Tag Archives: political correctness

Roundup

Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell is only $2.99?!  You can’t afford not to buy it!

Get your teenage girls to read it by telling them it is a new book by Stephen(ie) Meyer, author of the Twilight series.  They’ll thank you later.

The Amnesty bill is a farce and one of the single most destructive pieces of legislation ever, even though — or because —  Leftists are drooling over it.  Just the rumors of it have greatly increased the number of illegal immigrants pouring into the U.S. It is the same old vested interests: Republican businessmen who can’t see 15 minutes into the future and think the low wage employees will help them, coupled with Democratic politicians who see decades of committed Democrat voters. You get more of what you reward. In this case, we are rewarding those who broke the law and punishing those who followed it.

If we just enforced the current laws requiring employers to validate citizenship/immigration status then we would solve much of the problem.

Jesus wants you to help others with your money, not the money of others. Lavishing benefits on illegal immigrants (which goes far beyond what Matthew 25 referred to) and ONLY on those who break the law to get into the country is taking money from other people (via taxes or lost jobs) and giving it to others — all the while telling yourself how nice you are!

We don’t have enough jobs for the people who are here, thanks to Obama’s successful execution of the Cloward-Piven strategy. How will we have jobs for these new people and the money to pay for their schools, welfare, medical care, etc. Has anyone noticed our $16T+ national debt and tens of trillions of unfunded liabilities? How will borrowing more money from China help anyone in the long-term?

A good post-Memorial Day reminder about a way to truly honor those who died for our freedoms: Fight to keep those freedoms alive.

I don’t know if that scene actually happened or if it was the creation of some Hollywood screenwriter, but I think there is some wisdom in Captain Miller’s message. “Earn this!” His statement to Private Ryan was simple – don’t let my sacrifice, my death on this bridge, my dying at the hands of the German army we’re fighting – don’t let that be in vain. He was telling the private to lead a worthwhile life after the war, one which would be worthy of the sacrifice of brave men who fought and died. At least that’s what *I* got out of that scene.

What does that mean to us today – not letting the sacrifice of fallen warriors be in vain? I think it means not only to exercise the freedoms they bought and secured for us, but also to be vigilant against anyone who’d try to take them. “Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel,” warned Patrick Henry. Yeah, the “give me liberty or give me death” guy.

Don’t miss this piece on The Politics of Thought Control.  It analyzes the mindset behind this true story:

Two girls grew up together and were the best of friends. Each married fine young men. One moved far away to another state. Now women, they began to drift apart in other ways, including the way they viewed the world. One became quite liberal; the other quite conservative.

On a visit home, the conservative asked the liberal about her husband’s contracting business. The liberal was comfortable admitting her husband wasn’t paying his taxes. The conservative expressed her shock. The liberal responded, “oh, don’t worry, we’re going to make a contribution to the Democratic Party.”

And it has a great summary of how, by any measure, conservatives are far more generous than Liberals.  And it isn’t just in giving to their churches, as the Liberal defenders like to claim.

• Liberals make more money than conservatives.

• Despite this income gap, conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than liberals.

• Religious conservatives give an average of $2367 per year to charity compared to $1347 for the rest of the country.

• Religious conservatives give more to secular charities than everyone else.

• Conservatives donate more blood, sweat, and tears than everyone else as measured by blood given to blood banks and personal time devoted to directly helping others.

• Brooks looked at attitudes of folks concerning distribution of income and religion. Folks who do not believe in income redistribution schemes and attend church services give away a hundred times more than folks who do believe in income redistribution schemes and don’t attend religious services.

• Secular liberals are the “whitest” and richest of the four groups Mr. Brooks identified. Nonetheless, they give 19% less to charity than religious conservatives.

Additions to the blogroll: Blog Mommas and Stretching My Faith.

Fourteen Ways Your Life Improves When You Get Your Personal Finances Under Control — some good encouragement if you aren’t there yet!

If the LGBTQX lobby really cares about equality, then why not equality for lesbians guilty of statutory rape?  Instead, they reflexively line up to support anyone who holds to their perverted sexual views.

The endless shamelessness of the baby-killers/statutory rape-hiders at Planned Parenthood.  Uh, your baby will thank you for what — having her crushed and dismembered because you didn’t want her?!   It is right up there with the deadly cynicism of their “Care. No Matter what.” slogan.  Gee, that sounds like a bit more like a pro-life slogan, not a pro-abortion slogan.  I mean, if you really cared, wouldn’t you have the baby instead of killing her?

