A Very Merry Christmas To All!!!

It's about 12:45 AM and Santa hasn't arrived yet.  I need to talk to him about those reindeer droppings on my roof last year.

We went to an afternoon service Christmas Eve before traveling into the city for dinner at the home of my brother-in-law.  The pastor's sermon was based on 1 Timothy 1:15

"Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance:  Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners---of whom I am the worst."

It is, of course, that section I emboldened, the point of His coming.  It was the purpose of His having been born 2000-some years ago that we celebrate His birth every December 25th.  There's no Easter without Christmas.

Anyway, the pastor suggested greeting people with the emboldened part during these holy-days rather than "Merry Christmas".  The associate pastor looked forward to employing that verse in response to those who say "Happy Holidays".

To all who visit here, may God richly bless you.  Merry Christmas.

Bulls 93 Bucks 86

Always good to see the Bucks fall to the Bulls.  I believe this makes nine in a row.  Bulls also have all time series lead.

Not really happy with the overall situation despite the late defensive surge, which is pretty much a staple.  Turnovers still too high.  Shooting percentage still too low, though Hamilton kept it from being too bad.   Heinrich's scoring average is crap, which isn't helped by the few shots he takes.  But those he does take are usually wide open misses.  Luol Deng also seems to have lost that mid-range jumper that was pretty much automatic last year.  They clearly, as a team, haven't yet found their identity and chemistry, though they seem to be showing flashes of what they could be.  I'd like to see the rookie, Teague, out on the floor a bit more, but it seems that will take a blowout game, either losing by a ton OR winning by a ton.

The Bucks have some great guard play, and Brandon Jennings was killing us.  For a while he seemed unable to miss and worse, able to always get separation for a clean look at the hoop.  The high pick and roll was a winner for them until the Bulls finally realized the pick wasn't rolling.  Too bad Jennings suffered that ankle injury in the last minute of the game, as I would have loved to see how they adjust for the Monday game at the UC.  Of course, he might not be badly hurt, but they did carry him off the court.  It would be a major tough break for the Bucks to lose this kid for even one game, even though it would mean a tenth straight win for the Bulls over this team.  But I prefer to see the Bulls beat a team with the opponent's best on the floor.  Far more satisfying as a fan. 

What Can I Say? I'm Shocked!!!

Yeah, shocked.  Shocked that stupidity reigns supreme in this nation.  I mean, really...the first time around, one could understand the emotion attached to the notion of electing our first black president (I could have sworn they said that was Bill Clinton).  It was too much to ask to let that slip by without any sense of when another chance might come along.  It might have been then or never, as if it was all that important to risk the following four years over it.

Yeah, that was shocking, too.  Here was a guy with no track record, no accomplishments...at least none that anyone ever highlighted...and at least two clear examples of having far less than the brilliance so often attributed to him:  his objection to the Born Alive Infant Protection proposals and his radio interview demonstrating his incredibly nutty views on the US Constitution.  His associations were incredibly suspect and with all that and with all the rest not mentioned, he was a Chicago politician.  So much to suggest that it would be stupid to even nominate such a man, say nothing of voting for him.

Yeah, that was stupid enough.

But now, after establishing just how impotent he is, just how poor a leader, just how bad a president, even after providing in his first campaign and shortly after what would justify a one term proposition and following through to deliver that very justification, he is actually re-elected?  I'm ashamed at how stupid so many of my fellow Americans are.

The stupid came in three different flavors:

1.  Those who bought into the Obama cult of personality, who never took the time to truly examine his actions and the effects of them.  Some of these people are just mindless followers of the first black president and feel he can do no wrong, especially if he gives them stuff and sticks it to the rich guy they don't even know.  These are the people who would vote for him because he's a Democrat and not a Republican and no other really substantive, thoughtful, reality-based reason.

2.  These are the non-voters.  They are those who like to say that voting makes no difference, that it's all rigged but in reality are just too freakin' lazy to really take any time out of their lives to pay attention.  Their non-action is the most heinous action for daring to believe such nonsense and putting it forth as a valid reason for not voting.  I know too many people like this.  They guarantee that they make no difference.

3.  Third party voters.  I don't know what it would take for any third party to be a viable option that has more than an ice cube's chance in hell to win the presidency.  That is, of course it would take at least fifty-one percent of the vote, but what I mean is, what would it take to muster up those kinds of numbers?   As they never have more than a few percentage points at most, they aren't so very little better than non-existent and a vote for one of them makes no statement of any consequence, makes no noise anyone can hear and is completely wasteful.  All it does is hurt the chances of the candidate for which one would have voted if none but the two major parties were allowed and one had to pick one of them.  That is to say, most, if not all third party voters lean left or right.  A lefty voting third party only hurt Obama and helped Romney by not voting for Obama.  That's the only tangible effect of a third party vote.  It is stupid to think that such votes have any other value but to screw candidate of the two major parties closest in ideology to the third party voter.  In the case of this election, it got us Obama for another four years.  The time for voting one's principles is the primaries.  The time to vote to save the country from the worse scenario possible was just lost to that worse scenario.  Thanks.

I know people of each group.  I'm ashamed of and for all them.  This was a no-brainer, but that expression does not mean one removes one's brain and then does something incredibly stupid.  It's supposed to mean that one needn't have to use a brain to see just who the better choice was.

May God forgive everyone of them.  I wonder if He can.

More From The Cornucopia

Gentle readers,

As you know, I have a new series to which I will add new installments as the mood strikes me and time allows.  It is called, in general, "From the Cornucopia" and features observations, critiques and commentaries based on what I have read at "What's Left In The Church" from my blog roll list of left-leaning blogs.

In this case, I encourage any who can stomach the thought, to visit this particular post and peruse it and the ensuing comments.  I'm not sure what I find more fascinating: the wacky points made in the post, or the wacky response to comments I posted.

My comments, of course, are in reference to the post and the general point being made about "nincompoops" attempting to comment on matters of science.  But there follows at least one blatantly goofy point regarding reproductive matters that is put forth as a serious response to pro-life arguments.  It tends to make an incredible nincompoop of the host actually, but he still tries to defend the notion, along with his boy.  Worse, they view my more logical understanding of the matter with no small measure of incredulity.

Now, I know my like-minded readers are not keen on the idea of spending another nano-second at this particular blog.  I understand their reluctance and am saddened they do not derive the same joy I do in exposing the expressions of sophisticated thought so common there for the delusions of grandeur they are.  But it really is a typical attitude of the leftist mind that is so commonly on display.  That is to say, if one truly wishes to understand what a common leftist looks like, there can be few better examples than this particular blog.

At the same time, I have no issue with those visitors not of like mind to check it out and return with their impressions and explain one of two things (assuming agreement with the host of that blog):

1.  Where a scientific point is discussed, what makes their argument correct and mine not?

2.  What demonstrates a closed mind and how could that possibly be mine and not theirs (and specifically, Geoffrey's)?

All honest observations and comments are welcomed and hoped for from virtual friend and foe alike.

More Women Stuff

Just continuing with the previous theme of women and what moves them to vote one way or the other, I offer a couple of links. More will be added as I come across them. Here Here

Why Would Any Woman Vote For Romney?

The title of this post comes from a Facebook post by someone I know. This person linked to an article like this one, regarding Romney's position regarding eliminating taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood. The recent Democratic Party Convention spent an inordinate amount of time ranting about a woman's right to choose to kill her unborn child. They had speakers, like the idiotic Sandra Fluke, to whine about the evil Republican desire to deny them contraceptives and abortions. It seems the left is heavily invested in defending one's right to abdicate responsibility and damn it, the government must pay whatever it costs to do so. All that matters is that we can have sex any time with whomever we want and to hell with the consequences, all of which are to be shared equally by all, including those who act in a mature and responsible manner despite their own innate desires. So anyway, while I'm trying to decide how best to answer this question (as well as finding the time to do so whilst working over ten hours per day), the Weekly Standard was kind enough to run a four page article in their Sept 10 issue entitled, "Can This Be What Women Want?" It turns out that, according to polls, women aren't all that concerned about using tax money for Planned Parenthood or demanding coverage of contraceptives. No. They're more interested in the protection of their right to choose which job offer to accept, except that there are few jobs from which to choose. Damned if the ladies aren't concerned about the economy and jobs. It seems abortion "rights" isn't high on their list of important concerns. Who'd a-thunk it? Well, no one who buys in to the Democratic narrative that suggests a Republican war on women and uses Romney's position against tax-payer funding of Planned Parenthood as an example. It seems, then, that the answer to the question is "Women would vote for Romney because they want jobs, a better economy, financial security to allow them to take care of themselves and their families." Or perhaps we should ask, "What kind of woman would vote for Romney?" It would be one for whom tax money for abortions and contraceptives is a decidedly impractical, if not immature, issue on which to choose a candidate. Even if we were to buy into the notion that birth control pills are the best way to deal with non-birth-control-related health issues suffered by some women, they're still only about nine bucks at WallMart. Before I go any further, I think it is important to point out very clearly that what is being discussed here is not outlawing abortion or contraception, but merely denying funding of these things with taxpayer monies. The Sandra Flukes of the world, AKA, the typical woman would wouldn't vote for Romney because of his stance against federal funding of Planned Parenthood, demand that the rest of us join in and facilitate their immoral behavior with our tax dollars. Pregnancy is 100% preventable without contraception and thus, abortion does not require funding assistance from those of us who understand and recognize the incredible immorality of snuffing innocent life. And there exists no women's health issue for which ONLY birth control pills are the solution. Therefor, there is no legitimate reason to demand that the taxpayer, the insurance companies or private corporations or companies must provide for these things. (As to the health issues where birth control pills are prescribed, how can the tax payer be certain sexual activity won't still take place during the period such treatment is ongoing? Birth control pills do not prevent all pregnancies, but will cause miscarriages. In other words, chemical abortions.) I wonder also about the person who asked the question originally. What must the person think of women in general to suppose that this issue is one that must be a major consideration for them in choosing a candidate? So here's another question: Why would any person believe that women must be turned off by Romney's unwillingness to use tax money to fund Planned Parenthood? I like my women to be a little deeper than that.

