Saturday, April 19, 2014

Ending Poverty...If We Really Care About Doing That

Over at John Barron's blog, Dan has continued to chastise those of us who insist that we are living the consequences of our choices and actions.  Dan is especially demonizing of those on the right who dare suggest such a thing about the poor in this country.  It doesn't matter how many others have experiences that support the proposition.  It only matters that Dan doesn't want to hear it, and prefers that everyone give away all their stuff to the poor.  At least that is the unstated expectation, because he thinks Christ came just to tell us to do that.

Unfortunately, helping the poor and alleviating poverty are two different things, and doing whatever is necessary to point out the importance of making the proper choices in life and following through on those choices constitute the beginning of helping the poor and eventually alleviating poverty.

To that end, I offer">this video that I stole from Wintery Knight.  It's around an hour and a half long, but worth the time spent.  More to the point, anyone who claims to care about the plight of the poor are merely posturing if they do not view it and ponder deeply the facts and evidence highlighted within it.  The speaker, Jay Richards, also wrote a book on the subject and his presentation is based upon it.  I can't wait to read it.  If this video is any proof, it'll present the conservative position in a nutshell, which actually produces results.

Saturday, April 12, 2014


It was worse than I thought.  Alvin Holmes not only made an incredibly idiotic racist remark, the man with dung for brains actually put money behind it.   These two articles give details surrounding the asinine level of confidence this total buffoon has in his racist opinion of white Republicans.  I would be surprised if he did not try to welch on his wager by suggesting a specific number to satisfy his "whole bunch of whites that adopted blacks in Alabama" criterion.  How many white Alabama families with adopted minority children must there be for this cretin to pay up?

But more importantly, what does it take for Democrats to stand against such blatant misbehavior?  Two lefties showed up when I originally posted on this story and tried to suggest there is a rational explanation for Holmes' vile pronouncements.  But there's a vast chasm-like difference between understanding how white racism in American history, perpetrated by some whites, might influence the perceptions of any given person of color toward the white race, versus using that to dismiss outrageous black racism toward in the other direction.  Like the white racist, Holmes simply does not know enough white people, Republican or otherwise, to justify a blanket condemnation of white people.  This has always been my problem with anyone with prejudice against any group of people.  America was never so completely racist as to justify such a reciprocal racist attitude.

And now Holmes must savor the taste of his own foot, and will be known for the complete jackass as his comments illustrate he is until he ponies up the cash or a public apology.  Not the typical Democrat apology, but an actual apology that demonstrates true remorse for his hatred and a sincere desire to repent of his racism and instead actually judge others by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. 

Wednesday, April 09, 2014

Agenda Lies 9: How Slippery Is The Slope?

Get a load of THIS! 

The above linked article seems quite clearly to suggest that if one thing happens, such as state level enactment of laws that copy the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, then all sorts of nasty will follow.  The argument is that by allowing businesses to opt out of providing their products or services for sale to those who seek them for celebrations of homosexual "weddings", then obviously homosexuals will be discriminated against when seeking to engage in all other sorts of business, such as, for example, buying groceries.  That sounds very much like the slippery slope argument that is considered fallacious when used by opponents of pro-homosexual legislation (especially same-sex weddings--SSM).  Opponents believe, with much justification now that we're beginning to see manifestations, that other groups, such as those favoring polygamous unions, would seek legal recognition for their unions based on the same arguments that have led to the same for homosexuals. 

But here's the obvious difference the homosexual activist pretends doesn't exist:  The argument of the SSM opponent is that ANY union that does not meet the normal criteria for state licensing of marital unions (one man/one woman, not closely related, of legal age, neither currently married) fails to qualify for a license and state recognition, while no one who meets the criteria, which is the definition of marriage (legally, up until now in some states), is denied a license.  Thus, ejecting any criterion is justification for ejecting any other and really, mandates that the ejection of any other be given the same consideration since the arguments for doing so were used by the homosexuals in ejecting the criterion that had prevented the licensing of their unions.  And again, as we are now seeing the polygamous push for the same considerations, the "slippery slope" argument used by SSM opponents is clearly not fallacy at all, but coming to fruition.

However, the activist wants to insist that because a person of faith (or principle, for that matter) may discriminate against behaviors, then that will lead to that person of faith discriminating against the person who engages in that behavior.  But that would only be likely if the person engaging in whatever behavior offends the person of faith intends that every business transaction is for the purpose of enhancing an offending behavior he in which he will engage,  AND makes that intention known to the business person of faith. 

It's ludicrous and frankly, a dishonest portrayal of the intention of people of faith who wish to live out their lives and conduct business according to the tenets of their faith.  While it may be true that some would try to use a religious exemption to avoid doing business with an Irishman, one would be very hard pressed to prove that this is common amongst people of faith in general.  It just doesn't happen as seems to be the truth in every case of this nature that has been brought to light.  None of the people forced to defend their Constitutionally protected rights have demonstrated the will to discriminate against anyone simply for being who or what they are.  They refused a very specific request for a very specific reason that should be respected by the very people who insist that everyone should respect their immoral beliefs and push for legislation that forces the country to do so. 

