9 Things You Should Know About Female Body Image Issues — hopefully this gets people to re-think their views.

9. The only complete way to overcome the problem is to have our beliefs about body image transformed by the Holy Spirit. As Heather Davis says in the Journal of Biblical Counseling:

In pursuing worldly beauty, we strive to become this elusive image in place of who we really are. You and I are created in the image of the living God. Our purpose is to reflect His image to the world. But since the fall, we let the world inscribe its image on us. It is the very picture of sin and ultimately death. Instead of being transformed to God’s image, we conform to the world’s image. We are hopelessly stuck in a lifeless cycle, exchanging God for the creature as our object of worship. But God in His mercy rescued us!

In love, God sent Jesus Christ to take on the consequences of our idolatrous affair. He became sin so that we might become righteous. In Christ, God gives us freedom from sin’s power now and hope for its eradication in heaven. God makes you beautiful with the beauty of His Son, Jesus. It is in gazing at God’s image in Jesus Christ that you are transformed. Romans 12:1-2 says, “Therefore, I urge you, (sisters) in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not be conformed any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.”

The 2nd Amendment is safe — for now.  Mercifully a few Senators did the right thing.  Note how Obama was more upset at losing this bill than he was after Benghazi.  And how he has ghoulishly milked the Newtown tragedy but was nearly silent on Aurora.  Why?  Because the latter was before the election.

But kudos to Senators Cruz, Lee and Paul for being willing to provide leadership where there has been none.

Now – on to Immigration.

More good news: The most important thing about yesterday’s vote: national reciprocal concealed-carry is doable.

And still more good news:  Could Obama’s gun-control push cost Democrats the Senate?

A good summary of the moral argument for God’s existence as well as responses to objections to it.

“Day of Silence” — annual homosexual assault on children in schools — taking place this Friday, April 19. Parents can fight back! — Hey, how about a day of silence for the 1,000,000+ unwanted human beings who will be killed in the U.S. this year via abortion?

Never forget the real issues with the Kermit Gosnell story.  It isn’t that he did some bad things.  What would you expect from an abortionist?!  Never be surprised that people who kill babies for a living will lie, have unsanitary clinics, kill babies 30 seconds after it is legal, hide statutory rape and sex trafficking, etc.

The real issues are:

  1. The Liberal media, Planned Parenthood and false teachers knew that he was far too similar to other abortionists so they tried to hide the truth.  
  2. Killing babies 30 seconds after being born is morally equivalent to killing them in the womb.
  3. The political correctness of abortion meant that the safety regulations were not enforced for 17 years.

Newtown shooting reaction = take the guns from law-abiding people.  Boston bombing reaction = take the guns from law-abiding people.

These scenarios are nearly guaranteed.  The media, Liberal politicians and false teachers will be very, very sad if it isn’t #2.

What we can expect once we know what the attack was about:

  1. If it was an Islamist, Dems will immediately proclaim that the person(s) was a lone wolf and not representative or part of the Islamic world in the least, and if you try to link the even to Islamic terrorism, Sharia law, etc, well, you’re an Islamophobe. They’ll also say that we should have more spending and federal government because of this 1 off incident.

  2. If it was a domestic plot, they will immediately look to portray the person(s) as far right, and will keep that narrative up despite any evidence to the contrary, and will make this about the Conservative movement/Republican Party as a whole, demonizing all, attempting to destroy all on the Right, despite Conservatives disowning these fringe groups. Oh, and call for more government and spending and liberty restrictions.

  3. If the person is easily known as a liberal (Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Black Bloc, some environmentalist, etc, groups that Liberals rarely disown), the media will either completely downplay the link and still find a way to blame Republicans or let the story quietly die out while also mentioning that this was an aberration and means we need X (gun control, more spending, bigger government, higher taxes, etc).

    Also see: Left hopes bomber is a white dude.

Speaking of the media not reporting important stories, see Top Ten Excuses for Black Mob Violence.  So is it racist to report on black-on-white racism? Apparently.  Try finding these in the national news.