A Tale of Two Interpretations

I encourage my readers to read and compare two blogs from my lists below.  Just posted on "Winging It" is a look at a passage from Acts that is often used to justify communist/socialist economic policies.  At the same time, the most recent post at "A Payne Hollow Visit", aka "Through the Woods" has another entry in the host's ongoing series of posts looking at the Bible and economics.  I would hope it is easy to see how one is reasoned and logical, taking cues from the actual words of the text...you know...what it is actually saying, and the other...well...doesn't.  One draws conclusions from the text and the other injects meaning into it.

I can't knock anyone's desire to understand Scripture, to uncover meaning and learn what God wants us to know about Him and His will and intentions for us.  But it seems to me that there is only so much that is there, only so much that is intended to be drawn that at some point we can say, "I get it." and from that point, further study simply cements the message into our skulls.

But then there are those who seem determined to find some secrets, or perhaps regard themselves as more able to divine deeper meanings.  I think these people get themselves in trouble by supposing they are smarter than the average believer, have a better grasp that is beyond the common man and thus are no more than complete frauds on the order of a Pharisee.  I can think of two in particular who visit here.

And then there are those who want the Bible to mean something that is more appealing to them than a stark reading reveals.  We see this in the commonplace expression "God is love" that is put forth as the bottom line of Biblical teaching and all one needs to know.  In the above example, we have a clear case of one's economic preference being injected into anyplace the blogger feels he can stick the hypodermic needle.  It is clear that he feels any place will do.

There is plenty we can learn from Scripture that Scripture intends us to learn without forcing meaning upon it.  If one wants to say that It warns us against greed and the lust for money, I can deal with that, because it does.  But it says so in clear terms without pretending there are underlying messages of this type in every other verse.  Worse, the message that is so imagined by this particular blogger is used to support economic policy proposals that do not conform with the true message charitable giving and caring for the poor.

I cannot help but regard this type of interpretation as every bit heretical as any other unBiblical teaching.  It doesn't matter if the heresy is something that is actually taught elsewhere in Scripture (assuming it is).  But injecting meaning that the text itself isn't providing interferes with the message it intends to provide.  One might even ignore the intended message in favor of the "underlying" message not truly intended.  That can't be good.

What A BABE!!!

My informal poll includes only about a dozen confirmed respondents, a couple of which suggested they, in kind, polled others.  I can't count them as there are no numbers by which I can measure.  But thus far, no woman asked has expressed a negative response as regards being referred to as "a babe".  There was one who, despite my attempt to be specific, answered as if the question referred to being called "Babe", as one might use "Sweetheart", "Honey" or some other familiarity.  Another seemed to take it the same way, but had no problem personally.  Unfortunate.  But I will endeavor to poll more women as to get a better idea of how this horrible, horrible gaffe of mine is actually received.

I recall my oldest recounting how she overheard a student refer to her as "the hot teacher".  I don't recall her taking offense.  The idea is absurd.  I submit that unless a woman is some lefty man-hating feminist wackjob, I won't come across one who would seriously object to being regarded as "a babe", which, as anyone who is not some lefty man-hating feminist wackjob would tell you, is no different than being regarded as "attractive".

What woman, indeed what human being, would bristle at such a suggestion?  Geoffrey seeks whatever he can to have me regarded in a bad light, and hoped this would be another way.  I still haven't heard from him as to whether his own womenfolk would find the description degrading.  I'm certain that any woman who would so claim is being incredibly dishonest, or sadly worse, deflecting the implication that they have not, to their knowledge, been so regarded.

The poll continues.  I'll update here.

One For The Road

Having a bit of time before we leave for SC, I decided to spend it on a new post.  I read this excellent piece at Neil's blog, so I decided to steal it.  It's that good.

So much of what can be found in the article has been at least touched on in past posts here, as well as elsewhere.  Walter Hudson put it all together. 

For instance, points 6 & 5 touche on the goofy notion of our collective responsibility certain people feel whites must assume for past transgressions.  And point 3 has this:

"Prejudice is not inherently racist, and loose accusations of racism based on isolated perceptions of prejudice are premature. Words have meaning, and we have different words to describe distinct concepts. Prejudice, bigotry, and racism are not interchangeable. While prejudice can be innocent and even reasonable in certain contexts, bigotry is the irrational maintenance of a prejudice in light of evidence to the contrary. Bigotry can be informed by a multitude of factors, of which race is only one. Racism is what we call bigotry informed by race."

He then goes on to rightly conclude...

"These distinctions are important in any intellectually honest discussion of race relations. When prejudice, bigotry, and racism are used interchangeably, it is evidence that the discussion is not honest."

How often do we see our leftist visitors confuse these terms, using them as bludgeons rather than to clarify truths?  But then, intellectual honesty is foreign to our leftist visitors, so desperate as they are to demonize instead defending their position on their merits or demonstrating how they believe ours has none.

West & Wewaxation At Wast!

...as Elmer Fudd would say.  Leaving for a long awaited vacation to Charleston, SC.  Internet access unknown and not particularly a concern, though opportunity might present itself.  I'm sure Parkie will stop by and poop himself like always, so watch where you sit if you decide to visit.  He never cleans up.

From the Cornucopia

I strongly encourage my readers to check this out.  The post itself is goofy enough.  But check out the comments, too.  It takes an incredibly conscious desire to disconnect from reality to put forth such comments as if they reflect reality.  If you're up for a laugh (or maybe a good cry considering actual people claiming to be educated are making the comments), you'll get one there.

Racist? REALLY?

I saw this on Yahoo today and had to comment.  This Greek goddess (as in "babe-alicious") was banned from Olympic competition for a tweet that went something like this:  with all the Africans, at least the West Nile mosquito will have homemade meals.


Really?  That's racist?  How exactly?  Where is the Nile located?  Isn't it in Africa?  So if the mosquitoes in question are of the same location as Africans, and mosquitoes dine on blood of people (among other species), wouldn't an African qualify as home cookin' to the mosquitoes from Africa?  And what of the white Africans?  Aren't they being slighted by the assumption that an African automatically must be a black person?  Can we please cut this racist crap from our collective mentality, PLEASE!  

The fact is that there are far too many who insist on racism's existence, that demand it continue and that there must be racists to feed their sad and desperate quest for significance.  It's getting to the point where actual racists are more tolerable than the race-baiters of the world.  And THAT is sad. 


For all that is wrong with true racism (and that is that there is nothing right about it), the race-baiters are far worse.  Racists are at least sincere in their misguided belief of their superiority (or the other guy's inferiority).  But the baiters are self-promoting frauds who don't care if their targets are actual racists or not in their attempt to inflate their value to society.  Stay tuned as race-baiting lefties are likely to comment. 

The Drivel Continues

My Sunday edition of the Daily Herald carried an opinion piece by liberal chuckle head, Eugene Robinson.  This rabid lefty is safe bet to vomit the typical lefty nonsense and falsehoods put forth laughably as logic and reason.

In this piece he states "The Republican-led crusade for voter ID laws is revealed as a cynical ploy to disenfranchise as many likely Democratic voters as possible, with poor people and minorities the main targets."  This is the stock line lefties use to demonize the logical implementation of ID laws intended to shore up the integrity of the voting process.  From the fallacious column, he writes:

"Recent developments in Pennsylvania---one of more than a dozen states where voting right are under siege---should be enough to erase any lingering doubt:  The GOP us trying to pull off an unconscionable crime."

Can you say "Hate-mongering rhetoric"?  He goes on to speak of PA House majority leader Mike Turzai as he addressed a meeting of the Republican State Committee...

"Ticking off a list of recent accomplishments by the GOP-controlled legislature, he mentioned the new law forcing voters to show a photo ID at the polls.  Said Turzai,with more than a hint of triumph, 'Voter ID, which going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania---done."

