of experience.  The rest of the game validated my initial claim.  That was it.

So I don't know Camilo Villegas or his family. I just know that when made aware that a parent has lost a child, for whatever reason, it's cause to lift him, his spouse, and all involved up in prayer.  May the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, cover their minds and hearts at this time in Christ Jesus.  And may God receive young Mia Camilo into His loving, everlasting arms.

Senator Tom Cotton is correct

Under no circumstances should the "1619 Project" be distributed to public schools.  It is so filled with errors and lies it isn't funny.  Just from it's headline punch that in 1619 slavery came to America.  Hello.  Slavery was universal and was in the Americas long before the first Europeans showed up.  Such an anti-American propaganda piece should never be in our media, much less our schools.  If, in fact, truth and facts matter for anything.

Anyone who values truth and opposes lies would have to agree.  This is a Marxist hit piece, designed to increase the calls to burn America - and its corresponding values and freedoms - to the ground.  It's driven by the Presentism that now saturates our approach to history.  A person who opposes Senator Cotton's sane and obvious desire to avoid teaching our students erroneous narratives is a living example as to why we bend over backwards to keep our son in homeschool. 

How Orwellian can you get?

Peaceful? 

This is why I don't use Twitter

"That might work ..."

And no other sane person of goodwill should either.  Here.

I don't have an account, though I can see the spiritual, mental and moral carnage.  The reasons for not using it should be plain.  One problem is that it has reduced the capability of actual discourse. In the minds of moderns, to have a response that is more than a couple sentences is to be long-winded.  We won't even get into a couple of paragraphs worth of discourse. This has conditioned otherwise educated people to accept slogans and bumper stickers as holy writ with no explanation needed (hence BLM or Systemic Racism).  It's also drawn out the worst in humanity and almost sanctified it, which isn't hard to see by even spending ten minutes at the digital dump.

It's almost frightening that Twitter is one of the go-to sources for our modern "News Media".  Though not surprising.  Twitter has, after all, almost completely resurrected the lynch mob, the witch hunt, the book burnings, censorship, thought crimes and a revamped Master Race mentality all on one platform.  While I'm sure not all who go there fall victim to this, I can't help but notice the majority I've read end up living down to the bilge.

Bonus excerpt:

People are no longer allowed to simply exist. You must dive head-first into the meat-grinder of progress and justice, or else you are as guilty as the most despicable super-villain on Earth. We live in a post-forgiveness age. Everyone is to be treated as a superposition of the worst transgressions they have committed in their entire lives with no room for improvement or personal growth. 

How many years have I been saying we're moving toward a post-forgiveness world?  The whole leftist iconoclasm is based on increasing the number all defining unforgivable sins that apply only to the Christian West and America (and is fully endorsed by a growing number of our brave Christian leaders).  Our approach to almost anything today is the same.  As I've said, we generation of fools are about to learn the difference between a civilization founded on the highest ideals that continually fails to live up to them, and one founded on the lowest and most heinous of ideals and succeeds.

RIP Olivia de Havilland

On the set of the now reviled Gone With the Wind

Today the world lost perhaps the last of a bygone world.  Olivia de Havilland, the celebrated Academy Award winning actress from Hollywood's Golden Age, has died at the age of 104.

She was a bright star who managed to have her name in some of the most iconic movies of any age.  She also lived long enough, sadly, to see them maligned.  From the charge of Nazi Racism aimed at her most successful film, to charges of the entire era being a cover for white supremacy, I wonder what she thought.

Her relationship with Errol Flynn was legendary.  The two made enough films together that you could be forgiven for believing they were a married couple off screen.  Their close relationship led to a powerful on screen chemistry.  Flynn, a bad boy whose antics would shock even modern connoisseurs of 21st century pron culture, was smitten with her by all accounts. Being a child of old world values, however, she maintained an intimate friendship - but no more. 

She was married twice, her first husband dying of lymphoma.  Her second marriage did end in divorce, but she maintained a close relationship for the sake of her child.  Later, as he was dying, she helped take care of him.  She never married after that. 

Like many in Hollywood of that era, she identified as an FDR liberal and fought for causes near and dear to that period's understanding of liberalism.  Like Reagan and a few others, however, she also came to see the growing stranglehold that  communists were having on Hollywood and the greater popular culture. 

As McCarthyism pushed so many into bed with those who would wave the hammer and sickle  banner, she became a shrinking minority who still clung to the old ways, the old values and the old priorities.  Like Reagan, she realized the threat of the pro-Soviet Hollywood movers and shakers, one that she sadly was able to live long enough to witness played out.

Like many from that age, my boys know her and can rattle off quite a few of  her films.  Their favorite, as far as she is concerned, is the drama The Heiress.  Seeing it on TCM years ago, they realized then that brutal rhetoric does not have to be delivered in fist fights, yelling and expletives.  Her father's dressing down of her (delivered brilliantly by the late Ralph Richardson) smacked the boys in the face when they realized that, for all the flare and overproducing in similar films today, that's about the 'coldest smack' they had ever seen.

So RIP Ms. de Havilland.  Such a long and rich life is worth more than a blog post.  A Christian herself, may she find peace in the arms of God that is so lacking in this vale of tears.