The linked article is simply another illustration of the dishonesty so necessary in achieving the goals of the Agenda That Doesn't Exist.

Monday, April 07, 2014

Give Them What They Want

In a discussion regarding businesses forced to participate in the celebration of sin and dysfunction, a comment was posted suggesting that we give them what they want, just not how they want it.  A response to that comment was as follows:

"The photographer should have prayed about it in front of them, and she
should have prayed that God would help them see the error of their
ways... she should have just dropped down on her knees right in front of
them and started praying. And then she should offer to pray for them
during the ceremony with their guests looking on... priceless."

I don't know if this is quite the right way to go about it.  The original commenter suggested doing as little as possible to provide the best service, such as making sure the photos were blurry or some such.  Praying aloud in a manner disruptive or disrespectful to the lesbians isn't exactly good for business.  And while this may only bring upon the photographer a lawsuit of a different kind, it does provoke another idea.

I once visited a customer who had a small sign posted just inside the front door that proclaimed to visitors that they are Christians and hope that all would respect that and act in a manner respectful of their faith while doing business there.  At the time, I imagined it referred mostly to things like profane/obscene language or things of that nature.

But imagine if the New Mexico photographer had something similar at her place of business?  Might those lesbians have continued seeking the services of this photographer if the photographer's faith was known to them before they sought her services?  It's been said that there are those activists that seek out Christians in order to force them to act against their beliefs, and if true, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised considering the fascistic nature of the homosexual lobby.

But consider if a business had a notice in their business such as that of the customer to whom I referred above.  What if businesses incorporated the following in their literature, ads, business decor:

LEV 18:22

Few homosexuals in this country are unaware of that verse.  Few would even need the verse to be printed out in full knowing exactly what they'd read if they looked up "Lev 18:22".  

A homosexual or lesbian looks in the Yellow Pages or online for a baker to get a cake for their "wedding" reception and sees that verse reference in the ad.   Only the most militant would insist on giving that baker any of their business, and that only if they are willing to go to court.  But what would that do for them if the baker went ahead and took the gig?  Every correspondence between the homosexuals and the baker would include "Lev 18:22" somewhere in the text.  The baker could even say, "I'd be happy to provide a quality and delicious cake for the celebration of your sinful union.  What exactly to you have in mind.  I want nothing but to provide for your sinful celebration a cake that will please all who taste it."  or something to that effect. 

The point isn't to deny them the business to which they believe they are entitled, but to provide it for them with the constant reminder that their intentions are sinful.  The photographer, for example, could have "Lev 18:22" printed in an easy to notice manner on his camera case where the customers can see it before hiring the photographer.  Any business that normally serves the wedding industry could partake in this idea if they oppose such unions for any reason.  A non-religious person can simply post notices that they support traditional marriage or some reference to that effect. 

Now, some might reject this idea as hateful.  But they wouldn't take such an attitude with a business that has a rainbow decal on their window, or any pro-homosexual indication.  Such people don't regard it as a double standard to do so, ignoring the fact that to support one thing is to oppose the opposite. 

Part of the reason our culture has become so morally corrupted is due to what the old adage suggests when good men do nothing.  It's never too late for people of faith to step up and defend truth and righteousness.  I mean it's not like the corrupt think highly of such people anyway, so why not? 

I like this idea.  "Lev 18:22" would make a great bumper sticker.  I'll have to see about how to go about having one made.  I'll have to put up with vandalism or the nasty looks and comments like I received from some people when I first applied "nobama" stickers to my bumper in 2008 (though I got, and still get, a lot of positive comments for that).  But the culture is in desperate need of people to simply stand up and say, "This is wrong" regardless of the heat.  It's harder now because it wasn't done well enough before. 

AND, it will draw out those who are the true haters and bigots that have pushed this abomination on the culture.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Not What We've Been Led to Believe

I came across this article and found it disturbing.  Who were these subjects studied for this research?  Were they only black Republicans?  Because as we're told so often after all, Repubs are the bigots and racists.

Or perhaps, as we saw in the last post, Dan and feo will offer some lame reasoning that suggests these blacks are incapable of seeing whites as anything other than adversaries, and thus are justified for maintaining "the code".

One thing's for sure.  We will never attain true racial harmony.  It's just not possible.  Far too many people are hung up on skin color and ethnicity.  If studies like this one yield this type of understanding, what hope can we have?  I had no idea that black people felt this way about other blacks who are too friendly with white people, especially given how we are told only white people can be racist.

I have to admit, that I did not access the actual study itself.  It required a subscription or cost for the single study, neither of which I feel like purchasing.  And the Examiner indicates two numbers that seem to conflict, regarding how many people were studied.  I'm guessing the bigger number relates to the total amount of subjects, and the lesser number refers to the total number of blacks, or black who have the issue. 