Robinson states that the Dem candidate for president has carried PA since 1992.

"...the top Republican in the Pennsylvania House is boasting that because of the new voter ID law, Mitt Romney will defy history and capture the state's 20 electoral votes in November."

And why does this give Robinson the vapors?  Because as he claims in his article, state officials presented figures recently that 758,939 registered voters of that state do not have a state driver's license.  Oh.  The.  Horror.

We've been through this before, but I guess Robinson feels it his duty to rehash the lame arguments in opposition to this simple and logical policy.  His whine is that most of these people live in urban areas that are places where the poor and minorities tend to live.  Like lefties everywhere, he apparently believes that the poor and minorities are people incapable of obtaining a photo ID.  Here's the funny part:  On June 11, as reported in Human Events, Eric Holder addressed an NAACP convention in Houston and referred to these laws as "poll taxes".  Yet, one had to show a photo ID to get in to hear him say it.

Now of course, one who claims to be a serious journalist might want to check out the death defying and brain numbing requirements for obtaining these state IDs.  Listing the incredible difficulties the oppressively impoverished and minorities of Pennsylvania must endure to do so might lend some weight to the argument Robinson makes and tug mightily at our heartstrings.  So I went on-line and found just how impossible it is.  According to the PA DOT, getting a state ID will cost a bank breaking $13.50!  OH.  THE.  HORROR!

How bad do lefties think the poor have it in this country that they can't get up so little in two years time, assuming any of them care to vote in the mid-term elections?  Even between now and the deadline to register to vote in November (and many of these people ARE already registered) how many truly couldn't get up that small amount in time to vote?  There's about fifteen weeks between now and November.  That's less than a dollar per week to save assuming there's not a dime in the cooky jar right now.

Of course, is he assuming that all the minorities are too poor to pop for the fee?  Is Robinson suffering from a bad perception of minorities?  And he a black man?

Like Jim has tried to put forth here, Robinson believes there is no fraud.  But going back to that Human Events article, claims that fraud is rare is itself a fraud the left tries to perpetrate on the public in order to maintain their voting levels.  It isn't that it is rare, but that it isn't easy to detect without safeguards that an ID policy can provide.  The articles states...

"The controversial purge of illegal immigrant voters carried out by the state of Florida challenged a mere 2,600 names, and swiftly found more than a hundred illegal voters, with half of them on record as having actually cast illegal votes in previous elections.  Many of these people were found by the simple expedient of reviewing a list of illegal immigrants who swore they were not U.S. citizens to get out of jury duty, and checking to see if the same people were registered to vote.  For an allegedly "rare" problem, voter fraud is incredibly easy to find, for anyone who actually bothers to look."

Robinson plays the race card by suggesting the problem "seems to be that too many of the wrong kind of voters---low income, urban, African-American, Hispanic---are showing up at the polls."    He's either a blithering idiot or an abject bearer of false witness.  The GOP does not have a problem with losing elections fairly (except that the wrong guy won), and to suggest that this initiative has anything to do with restraining the groups of people that Robinson lists, especially when some of them could vote GOP, is reprehensible and all too typical of the leftists in our country.

New Sources For Post Ideas

I've been thinking of using posts or topics from the lib sites of my blogroll for post ideas here.  I don't know if I will do it as a series ala Agenda Lies or just do them as the mood strikes me.  Geoffrey's blog is a veritable cornucopia of ideas and I thought of doing a series of just his stuff, calling it something like "Geoffie's Place" or something to that effect.  In any event, I have to draw attention to his most recent post as it is so astounding.  This guy desperately wants George Zimmerman to have murdered an innocent black kid for no reason.  There is little possible alternative explanation for someone to post such nonsense after all the facts that have come to light about the case and the people involved since the first malicious shrieks accusing Zimmerman of being a neanderthal racist who gunned down an innocent and unassuming black child.  The irony is that Geoffie's "interview" with Martin is a lame attempt to mock the Sean Hannity interview of Zimmerman, where he has for the first time spoken publicly to defend against all the Geoffies of the world who passed judgement without knowing anything beyond the skin color of the two involved.  You'd think this "Christian" seminary student married to a preacher would at least step the hell back at this point from his own racist assumptions.  Even more ironic is that just two posts earlier, in the comments section, Geoffrey asks the burning question, "Are we loving people?"  For Geoffrey, the answer seems clearly, "No."

I Know A Place

Am I Obsessed?

It has been stated by a few left leaning visitors that I am obsessed with a particular topic.  In fact, it is stated by many on the left, that people of the conservative persuasion are also obsessed in the same way.  The charge is that we are obsessed with the sexual practices of others.  In my case, I am accused of being obsessed with the sexual practices of homosexuals particularly.  Well.  Is it truly a case of me being obsessed?  Let's see.

June was, as observed in my last post, was "Mental Dysfunc..." er, "Gay Pride Month".  But now June is over.  How do we account for what followed? 

-On 2July, my local newspaper ran an editorial encouraging the acceptance of "Gay Marriage" in this country.

Stories in a variety of media sources included"

-A lesbian soccer player (I believe she was) came out and encouraged other lesbians in sports to come out as well.
-Anderson Cooper officially came out (as if anyone was surprised), to which announcement an online source added a list of over thirty celebrities who have come out, as if more doing wrong makes it right.
-The Episcopal General Convention approves same-sex blessing rites.

This is just a sample of stories gleaned, just through my normal reading of news sources, but not all of them.  I've forgotten at least a couple and this is only since that July 2nd editorial.  I'm obsessed? 

Clearly someone's obsessed with all things homosexual, and it isn't me.  I merely observe the culture being pressured to accept this behavior as morally benign and no different than normal attractions.  It is pushed constantly through media images of all sorts, from entertainment to "serious" discussion pretending to educate to the political pandering of the Democratic Party.  It doesn't go away.  And I'm obsessed?

Not at all.  I simply join in with organizations like Illinois Family Institute, AFTAH and bloggers who seek to counter the onslaught as best we can. 

Is that obsession on my part?  I don't think so.  It isn't the only bad behavior I've highlighted.  I have posts on abortion, racism and being a liberal (yeah, that's bad behavior).  If I obsess about anything, it would be in encouraging proper behavior in many areas of human existence.  Heck, I obsess about my own behavior. 

I make no apologies about the number of posts I do on the subject of homosexuality in America.  I feel privileged to have the ability and outlet to express myself in a manner that honors both God and my fellow man in continuing to point out the many falsehoods perpetuated by activists and their willing and often misguided supporters and enablers.   It's a worthy cause and to open eyes and hearts to the truth, even if it's just a few, or even one, makes it so.

"I Love You Just The Way You Are"

Earlier this week my local newspaper had two articles related to "Gay Pride Month".  June is "Gay Pride Month".  (July is "Obsessive/Compulsive Pride Month", August is "Bi-Polar Pride Month" and I believe September is "Psychopath Pride Month"...in this country we take great pride and celebrate mental dysfunction.)  Of the two articles, one focused on the lack of celebratory events in the suburbs to where, like so many normal people, many homosexuals have moved for better schools, less crime, etc.  The article referred to Chicago's annual "Gay Pride" parade, where children of all ages can witness various and extreme manifestations of this particular dysfunction, such as simulated sex acts by freakishly attired parade participants. (I would imagine the July parade being very neat and tidy, with far straighter lines and better synchronized marching.)

So there apparently was some kind of conference, seminar or coffee klatch, I don't remember which as I don't have that issue of the paper anymore.  There were all sorts of anecdotes and testimonies about life in the burbs as a homosexual.  But the part that I found most fascinating, as well as most annoying, was about one straight guy who spoke of starting or being part of a campaign whereby Christians wear these tee-shirts emblazoned with the words, "I'm Sorry", meant to apologize to the dear homosexual souls who have been treated so harshly by the Church.  He didn't say which church, so I assume he meant the Body of Christ in general.  He said he wanted the sad and suffering homosexuals to know that "God loves them just the way they are."

I'd much prefer this guy not speak for me or the Church of God by saying this blatant falsehood.  And herein lies the point of this post.  That statement told to those unfortunates who want it to be true, that "God loves them just the way they are" is not something that can be supported by Scripture.

I pass a UCC church several times during my workday.  It has had a message on the sign in front of it which says, "God loves you no matter what."  I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest that it means pretty much the same thing the dude with the tee-shirt is saying (considering it IS a UCC church).  But both of these statements send the wrong message.  An absolutely wrong message.

There is this sad notion that unless God is just the sweetest God around then some people just won't worship Him.  Somehow, we are just fine no matter what we do (as long as we don't hurt no one and are really, really nice to people).  Whence comes this notion?  Well.  We all know the answer to that.  It comes from selfishness and self-centeredness and the notion that "doing things God's way is HARD!!!"


But there's no justification for the "just the way your are" business".  It brings to mind a question Bill Cosby asked of a guy who was defending his cocaine use.  The dude said, "It makes you more of what you are."  Cosby asked, "What if you're an asshole?"  The question fits the premise posited by the dude above.  God loves you just the way you are?  But what if you're an asshole?  Or worse?  Does He love child molesters just the way they are?