7 thoughts on “Roundup”

  1. I like that you emphasized that the Second Amendment is safe for now. I was thinking of doing a post on the fact that now that O can’t get his way via the Senate and House, he will resort to Executive Order and departmental regulations until he can persuade SCOTUS, or a lesser court, to rule that high-capacity magazines are unconstitutional. Liberals never quit and they resort to whatever tactic they need to bring about the change they want. It’s about control. It’s about power. It is never about the safety of the children, i.e., your last jpeg on Hypocrisy.


  2. Check your numbers on this statement (– Hey, how about a day of silence for the 1,000,000,000 unwanted human beings who will be killed this year via abortion?)
    Facts are important and I want you to remain credible. There will not be 1 billion abortions this year. Even one is too many, but this number is wildly inflated. US estimates are 1.2 million yearly and worldwide 12 million annually.


  3. With the capture of the second Boston terrorist, the great media pivot begins. When it is a mass shooting of a school, the focus is not on what motivated someone to go down a path to kill but instead on the easy availability of “assault weapons”. However, with this act of terror, only the motivations of the individual count. There will be no weeks of national media pressure to pass new laws to further restrict the sales of explosives, pressure cookers, and nails. Instead the focus will be on what motivated them to kill.

    What is the difference between the media’s reporting of the Newton school shooting and the Boston marathon bombing? They each have a different narrative. You see, the media no longer reports news. They filter news through a narrative. The narrative, not the news itself, drives the response the media is seeking to create. So the story gets framed by the media to generate that response.

    The narrative to ban guns drove the media coverage of the Newton school shooting. The motives of why someone decided to shoot up a school are not important. We must focus on banning guns to prevent another Newton tragedy! The narrative that Islam is a peaceful religion and therefore all acts of terrorism tied to Islam are disturbed individuals who have been radicalized. We don’t focus on the weapons they used and how to ban access. We must focus on their motives and how they became radicalized! I strongly recommend this video with more examples of how a narrative, not the news, drives what most of the media reports today:


  4. They filter news through a narrative. The narrative, not the news itself, drives the response the media is seeking to create. So the story gets framed by the media to generate that response.

    Isn’t that what Noam Chomsky referred to as “manufacturing consent”?


    1. I almost spewed my coffee reading that statement because I was laughing so hard You are very funny to claim this is manufacturing consent in the way described by Noam Chomsky. Mr. Chomsky’s definition of manufacturing consent is referring to corporate media serving the interests of dominant, elite groups of society. In other words, they are vested in maintaining current political and corporate status quo and power. read the first line of the book description.

      From Publishers Weekly:
      Herman of Wharton and Chomsky of MIT lucidly document their argument that America’s government and its corporate giants exercise control over what we read, see and hear.

      Today’s national media certainly does not do that. For example, we would have seen the NRA and gun manufacturers portrayed in a positive light in all the media when a gun ban was being considered if that were the case. Instead they were vilified. And the lack of constant global warming storied over the last 20 years shows the power of big oil…not. The national media bends over backwards to hide and explain away anything that puts Democrats in a bad light while magnifying anything Republicans do as evil. Remember all the evil things George Bush did as president were described as evil and unacceptable until President Obama came along. then they were OK and not worth a mention. Mr. Chomsky is trying to hide the dominance not of corporate interests but of leftist, socialist ideology driving the decision making of what stories are even presented and how they are shown. Far from being driven by profit, today’s media accepts loss of revenue in order to continue to drive their agenda. While controversial and challenging status quo at the time it was published, it has been made very clear that the word journalist has been replaced by the word apparatchik with these journalists driving strictly a leftest ideology.


      1. My apologies, it was not my intention to induce a keyboard accident, I was merely asking a question. I don’t really know enough about it to comment, and I haven’t read that particular book.
        Actually what got me thinking about this whole issue in general was this documentary about the media-driven hysteria over the death of Princess Diana that Christopher Hitchens made back in 1998 when he was at the height of his powers (and still alive).

        But sticking with what I do know:

        Far from being driven by profit, today’s media accepts loss of revenue in order to continue to drive their agenda.

        Really? That’s an astonishing statement to make; do you have any evidence that the US media has lost revenue since 2009 for any reason other than a global recession? And journalists becoming “apparatchiks”, why? What’s in it for them?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s