As anyone who has visited this blog knows, I don't give much credence to studies with a sampling of so few.  But just the idea that ANYONE would alter their perception of one of their race simply for developing a real relationship with someone of another race demonstrates a real problem in that "anyone".  I know we often see films of white racists acting that way, but that's film and often those films are made by liberals who lack a clue.  And I have always had a real problem believing that the races are so different that we couldn't find examples of any attitude as common in one race as any other.  This study lends validity to that belief, except that it shows an attitude more prevalent among blacks.

It ain't a good attitude for any race.  Especially the human one.

Friday, March 07, 2014


What kind of person votes for idiots like this?  How info free do people have to be to still believe this is the type of person that would best represent them?  Is it any wonder race relations in this country is so bad?  Is it any wonder why there is such division between the left and right when Dems so easily stoop so low?  How does this buffoon back up such a characterization of his opponents?  Shame on anyone who would cast a vote for this idiot.

Thursday, March 06, 2014

Term Limits: Bad Idea

Former US Congressman Joe Walsh talks about it often.  Glenn Beck is a proponent.  Illinois gubernatorial hopeful, Bruce Rauner inundates us with radio commercials with it as its main theme.  Many agree with these men about it.  What is it?  Term limits.
It is often brought up that a founding father, Jefferson I believe, though it doesn’t really matter, expressed a vision of citizen politicians going to serve in the Congress for a term and then go home to live under the laws they helped craft.  This little bit of trivia is spoken of as if term limits was an intent of the founders.  I don’t know.  I don’t think so, as there is nothing mentioning being forced out of office, while the desire to serve, and the public’s desire to see a politician’s service continue, might exist.

And that’s all that really matters, isn’t it?  That is, the public’s right to choose its representatives is exactly what it means, under our form of government, to be self-governed.

that seeks to justify the call for term limits.  It begins with several points put forth to argue for term limits, and follows up with objections to term limits, each with reasons the objections supposedly don’t work.

Right from the start, we can see that the arguments in favor do not ring true.  That is to say, that the problems term limits are thought to correct are not truly corrected.  Look at the first:

”With term limits in place, Congress will be more responsible toward their constituents because they will soon be constituents themselves. They will have to live under the laws they have created while in office.”

There is no one in Congress who isn’t already supposed to be living under the laws they have created.  If they are not doing so now, how will term limits change that?  I’m not certain, but aren’t they still citizens while also legislators?  Are they somehow exempt while they are legislators from the laws they create?  If so, I have to admit that I was totally unaware that politicians are above the law.  If not, then we, as voters, should be paying attention and voting out those who think they are.  Let’s look at another:

”Members of Congress will have less time in office to develop financially beneficial commitments to lobbyists and other special interest groups, thereby undermining the threat of lobbyists being a primary influence on legislation.”
No member of Congress should be beholden to anyone but their constituents, the people they were sent to Congress to represent.  No lobbyist should have undue influence on our representatives and cannot have that influence without the representative granting that power to the lobbyist.  If a member of Congress is acting based upon lobbyist influence, it should only be on the merits of the lobbyist’s proposals, assuming the proposals are in the best interests of the people the Congressman represents.  The point above assumes lobbyist influence is always a negative for the people a Congressman represents.  But not all lobbyists are crooked or nefarious.  A lobbyist merely represents a group with shared interests and sometimes those interests are of benefit to all the Congressman represents.  The question is whether or not the lobbyist represents an interest of general benefit to the people on the one side, and that the Congressman will not act without his constituency being properly served by the proposal of the lobbyist.  Should a Congressman be found to legislate in a manner that serves the lobbyist (and the people he represents) at the cost of the Congressman’s constituents, the people should vote him out, if not have him prosecuted.  Term limits will not prevent self-serving Congressman from allowing themselves to be unduly influenced by lobbyists who do not have the people’s best interest in mind. 

In every case of the arguments in favor of term limits, the better remedy is a concerned electorate.  Term limits will not stop any of the concerns it hopes to mitigate from happening. 

At this point, I want to look at how this site deals with objections to term limits by using one example.  First the objection:

Term limits are not necessary because members of Congress must be regularly re-elected. If they are not doing a good job in office, we can simply vote for someone else.”

The response to this objection suggests that money is the key reason incumbents win re-election.  It is not.  The problem is still the voters.  If an incumbent is not performing and still wins re-election, as did Barack Obama, it is because of an electorate that will not stay informed about how a politician is doing his job.  Voter ignorance and apathy is the most important reason why all the ills term limits are meant to address exist in the first place.  Very little will change by merely limiting the number of terms anyone can serve in a given office.  When a bum is termed out, the same ignorant group of people will vote for the next bum the party puts forth to replace him.  That is to say, if the majority of voters vote Democrat, for example, they won’t necessarily vote for the Republican next time around no matter how crooked the first guy was found to be.  They’ll just assume the next Democrat will not be that crooked and vote Democrat again.  Term limits solve nothing.  Only an engaged and informed electorate can do that.