The reality is far different.  God loves us despite how we are and the distinction is in how each of us is to deal with how each of us is.  If who we are is sinful and rebellious by the standards of God's clearly revealed Will for human behavior, His love for us will not result in our being spared our just rewards.  Our love for Him, our belief in Him is manifested in our intention to become something pleasing to Him based on the standards for human behavior described so clearly and plainly in Scripture. They clearly and unmistakably run deeper than merely being really, really nice to people.  They are far more comprehensive than that.  The dude is lying to the homosexual community, but the lie is believed by far more people than him and those homosexuals who wish it to be true.

Agenda Lies 5: Based on Science?

The topic of today's Agenda Lies installment is the notion that declassification of homosexual behavior as a mental illness or disorder was a result of any scientific research or study.  Here we have a former president of the APA saying exactly what I've stated in other posts and comments, which is that homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder in 1973 in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as the result of activism.  What's more, Dr. Nicholas Cummings supports the Agenda That Doesn't Exist, but is honest enough to tell the truth. 

(This also points to a common misconception regarding which side of the political divide rejects science in order to maintain a position.  Once again we see it is the left that does this, not the right.)

Pressure from the homosexual activists is essential in overriding the logic, morality and science that supports the positions of their opponents.  What else is left to them but to be obnoxious?  As stated many times, if there was sound science upon which to rely, that science would be at the forefront of every debate related to the Agenda's advancement.  But we're not graced with any such evidence from science.  What passes for scientific evidence is the APA's support.  I guess because psychology and psychiatry are sciences, then it is enough for an association of those scientific practitioners to merely state that something is so for it to be regarded as scientific evidence.  At least it's enough for the supporters of the Agenda (and lefties in general) who would prefer no one look too deeply into an issue they support.

On a side note, there is a list of links to related articles at the bottom of the article to which I've linked above.  One of them carried this:

“Statewide campaigns to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage are a significant source of stress to the lesbian, gay, and bisexual residents of those states,” states the APA, which bills itself as “a strong advocate for full equal rights for LGBT people.”

Really?  Do homosexuals often sit about anguishing over this issue to the point of being significantly stressed?  There are laws in my state that deny me access to a few things, such as the right to carry a weapon to protect myself.  Such denial has never been particularly stressful for me.  What's wrong with those people that they are so easily stressed?  I thought they were no different than the rest of us.

Geoffrey and Alan

This is where the above mentioned may say to me anything they like, ask me any question or whatever their dark hearts desire.  All comments from anyone else will be deleted.

The Separation of Atheist and Reason

Last Friday, I had the opportunity to listen to the Michael Medved show on the radio. He was talking to a guy who is an atheist I believe is named Edwin Kagan.  That might be wrong, but who cares?  The point is what was being discussed and the position this guy was taking.  He runs a camp for atheist kids and is some level of legal guy trying to mess with the decision of the 9/11 museum to feature a cross still standing after the towers came down.  I'm fuzzy on the details, but it is my understanding that this cross was merely an assembly of twisted remains of the building that was in the shape of the Christian cross.  It was taken by some as a sign of some kind, and felt by some worthy of preserving as a symbol of some kind relevant to the event.  I haven't seen it myself and don't know if I would agree with what it means, even if I couldn't see anything but a Christian-style cross in its shape.  That doesn't matter, either.  What matters is that another atheist feels compelled to assert the stupid notion that this "thing" in a publicly funded museum is some kind of constitutional assault.

What's with these people?  Like homosexuals, atheists are a very small segment of our population.  Like homosexual activists, atheist activists are an even smaller, but annoyingly cloying percentage of them.  Worse yet, their arguments almost make those of the homosexual seem legitimate.

As usual, I was driving when I heard this conversation and did not hear it in its entirety.  But I heard the gist of it several times.  It was that allowing this cross to stand alone suggests to the objective observer that the government endorses the Christian religion over others.  I don't know what constitutes an "objective observer" to this guy, but "brain dead atheist" has to be part of its definition.  I mean, who else thinks like that?

I believe, but cannot swear, that this guy was described as a "constitutional" lawyer.  In any case, I'm sure I was right in understanding him to be well versed in constitutional matters.  But his argument belies that claim.  As we all (should) know perfectly well, the 1st Amendment reads as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

So the first issue is, since when is "endorse" synonymous with "establish"?  Let's assume that the United States government fully endorsed Christianity as a good and beneficial lifestyle for its citizens to adopt.  That's merely an opinion and an opinion does not equal establishing Christianity as the state religion.  It is the difference between saying, "We think  our nation would benefit if everyone lived like Christians." versus "We mandate that only the Christian religion is acceptable in this country."  The 1st prohibits the latter, but makes no reference to the former in any way.

Throughout our history, I think one would be hard-pressed to find any president that did not endorse to some degree religious faith and adherence, mostly Christian.  Doubtless, it would be more difficult to find a case where any president spoke against it.  To publicly speak in either direction is not denied the president constitutionally. 

There is also a vast difference between establishing a religion and acknowledging the faith of 80% or more of the population.  By that number, we are a Christian nation.  This acknowledgement, even by our government or any representative of it, is nothing at all like establishing a religion and demanding that no other religion be practiced. 

Likewise, there is also a vast difference between the government establishing a religion, and members of a government body recognizing religious holidays with appropriate decorations, including religious decorations.  The people who work for the government and within government buildings are still citizens with the absolute right to express their religious convictions and to celebrate their holidays.  Doing so is NOT an establishment of religion.

Those who insist that "separation of church and state" prohibits any of the above practices have bastardized the intention of Jefferson and those who ratified the Constitution.  What's more, I believe they know full well that they are distorting the meaning of the 1st and are doing so purposely.  Pushing aside religion from the public square allows for pretending arguments against secular positions are faith based only, and thus illegitimate.  When logic and reason overwhelm them, they merely state the opposition is a Christian (or religious) and the argument is over. 

But the position of the atheist activist has always been so weak that the fact anyone gives them the time of day is more victory than their arguments have ever deserved.

OH, THE HUMANITY!!

The worst has happened! Derrick Rose has suffered a season ending injury. It is assumed by some to be one that might impact next season as well.  Some say he may never be the same.

These sentiments are premature.  Having torn my ACL, I have some experience with the situation.  The first thing I would say is that today's techniques for dealing with such things are superior to those employed when I first tore mine.  In addition, Rose has every option open to him and the freedom to concentrate all his efforts to recovery.  His well known work ethic and devotion to the game, and being the best at it, is all we need to know in order to feel confident that as fans, we're likely to notice no discernible difference in his game upon his return.  I would wager his opponents won't notice much difference, either. 

But what about now?  Woe is us who expected the ultimate. 

Some, even some Chicago sports writers (at least in the paper to which I subscribe), did not expect da Bullss to go all the way.  I take it, given my limited ability to keep up with such things, that the big money was on a Heat/Thunder match up in the Finals.  So, many already doubted da Bullss ability to get by Miami, and then, assuming they could, they doubted their ability to beat OK City.  And that's with Rose playing, so of course, without him, they have absolutely no chance to win anything, perhaps not even this series against Philly.

Nonsense. While their chances are indeed reduced without a healthy Derrick Rose, the Chicago Bulls embody not only Rose's ethic, but coach Thib's ethic as well.  They have the experience of playing without Rose as he's missed so many games this year.  Their record without Rose, if extended to a full lock-out truncated season, would have put them fourth in the East.  That still makes them a contender at the very least.

Not only that, but if I'm not mistaken, some of those games won without Rose were against top teams, the Heat being one of them. 

It must also be remembered that in the last five or six games, we've seen Rip Hamilton find his rhythm, and Kyle Korver has been hitting shots like crazy.  And while CJ Watson has been off his game shooting wise lately, he still has hit last minute three pointers in recent games to avoid losses.  He and John Lucas III have each had multiple 20 pt games while Rose has watched from the bench.  And of course, Luol Deng has continued his usual solid play.  In short, the scoring that was lacking last year is not lacking this year.  Rose is not the only offensive weapon like he was last year.

Of course the defense and rebounding is not affected by Rose's absence.  This will continue, and in fact, the teams dominance in that department is as much attributed to the bench players, and sometimes more so, than the starters. 

There are two general areas of liability that I think need improvement regardless of Rose's presence or absence:  turnovers and free-throw percentage.  If the Bulls take care of the ball and keep their turnovers to less than a dozen, they'll reduce fast break opportunities for their opponents.  Points off of turnovers are maddening and momentum busters.  It gives the opponents confidence.  Most of the turnovers that I've seen are of the weak passing variety.  Passing must be crisp and quick, and it seems that too many passes should never have been made in the first place, but definitely not so nonchalantly.