Planned Parenthood ad, baby

Have you heard about this?  Stretched by riots, Swedish police call reinforcements.  The article is part of the problem: These are Muslims who came to their country and are soaking up all sorts of welfare benefits and demanding to be appeased at every turn.  It is rampant in Europe and creeping in the U.S.  But the article just describes them as “youths.”  Not one mention of their origin or religion.  Unlike leaders in the West, the Muslims actually think into the future and they are executing a brilliant but evil plan.  Will we wake up in the U.S., or continue to follow the useful idiots who feed others to the crocodile hoping it will eat them last? — The need for executive leadership in the White House — Obama didn’t have it, and it shows.  He is obviously behind the scandals we know about (and have you wondered about all the things we don’t know about?) — AP, Benghazi, IRS, Fox News, etc.  If he wasn’t then he’d be firing people in all these cases for their lawlessness and for not informing him. But he obviously did know about and approve the illegal actions, and he knows that if he fired them that they might not be silent about his roles. Having said that, the problem still isn’t just Obama.  It is government that is too big.  We need to make the issues about simplifying tax laws, reducing the power of the IRS, etc.

Yep.

The NY Times has come a long way — the wrong way.

Sorry, couldn’t resist.  That movie deserves to be made fun of.

Grumpy Cat and Jack and Rose on Titanic

Roundup

Good news: Five reasons to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead — it isn’t just that I love the “minimal facts” argument for explaining why Christianity is true and supportable by facts and logic, this article was actually in the Washington Post.  Hopefully it got lots of people to reconsider matters of eternal importance.

Professor Gary Habermas had the following piece in the Washington Post (of all places).  It’s not often that a politically-left leaning media outlet allows content which shines positive light onto Christianity.

(Washington Post) – I will assume nothing special about the New Testament writings whatsoever. I will use only the historical information that is accepted as historical by virtually all scholars who have studied this material today-no matter how skeptical or liberal they are. That means, for example, that I will only cite New Testament passages, ones that pass the customary skeptical standards and are recognized as such. Using only these “minimal facts,” I will still maintain that Jesus’ resurrection is the most likely explanation for what we know.

[…]

(1) Most scholars agree that Jesus’ tomb was discovered empty shortly afterwards. With almost two dozen reasons favoring this report alone, what best explains this? Other hypotheses do not account for all the data.

(2) Many eyewitnesses assert that they saw the risen Jesus, both individually and in groups. Even apart from the Gospels, we can establish this totally from just two passages in Paul’s “undisputed writings”:

–Paul told the Corinthians that he had received the Gospel resurrection report from others (1 Corinthians 15:1-8).

–The consensus critical view is that Paul probably obtained this material in Jerusalem, when he visited the eyewitness apostles Peter and James, the brother of Jesus (Galatians 1:18-24).

–Paul returned to Jerusalem 14 years later and specifically checked out the nature of the Gospel message, again with eyewitnesses Peter, James, and now John (Galatians 2:1-10).

–All the apostles agreed that Jesus appeared to them after his death (1 Corinthians 15:11).

Ten Q&A on Same-Sex Marriage Canards and Evasions — this is a pithy yet thorough list.  You mainly need the first three.

1. What’s love got to do with it?

Nothing.  Romanticizing this debate by claiming that any two people in love should have a civil right to civil marriage is a foolish distraction.  Neither judges nor legislators have any business discussing “affection” as a factor in defining civil marriage.  Clergy who bless marriages have a legitimate and separate role in discerning the internal dynamics of couples.  But not the state.

2. What is the state’s interest in marriage?

First, to recognize the union that produces the state’s citizens.  Second, to encourage those who sire and bear the citizens to take responsibility for rearing them together.  That’s all, folks.  Proponents of genderless marriage often answer this question with non sequiturs such as property rights (irrelevant), civil rights (extraneous to the question), and “love and stability” (not a function of state involvement).

3.  Why should state interest in marriage be about children if not all marriages produce children?

It’s thoroughly irrelevant that many heterosexual couples lack children because of intent, infertility, age, or health.  Claiming that this is relevant to the case for genderless marriage suggests the “fallacy of composition“: inferring that something must be true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.  Citizens of the state can exist only through the female-male union, no matter how the union occurs — whether traditionally, artificially, or in a petri dish.  That’s the only fact that provides any grounds for state interest in marriage.

And here’s a great summary:

It violates the rights of children by serving to deprive them deliberately of biological parents.  It violates everybody’s civil right to religious freedom by setting up a collision course in which conscience protections will be trumped by a nonsensical legal definition of marriage.  It violates our freedom of association by removing the buffer zone of family (and all mediating institutions) that insulate all individuals in society from abuses of state power.  It violates freedom of expression by requiring Orwellian Newspeak of everyone, especially those accused of hate for objecting to same-sex marriage.

In the end, the primary beneficiary of this social experiment is a tyrannical minority hell-bent on controlling every aspect of our lives and eventually dictating all of our personal relationships.

From the “This is a piece from the Onion, right?” category, Hiring Lifeguards Who Can’t Swim in the Name of Diversity:

More than 90 percent of the students at Alhambra High are black, Latino or Asian. On a recruiting effort there over the winter, the city’s Melissa Boyle tells students she’s not looking for strong swimmers. Like many under-resourced schools, Alhambra doesn’t have a swim team.