As for free-throws, the Bulls often do not seem to get to the line as often as seems justified.  But when they do get there, they need to drain them more often.  I don't believe they have more than two guys who average better than 90% and they're both bench players (Watson and Korver).  Hamilton might be over 85%, but I'm not sure, and I'm definitely not sure that we have anyone else.  Pros missing free throws seems unforgivable.  I understand the difference between scoring while running your butt off and standing still after getting hammered and expecting to hit a free throw.  It's like the difference between fielding a line drive and a pop-fly.  You don't have time to think about the line drive, but the free throw is like the pop up.  You have time to think about perhaps missing.  I don't know how much time is devoted to practicing free throws, but somehow I get the feeling it ain't enough.

Finally, there is the mere challenge of winning without Rose.  This team has a lot of pride.  They don't like losing.  From last season to this, the Bulls have gone over 80 games without back-to-back losses, coming close to establishing a new league record for the feat. This continued throughout the 27 or so games played without Rose.  That's a meaningful stat that says a lot about the heart of this team.  I have to think that they do not want to be "the Jordanaires", which was how the Bulls who played with Michael Jordan were regarded by some.  It meant that without their star player, they were worthless.  These guys are gonna be pumped.  I predict they'll finish no worse than last year, but won't be surprised to see them go beyond.

America's Oldest Teen Dies

Talk about the end of an era! I just saw the breaking news that Dick Clark has passed away. This never aging icon of the pop music world will no longer rock in another New Year.

Clark was one of those people, some we know personally, but in this case a celebrity figure, who was a fixture.

Now that I think of it, Don Cornelius just passed away as well, just this past February. Two hosts of two iconic music shows of the type, gone.

May they both rest in peace.

Reports Of His Death Greatly Exaggerated

I came across this article from the Washington Post that I found interesting. Not surprising, just interesting. All those sad haters must be experiencing the vapors. That Rush Limbaugh would survive the controversy surrounding his comments regarding Sandra Fluke, and weather the subsequent cries for his dismissal and boycotts of his sponsors should have been foreseen even by the goofy left wing. The hopes being dashed that the incident would result in his downfall is difficult to regard without some amusement as I imagine their great disappointment. Some fun snippets:

"Limbaugh’s advertising losses may have been less than media accounts suggested. While more than 100 advertisers told Premiere that they didn’t want to be associated with “controversial” radio programs of any kind in the wake of the flap, some of these companies weren’t regular Limbaugh sponsors in the first place."

Of course that didn't prevent some from rejoicing from the false belief that he indeed lost what he didn't have in the first place.

"“Contrary to the wishful thinking of the professional special interest groups, reports of sponsors fleeing the ‘Rush Limbaugh Show’ are grossly exaggerated. In fact, the program retains virtually of all its long-term sponsors who continue to have great success” with the show, saidRachel Nelson, spokeswoman for Premiere."

Wise business people see Rush as a good investment of their advertising dollars because he is still the main man on radio who still draws a massive audience. That audience, as well as the advertisers, are rational people who find Rush's overall good to far outweigh the occasional and incredibly minor bad represented by the comments about Fluke. (For the goofy lefties that visit here, I'm referring to the incident being minor, not the words he used, though they are still far from worthy of the false outrage they sought to present as real.) That's just good business sense. What's more, to pretend that his "crime" was so bad as to be worthy of the level of vitriol it provoked from the loonies on the left is just another example of their selective ideas of tolerance and free speech.

Yes, it did my heart good to read this piece.

One for my buddy, Ed, and another just because it's cool

This I post for my buddy, Ed, who is a kick ass blues harp musician. But it is impressive enough to share with everyone.

And this is just because I think there's little else as cool as a little kid who is incredibly good at what he/she does. Plus, I've always wanted to learn this.

Enjoy them both.

Let's All Just Take A Breath!

I guess that one who is on the internet almost every day shouldn't complain about media overload. But this Trayvon Martin case is impossible to avoid. I wasn't really all that interested in it. People are killed every day. Stories of little kids taking fire from scumbag gang-bangers should be generating a far greater outcry than what we have going on in Florida. By comparison, Martin's demise is insignificant against the lives of small children sitting on stoops eating ice-cream while bullets rip through their tiny bodies. Yet you don't hear idiotic race-baiters trying to assert that our little ones are being targeted by teens, which is far truer than white people targeting blacks. Indeed, the lamentations over the deaths of black youths are too often attributed by these hustlers to whites than to their more common threats---other black youths.

This case has stirred up all sorts of nastiness on the parts of people who have no clue as to the events that led to the shooting and killing (note: I have no evidence that "murder" is the appropriate term, so I don't make the assumption) of Martin. The latest "outrage" of which I am aware is the recent protest for "justice" for Martin, as if it is a settled fact that he is deserving of any. Don't get me wrong. He may indeed be so deserving. But like these idiots, I simply don't have that information. The only info that any of us have at this point is the absolute and uncompromising innocence of Zimmerman, the assumption of which he is absolutely and uncompromisingly entitled to until he can be proven otherwise.

There is far too much that is unknown here. Some of which I've heard conflicts with other things I've heard. How can anyone dare presume anything at this point? But this is what we have in vast amounts. Presumptions, and few of innocence on the part of Zimmerman.

Take for example, our own Geoffrey Kruse-Safford. He is absolutely convinced that the word "tragedy" does not apply here. How can this be? Geoffrey wasn't there. He doesn't live in Florida. He lives in northern Illinois, a distance far too great for most people to see, but apparently not for one who sees what he wants to see. Geoffrey wants to see racism so he can pontificate, I guess, on white oppression of blacks, or some such crap. To Geoffrey, "What happened that February day can be described as a cold-blooded killing, a hate crime, yet another contemporary lynching of a young black man for the singular perceived crime of walking where a white person felt he had no business walking." I suppose it can be. By the same token, Geoff's statement can be described as by one who is intent on taking it upon one's self to apologize for the white race as if so appointed for the task. But I've seen reports that state three things of note:

1) This took place is a gated community.
2) Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer for that community victimized by thefts.
3) Zimmerman is half-Hispanic.

What this means is that a Hispanic who belongs in the community knows who doesn't belong and was concerned about this stranger being there.

I have a friend who lived in a gated community. The guards at the gate are white. I'm white. If I strolled in from the side and was seen walking about by one of those guards, they would have approached me for the "crime" of walking where I had no business being.

Now, maybe Zimmerman overstepped his "authority" as a volunteer watchman. Maybe Martin overreacted to Zimmerman's scrutiny. Who knows? But certainly, if we concede the narrative of those playing the race card, like Geoffie is, then the result was certainly a tragedy for Martin as far as I'm concerned.

Then there is Al Sharpton. That this guy even gets the time of day is a wonder to me. He's out there, with fellow race-baiter, Jesse "Will There Be Cameras?" Jackson, decrying the injustice done to this obviously innocent victim of another evil white guy who isn't totally Anglo. Now, he's insisting there will be civil disobedience if Zimmerman isn't crucified for what Al knows is satanic murder of an angelic black boy. Oh, and sanctions, too!

We can't forget Spike Lee, who tried to give out Zimmerman's address and got the wrong Zimmerman, forcing a family totally unrelated to leave their home in fear. This asshole should be arrested on some charge for endangering the wrong Zimmerman and trying to endanger the "right" Zimmerman.

The New Black Panthers have offered a bounty on Zimmerman. Arrest them, too. How is that different than a contract killing?

All of this, and not one of these jackwagons knows what the hell even happened!

I mentioned it earlier and it has been mentioned by others reporting and commenting on this case, that most blacks in this country who are murdered are murdered by blacks. I've also read that whites are murdered by blacks much more than the other way around. Yet, the Sharptons, Jacksons, Lees, and Panthers do or say nothing about such things (unless they are doing so to say that whitey is somehow the root cause).

Oh. And how could I have overlooked the smartest man in the room, Barry Obama? He has once again stuck his nose into a case without knowledge of the facts, commenting in a manner inappropriate. The only appropriate comment he should have made, since he insists on saying something, is that he doesn't know the facts so he can't speak on it at all.

So now we must wonder what will happen if Zimmerman is not charged with a crime? It will be Rodney King East. And the Sharptons, Jacksons, Lees, Panthers AND Obama will have to take responsibility for stoking the anger, when they all should have been calling for calm, keeping in mind that Zimmerman is entitled to the presumption of innocence, especially since nobody knows exactly what the hell happened that night.

Smartest President Ever?

I have long hoped to be presented with evidence that shows the brilliance of our current president. He has been touted as one helluva smart dude. "Smartest guy in the room" and such. I guess that depends who is with him in the room. If it's Joe Biden...

This Mark Steyn piece provides some insights. He speaks of a recent speech the Einstein-in-Chief gave and the side-splitters he issued to mock his opponents. What also isn't funny, however, is that I hadn't heard of these "gaffs" before reading Steyn's column. Why is that, do you think?

Anyway, the subject of Obama's brain, such as it is, has been on my mind of late due to the price at the pump lately. Around my neck of the woods, its been between about $4.19-4.29 per gallon for regular unleaded. And what's President Solyndra been doing about it? Pretty much anything he can to drive that price up higher while favoring failing alternative energy companies that aren't employing anyone.

I recall an interview I heard not too many years ago wherein the man being interviewed spoke of supposedly dry oil wells having oil once more. I've mentioned this in past discussions regarding the subject of limited resources. Apparently there is a theory that is in opposition to the fossil fuel theory. This was first presented by the Russians from research begun during Stalin's time. The attendant link, from another poorly written article at American Thinker (where, as we know, among the hundred plus contributors, there's not a decent writer in the bunch) includes links of its own to sources that flesh out this theory for those so inclined as to read them.

The link also includes a video of a collection of clips of Obama repeating a mantra that there is no "silver bullet" answer to dealing with our energy problems and dependence on foreign oil. Is this stupidity from the smartest prez ever, or a calculated lie? The link that carries said video presents a refutation of Barry's claim that we possess only 2% of the world's oil supply (down from 3% according to previous speeches). Whatever the case, it is not very smart to fail to understand what is at stake here.

Regardless of whether or not one believes we have enough oil for the next 200 years, or the next fifty, there is no doubt that lifting moratoriums and prohibitions on drilling and production will lower the price at the pump. It's simple supply and demand where if the supply is perceived to be about to increase, the price will drop to reflect that increase. The positive effect on the economy should be obvious. If the cost to transport goods goes down, profits from the sale of those goods goes up.

This is so basic. I thought this guy wants to be re-elected? I'm guessing he has some plan to make some of this happen before we get too close to November. Then the question will be how smart the voters are.

Rush Is Just SO Mean!

My current job leaves me little time to remain abreast of all that is going on in the world. Just this past week I put in a bit over an hour shy of 70 hours. Add almost seven hours of total commute time, and sleep is about all I do during the week and too much of the weekend when not working. I skim the newspaper, check emails, read a few blogs leaving an occasional comment and curse my inability to watch every Bulls game.

So this Rush Limbaugh controversy was unknown to me. As I typically start my shift at 7PM, I don't ever hear his show these days, since it's long over when I wake up. But Parkie was kind enough to draw my attention to it.

Now, it should be known that I was already aware of Sandra Fluke's testimony, as I had read of it Wintery Knight's fine blog, which also gave a bit more background regarding Fluke.

I must admit, that after reading WK's piece, and watching the attendant video, that I had similar thoughts regarding her and students like her. That is to say, I was not impressed with their character. It's not so much that they are promiscuous, and yes, unmarried sexual behavior is sexual promiscuity, but that they now wish for their shamefulness to be subsidized.

Frankly, there are so many problems with this controversy and the arguments put up by Fluke that it is hard to know where to begin. So I'll dive in in no particular order.

1. Why are students having sex? The purpose of a university education does not include providing opportunity to indulge in that which one is not prepared to handle. And at such an institution as Georgetown, it seems most out of line. Fluke tried to make a lame point regarding the obvious fact that one attending a faith based institution should know of the expectations of that institution. She made some noise about such a place living its own creed by thinking of the student's entire well being, which I guess to her includes their possible indulgence in bad behavior. She apparently feels students, due to their legal ages, have a right to sex. This is not true.

2. Fluke makes the point regarding married students burdened by the cost of contraception. Boo-hoo. What is important here? Having sex or getting the sheepskin? Sacrificing to gain success in any endeavor is not a matter of picking and choosing what should be sacrificed, and then, deciding what one won't sacrifice, gain subsidies to cover the costs involved. It should be noted that there are cost efficient means of contraception, such as denying one's self for the purpose of not interfering with the achievement of the goals sought, as well as lowering the chances of pregnancy by employment of the rhythm method. I don't know what it costs to stock up on rubbers, but to have some on hand for those married couples who can only hold out so long can't be that much.

3. Ovarian cysts. The pill is not the only means of preventing and treating ovarian cysts. Fluke tried this argument as well, and while there is likely ways to have this dealt with on the side, such as possibly a rider on one's policy (just guessing here as I am not an insurance expert) that can be funded by the student or her family and not the institution, it is really just another case of using the rare exception to provide for all the more selfish, self-gratifying goals of achieving the goal of forcing the institution to cover this totally elective behavior. (That is, it is much like the argument for abortion by constantly referring to the few cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother, and then demanding that it be allowed for any reason whatsoever.) Proper nutrition and exercise can go a long way toward preventing this totally preventable situation.

And really, the case she cited is an incredibly cheap one. If the girl in question is a lesbian as Fluke says, then why go on with the whining about having a child? This goes further into the issue of forcing an institution to fund something that totally conflicts with its ideology and religious beliefs. First, the lesbianism, and then, a lesbian getting pregnant to provide a child for her and a grandchild for her parents. Sorry, but this is totally forcing a religious institution to act against its beliefs and is not constitutional.

4. Contraception as health care. Huh? How so? The purpose of health insurance, at least when it was invented, was to provide a means of pooling funds of a large population of premium payers so that the smaller percentage of that population that experiences a catastrophic illness or injury won't be wiped out financially. It is not meant to handle the expense of hangnail level injuries, common cold level of illness and definitely not the consequences of morally questionable lifestyles.

Talk about moral decline! First we have people preaching free love and now it is considered so necessary to sustain life that we must subsidize it by covering contraception?

5. Regardless of Fluke's attempts to muddy the waters with tales of married students' financial burdens and lesbians with cysts (I know. It's ain't just lesbians. Don't waste my time.), Rush's comments aren't inaccurate even if a bit crude. Unmarried women who engage in sex ARE sluts (I know. So are men. Don't waste my time.) Though the word has slightly alternative meanings, it has come to be commonly known as a woman who is promiscuous and that term fits any who have sex outside of marriage.

So as I said, there is so much wrong here. I could go even further and speak of sponsors who have left Rush's show or are considering it. From what I've been able to read in this short time, these sponsors left more out of pressure than a personal belief that Rush went too far. I'm not about to investigate each one, but I do feel compelled to apply opposite pressure with letters of my own. I would threaten to never patronize their business, and encourage others to ignore them as well, for their cowardice of caving to the wailings of morally corrupt people. This flies in the face of Parkie insisting that no one takes Rush seriously anymore. Apparently they do if they would allow a few sluts to threaten them if they continue to advertize during Rush's show.

Parkie often accuses me of "crying" about things posted here and there. THIS is "crying". A bunch of liberal jackwagons (H/T R. Lee Ermey) crying over Rush calling a loose woman a slut. To the Parkster, it is far worse to be called by the word attached to a behavior than to engage in the behavior known by the word used to describe it.

UPDATE...ALREADY!!!

It seems that Rush has apologized. Notice that he didn't say "if I offended anyone". He acknowledges the offense of his words and just straightforwardly apologizes. Libs take note how it's done.

Citing AT

It is not news to say that one of my favorite stops is AmericanThinker.com. I find it to be a wonderful source of conservative thought. My purpose in linking to an AT article, when I do, is generally two-fold.

First, the article articulates a point I wish to make, and why, I ask myself, should I go through the trouble of finding the words to say what is already well said by someone else? Then, all I have to do is add a bit more to further focus the point of offering it at all. After all, time is limited. The downside of doing this is that some of my liberal visitors seem to think it means that I have no thoughts of my own but rather allow AT to tell me what to think. This is the same as when such idiots say "Ditto heads" wait for marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. Pretty stupid.

Secondly, and more often than not, when I do choose to offer a link to an AT article, it is because the author cites other sources, usually gov't sources, to support the point he is trying to make. Unfortunately, most of the lib visitors don't understand how to use reality to form an opinion, so the value of doing this is lost on them.

I recently visited Geoff's blog and one of his extremely intelligent *cough* visitors made a typical condescending remark about AT (and World Net Daily) and AT readers. He and Geoffie had a big laugh because they just crack each other up like crazy. Oh! how silly we conservatives are!

AT isn't the only right-wing trove of treasures I follow. There is Townhall.com, HumanEvents.com, IntellectualConservative.com and many others, not to mention my subscription to National Review. Some of the writers appear in several of these mags and sites. In addition, I also listen to conservative talk radio on occasion, though not as much as I used to due to my job. Great minds think alike.

I don't have any regular lib sites or stations that I visit. As my time is limited, it is far too precious to waste on nonsense, though I read almost all of the links my liberal blog visitors and hosts provide, and I get my laughs that way. I guess the lefties think the way their lefty pundits tell them to think, right? More likely, weak minds think alike as well.

But the point of all this is that condescension I mentioned. I don't quite get it. I mean, I get that they don't like what they hear from the right wing, where truth and facts and logic reside, but to pretend as if it doesn't exist there is so incredibly common place. And that itself wouldn't be so bad if it could be argued in some manner.

Instead, all we get is the derision presented in a manner that suggests the reason for it should be plain to see. In other words, the right-wing pundit is wrong simply because a lefty blogger or blog visitor assumes it. No reason is given. If we on the right are the buffoons they wish we were, one would think such elevated personages would like to prove it somehow. But they don't.

One of the strangest bits is the mere mocking of AT as if it is simply the site of one or two dudes. I don't think any of the lefties realize just how many people contribute to that site. A look at the list of authors in the archive area reveals literally hundreds of contributors. Sure, not all of the contribute with great regularity. Some have their stuff presented quite often. But the hosts draw on the thoughts of many people.

But still, such things don't matter. The lefties will cite pundits of their own and expect that we be swayed as if their pundits have won the day merely by printing their opinions. "See? Glenn Greenwald says...!" and that's all we need to know. So I'll read what they've offered of Greenwald and then check further to see if Greenwald knows what the hell he's talking about.

But it seems the lefties don't have it in them to really discuss the other side like they say they do. One or more might say they once were conservative. Others will say they never were. But none of them will give a conservative opinion piece the time of day. Open-mindedness is only something about which they give lip service. True open-mindedness can't help but offer a counter opinion if an opinion in agreement isn't possible. It's no secret these lefties don't much care for conservative/right-wing opinion. It's a waste to say nothing more than how little they think about it. It's a given. How about some of that deep thinking and nuance we hear so much about instead?

It's So Hard To Be Humble...

...when I'm perfect in every way.

I like to show off. I like to take the risk of failing to complete the tricky play, to make the instantaneous grab of hot shot screaming between 2nd and 3rd, to carry a difficult split when the money's on the table. I like to sing lead and be the guy in the middle of the stage. I like to wear the nice threads while walking with my beautiful wife. And you know why? Because it's damn funny.

Yeah. Funny. It cracks me up to pretend that I am that pro-athlete doing what so many pro-athletes do routinely as if so many others aren't equally capable, if not more so. It's funny to think that I have just made someone look stupid by doing what he obviously thought I was not able to do, and what even I wasn't sure I could do. Loads of fun. Showing off is a gas.

Does this imply incredible pride and conceit to you? Does this smack of some vile lack of humility? Who cares? All those grand stages of pick-up sports and bar bands are so incredibly insignificant diversions. Part of the fun is the IN YOUR FACE/DIG ME aspect of doing it.

But guess what. I have fun when I fail to impress. Just participating is what it's all about for me. I've sung where it seemed absolutely no one in the crowd gave a flyin' rat's ass that there was a live band even present. But I still got to sing. I've played a variety of sports where I've not made the big play, not logged that turkey in the final frame to win the game, and even taken shots from a fighter who was clearly superior and making ME look stupid. I've enjoyed every minute. It's just a gas.

That's been the bottom line. Just having a good time regardless of the outcome and being prepared to be shown up.

I was on a bowling team one year that was amongst my most enjoyable years bowling. Everyone on the team was capable of doing damage and we competed more against each other than we did as a team against others. We didn't even think of the other team as our money was wagered against each other and it was the most fun taking each others' money over taking the money in the league pots (though that was indeed a serious goal). And when you took the other dude's money, you mocked him mercilessly. We had a blast and if we didn't win it all that year (I don't think we did), we were definitely in contention.

Humble wasn't a factor. Didn't need to be. Our averages were posted and it was clear who the best was.

Humble. Humility.

The subject of humility comes up a lot around here and was the subject of a blog post not too long ago. It is apparently considered by some to be lacking in humility to be confident in what one knows about Scripture. The line is that we are fallible and capable of being wrong on anything. While this is true, we being imperfect beings and all, it simply does not mean that we can't be totally right on specific things, especially if those things are directly revealed.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery."

Pretty clear that. Can I not be confident and convicted in the knowledge that adultery is always sinful and not to be practiced? Is there any way in which I might be understanding this commandment improperly? I can't think of any, can you? So, knowing what the term "adultery" means, and knowing that it is clearly prohibited, am I acting in a manner lacking in humility to insist the behavior is sinful? Am I speaking for God?

Well, as a bit of a sidebar, any expression of what Scripture teaches us to another is to be speaking for God. So what? It is suggested by some (or one in particular) that to insist that one is confident in what Scripture teaches is to somehow speak as if one IS God, or equal to Him to the extent that one's "understanding" is equal to His Will. Again. So what? Are we not supposed to reflect His Teachings and His Will in the manner in which we live our lives?

The pitch is that what one person believes to be the Will of God might be different than the understanding of another person. Still once more, so what? This only means that one of the two is wrong or at least that one of the two is further from the truth than the other. But if both believe and are convicted in his belief, is it prideful to state the case as such? Does one lack humility in preaching what one believes to be the truth?

No. Not that I don't think so, but that my answer is "NO" in no uncertain terms. Stating that 2+2=4 and refusing to accept any alternative possibility is NOT a sign that one lacks humility. To state at the same time that the other guy who believes it isn't always the case is more than just wrong is also not a sign that one lacks humility. What it does show is two possibilities:

1. The one stating the fact cares enough about the wrong person to encourage a change of opinion.

2. The one stating the fact cares enough about anyone in the sphere of the wrong person's influence to continue to speak out against the fallacy the wrong person insists on preaching.

(There's also a third, that the one stating the fact thinks the other guy is a complete idiot or liar or both.)

Neither (and even the third) indicate a lack of humility on the part of the person defending the fact. Not in the least.

Indeed, to submit to God's authority and His mandates as clearly revealed in Scripture is a sign of humility of the type Jesus modeled for us. He was totally subservient to His Will. He was not acting pridefully when He cast out the money changers. He was not acting pridefully when he accused the Pharisees of being hypocrites and vipers. He was not being false or prideful when He taught that we be humble, like He is. In that sense, defending God's Will is not lacking in humility at all, but being humble in the manner that Jesus modeled in that we are exposing ourselves to heat from those who disagree with us for His sake. Our "suffering" at taking that heat is to put God before our own comfort.

"Agree to disagree" is not humility. It is milquetoast. I do not dismiss the possibility that I might have some notions of Biblical understanding wrong. Of course I can be wrong. But only when I am so proven to be. To "agree to disagree" gives tacit permission for the other person to carry on as if that person was not wrong. Why would any sane person agree to that? "Oh yeah. Let's agree to disagree. You go ahead and believe setting yourself on fire won't hurt." Am I serving that person to agree to allow such a destructive belief to go unchallenged? Is that humility, or cowardice?

Another person in the same discussion brought up this weird crap about learning new things that open him up to a better understanding of God. This after a post that mentions 1 Cor 13:12, as if a perfect understanding of God Himself is the point. I am already quite humble before the Lord. I could not be more unworthy of His Love. How much more need I know to make this more true? How much would it make a difference to know exactly how unworthy I am? He is Everything. I am nothing. There's not a whole lot more one needs to know.

Yet though His exact nature is unknowable to a living person, though His exact ways and thoughts are beyond us, He did not leave us with no clear understanding of how we are to live on this earth. He did not leave us without any "clues" as to what constitutes righteous behavior and what is sinful. What we need to know is crystal.

In that discussion, to get to a more clear explanation of a convoluted point being made, I offered this: "I saw a chair today and realized how little I understand God." It was an attempt to get this dude to explain his earlier comments that were no clearer than this. He went on to talk about how just seeing the chair from one angle doesn't tell us all we can know about the chair. Seeing it from the other side tells us something different, but then we cannot see the first view anymore, and, we cannot tell how comfortable it might be or if it can support our weight. He is humbled by such lack of knowledge apparently. I would simply sit in the damned chair. Even without doing so, I still know that it is indeed a chair and it is made for sitting.

In any case, that part of the discussion did not provide anything useful except to allow him to wax poetic (he hates when I say this) about that which did not enlighten in the least. I sought the connection between his "examples" and how they humble him more than merely acknowledging the vast chasm between who we are and who He is. But it has something very much in common with the poster and his thoughts on "humility". Both serve to dismiss what is clearly revealed for whatever reasons they wish to preserve and before which they insist on humbling themselves.

FYI

Just a note about the comments not viewable. I don't know why that is exactly, but if you click on the post title, it will enable you to select "newer/newest" comments, though once in the comments section, the same problem happens. I was in the back office and probably clicked on something when going back to comment moderation. OR, Blogger is just lame.

Agenda Lies Update

The title of this post refer to the original, introductory Agenda Lies post, wherein I discussed the lie that there is no homosexual agenda. It seems that when I decide to leave the topic of homosexuality alone for awhile, something comes up that trumps that decision.

In this case, an email newsletter from Illinois Family Institute led to this site, and I just had to post on it. I'd like you, gentle reader, to note two things: first, look at the sub-title of the site. It appears that the homos that run this site are not aware that there is no homosexual agenda. They didn't get the memo from HomoCentral that no homosexual is to mention an agenda of any kind.

But it gets worse! The second thing of note is the text of the linked piece itself. Apparently these guys don't realize they are not supposed to actually say that they want to indoctrinate kids! What could they have possibly been doing to miss the edict against expressing this publicly? And check this out:

"Remember, Prop 8 passed along age lines with the very old voting largely in favor of it. The younger generation doesn’t fear homosexuality as much because they’re exposed to fags on TV, online, and at school."

This quote is important because I've often been told by enablers who visit here that our (that is, those of us who support REAL marriage and Scriptural notions of human sexuality) days are numbered and soon all the world will embrace the notion of homosexuality as normal and healthy as normal and healthy heterosexuality. They say the the world is changing and seeing things their way. But the quote demonstrates what my response has always been to such a claim, that any trend in favor of their depravity is the natural result of good men doing nothing. Each generation becomes more and more immoral because of the actions of the immoral among us now, and the lack of virtuous people standing against the agenda for immorality.

Is this site indicative of the general homosexual population? I have no idea. But I would wager it is so. One thing is certain: an agenda exists and always has existed. The site to which I've linked is only one piece of evidence, but it does show that which is not the least bit surprising.

I had been working on a different Agenda Lies piece, but I'm going to let it lie for now. I don't really want my blog to be totally focused on homosexual lies, but sometimes they just crop up and need to be addressed by someone. However, this blog will always tell the truth to counter those lies and stands ready to do so at the drop of a hat.

Agenda Lies 4: "Uglyass"

The title refers to a comment made at another blog when a parallel was suggested by a commenter between homosexuals and the incestuous. Note that I used the term "parallel" rather than "comparison". This is very important considering the sensitive nature of the homosexual activists and their enablers. You see, any "comparison" between homosexuals and anything not sweetness and light is derided as hateful and bigoted. Laurie Higgins, with Illinois Family Institute, notes this in a recent piece speaking on the heat Cardinal Francis George received by daring to suggest similarities between the "gay liberation" movement and the KKK. Oh, the horror. At the end of her column, she concludes in this manner:

"The reality is any comparison of homosexuality to any behavior of which society still has permission to disapprove will generate bilious howls of outrage and nastiness from homosexual activists. The closest analogue to homosexuality is not race or skin color. The closest analogue is polyamory or adult consensual incest. Try using those, especially the latter, and witness the torrent of non-rational, ad hominem-infused, fire-breathing that ensues from homosexual activists."

And we who visited Dan's blog recently had another taste of this very tactic. It is from there the "uglyass" comment came.

I say all this to set up this installment of Agenda Lies. The lie is that there is something vastly different between the argument for same-sex unions and the argument for adult consentual incestuous unions. The lie is that one is perfectly fine and the other a manifestation of some mental disorder. One healthy, the other not.

Of course, all Dan does is to assume the best of his favored class and compares it to the worst of that which he does not favor. He assumes that because he claims most incestuous affairs are oppressive, usually rapes I guess, that to imagine a person having a committed, loving and monogamous relationship with a sibling or parent is not possible. Or that it is mentally disordered. Funny. There's far more "disordered" about sexual attraction between two of the same gender than a male and female of the same family as far as I'm concerned.

And as far as I'm concerned, incest is just wrong. Sure, most people would be turned off by the thought of hooking up with a parent or sibling. But that's a cultural thing, and one that is from the same source as the cultural revulsion toward homosexual behavior: Scripture.

Yes, I know. Biologically bad things can happen should a dude hook up with his mother, daughter or sister. But that's only a risk if both carry similar defective traits, like hereditary things. If all parties are perfectly healthy, the child that might result from their union won't automatically suffer from defects.

However, as I recall, having children isn't necessarily the point of marriage, if the new age secular bozos are to be believed. So assume children aren't in the cards. One or both parties has strategic snips made by medical professionals and that issue is now in the "non" category.

The attraction itself can't be "weird". What is more weird than one dude pining after another dude? But one dude hot for his hot sister is weird? Imagine a 16 yr old Angelina Voight giving up her baby boy for adoption, never to again have contact with him. Then, in 2012, a 20 yr old young man has a nasty crush on Angelina Jolie. The fact that he is her son (without knowing it) would not likely play any part in his attraction, nor would it hinder his crush. And considering just how hot she is, had she not given up the kid at all, but raised him herself, what makes anyone think he would not appreciate her hotness just because he's her son? Enough to "want" her? Who knows? But what if he did and she reciprocated? They are both adults. Who's to say that they should be denied simply because of their biological relationship? On what basis?

Sure, people don't generally think of their family members as good looking (not counting parental bias), and generally come to agree, if that is the case, begrudgingly at first. But if it is plain to one person that his/her sibling or parent is a stud/babe, are they "disordered" for admitting it? Of course not. (Only uncomfortable) Hot is hot.

But we're to take the position that such unions are wrong (and they would be), but homosexual unions are not. And we're to take the position that such unions are SO wrong, that to dare draw any parallels or comparisons to homosexual unions is itself heinous, evil, "uglyass". On what basis?

Such unions cannot be less healthy than homosexual unions. (Keep in mind that unlike Dan, I am comparing in as much a one-to-one manner as I can. All subjects are physically healthy before entering their respective unions and none are capable of producing children. This is just about "people in love".) We can pretend that all unions of either group are platonic, but then, who would we be kidding? In this day and age? No one. So we must consider how they would express their "love" for each other and that, of course, is through sexual contact. And if acting in the least risky manner possible while still engaging in sexual contact, the incestuous would not risk at all, considering their sexual equipment would be used according to the owner's manual. They would not have to use any body part in a manner against its purpose or intent in order to engage in sexual contact. The homosexual cannot say the same thing without limiting themselves severely to handshakes and tongue wrestling.

But then, it's not really a question of healthy sexual practices at all, or whether one group's desires (homosexuals) more obviously constitutes some mental disorder. It's about the definition of marriage and who qualifies. Clearly the homosexuals do not as the definition requires one man and one woman. Clearly the incestuous do not, because the definition requires one man and one woman who are not close relations. And of course, the polygamous do not because of the numbers involved. But in each of these groups are those who feel as if their desires are true, natural and deserving of the same rights and privileges the state and culture bestows upon one man and one woman. In that manner, each of the three groups are exactly identical and the distaste Dan and those like him have for the incestuous is as irrelevant as what Dan and those like him find irrelevant about the opinions of honest people who find homosexual relationships distasteful, sinful, abnormal.

And for Dan and others like him to regard the incestuous as disordered is as hateful and bigoted as he accuses honest people of being for their understanding of the abnormal attractions and sinful desires of homosexuals who insist on pursuing their agenda (that doesn't exist). There is simply no difference between the homosexual and the incestuous except for the specifics of what floats their boats. Support the demands of one, and you must support the demands of the other. And then you must support the demands of any other who insists their "love" is equally worthy. And then "marriage" will be totally meaningless.

Accomplishments?

I've recently engaged in two separate discussions upon which the notion of Obama's "accomplishments" was touched. I've come across two articles that also deal with his "accomplishments". They are both from one of my liberal visitors' favorite sites, American Thinker. Let us see if they will address the points being made by either, or, in their usual dismissive and cowardly manner, pretend that AT is simply too biased to even give a cursory look. Odds favor the latter.

In the first piece, we can easily note that each statistic is a link to its source for the article. The sources (provided since the lefties likely won't take the time) are greatly varied; from CNN, LA Times, NY Times, The Heritage Foundation, and several others. No in depth analysis if given by the author, but only a comparison of before Barry took over to now, with a suggestion that further support of Obama makes no sense, which is easy to see. Of special interest is the title of the author Neil Snyder's book, which is priceless: "If You Voted for Obama in 2008 to Prove You're Not a Racist, You Need to Vote for Someone Else in 2012 to Prove You're Not an Idiot" With a title like that, I'd buy it just to display it on my bookshelf.

An important consideration that always bears repeating, since the left insists on pretending it isn't relevant, is that one must also take into consideration the years from 2006 forward as that is when the Dems won control of Congress and had all sorts of opportunities to begin improving things. Guess who was a part of that wasted time. Barry O'Bummer!

This second article isn't just about Obama, but the Democratic party in general. Right now, Obama IS the Democratic party and is supported fairly unanimously by the Democratic boobs in Congress, even though they voted down his budget.

Anyway, though the author doesn't cite any sources or provide any links, as a CDL holder, I've heard about some of what is discussed in the article from employers and customers in the shipping industry. Plus, all mentioned is easy enough to track on line if anyone wants to dress up the moves in which Obama has played a roll.

Barely's defenders like to bring up this talk of "accomplishments". OK. He's accomplished a few things. But shouldn't "accomplishments" improve things and benefit the nation? And if any of his "accomplishments" have indeed improved things and/or benefited the nation, should there not be some evidence of these improvements and benefits?

Some will say that he needs another four years before we can see them. None of these people would have dreamed of giving a Republican another term for that purpose. In fact, they would have screamed for a replacement, and they do whenever a Republican is in office. The question is, upon what basis do we gamble? The thinnest of arguments, that things would have been worse had he not acted? I'm sorry. That doesn't work for me because there is no way to measure what might have been, especially since I don't believe it would have been worse. I counter that argument by saying that his greatest accomplishment is that things aren't worse than they are. It's not for lack of trying.