“We will work with you in your swimming abilities,” Boyle says.

Vandalism of pro-life display at The Ohio State University:

Pretty bizarre.  So she is apparently only for abortions by mothers who are poor or on drugs and she thinks middle class and above drug-free people shouldn’t be able to have abortions.  That’s an interesting branch of fiscal conservatism!  My guess is that she’s really pro-abortion all the way, including taxpayer-funded abortions without restriction, but she’s just posing as caring for the poor.

‘Billions and Billions and Billions’: Biden Has No Comment on Fisker Failure — Just one more reason we need to let the free market pick the winners and losers.

“This is seed money that will return back to the American consumer in billions and billions and billions of dollars of good new jobs.”
– Joe Biden, Oct. 27, 2009

“With the help of UAW lobbying efforts for advanced vehicle manufacturing and federal dollars, the plant will become a production facility for Fisker Automotive, a new American car company that plans to produce 100,000 electric hybrid vehicles per year by 2014.
“GM’s former Wilmington [Delaware] assembly plant was selected for its primary global production facility based on its size, production capacity, access to shipping ports and rail lines, and skilled workforce.”
– United Auto Workers, February 2010

“Once again, the American public lost when the Obama administration attempted to pick ‘winners and losers’ in the free market. Today the electric car company Fisker Automotive, which received nearly $200 million in taxpayer money, is laying off three-fourths of its U.S. workers.”
– Sarah Palin, April 5, 2013

I started to read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire based on the recommendation of the Bumbling Genius.  But after the most excellent summary on Winging It maybe I don’t need to . . .

In Volume 1, Chapter 9, Gibbon describes for us what he calls “barbarians”. What makes a “barbarian”? He starts with the premise that they are not masters of letters. Without a firm grasp on the written word, he argues, they cannot learn and pass that learning on to subsequent generations. Written communication is key. And I look at the texting and facebooking and Twitter stuff that today’s younger generation is using and ask myself, “Do they have a firm grasp on the written word?” The number of times I see their own generation ask, “What are you talking about?” suggests that they don’t. But he goes on with a very interesting next characteristic. He says that barbarians are lazy and yet energetic. Huh? Well, he says, they aren’t really interested in doing any industrious work, but they are inexhaustible in their efforts to find the next big sensation. They lived for big experiences. You know, like extreme sports. Oh, wait, no, that’s our time. Oh, wait … could it be that we are headed toward being barbarians in Gibbon’s view?

Gibbon argues that Rome fell for a few basic reasons. First, they were strong as long as they had wars to fight and places to conquer and enemies to subdue. They got soft when they got rich and comfortable. Gibbon argues that, just as humans live under a “no pain, no gain” sentence, so also do civilizations. Second, in their rich and comfortable decline, they experienced moral decline. They indulged every whim, outsourced their work to other places (yes, that’s one of his observations), surrendered any sense of civic virtue, and pursued pleasure as the ultimate good. Now if that doesn’t describe America, I don’t know what does.

Ben Carson: White Liberals Are Pretty Darned Racist — Yep.  Get back on the plantation!  If you don’t agree with the White Liberals then you are obviously an Uncle Tom.  Haven’t you seen how well our policies have worked out in Detroit?

(Mediaite) On his radio show last night, Mark Levin had on newfound conservative “hero” Dr. Ben Carson to discuss all the lashings he’s received from the “left-wing media” over his views on gay marriage and religion. While discussing his being a black conservative, Carson told Levin that, in his experience, white liberals are the “most racist people there are.”

“They need to shut me up, they need to delegitimize me,” Carson told the radio host while explaining why he believes the media has scorned him for lumping homosexuality in with unsavory sexual acts like bestiality and pedophilia.

Levin added that the doctor has been attacked by “white liberals” because he is a black conservative, to which Carson replied: “They are the most racist people there are. Because they put you in a little category, a little box. You have to think this way. How could you dare come off the plantation?”

They forgot to mention “racists.”

I grew up thinking the entire world called the grass between the sidewalk and the street the “devilstrip.” Apparently this term was unique to the NE Ohio area and especially Akron.

An interesting response by Jesus. Was He being loving here?

bible.jpgI was listening to Luke 11 and noticed something.  Sometimes you catch things when hearing it that you don’t observe when reading, and vice verse.

Jesus was in the middle of dishing out some “woes” on the Pharisees when a lawyer says, “Teacher, in saying these things you insult us also.”

In our politically correct world people would start freaking out and apologizing for causing offense.  But how did Jesus respond?  Did He take it all back, so as not to cause offense?  Was He like Sir Lancelot from Monty Python and the Holy Grail?  (“Sorry, sorry, sorry . . .”)

Not exactly.  Read and enjoy:

“Teacher, in saying these things you insult us also.”

And he said, “Woe to you lawyers also! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers . . .

That’s just one of the many, many reasons I love Jesus.  Instead of apologizing for speaking the truth He lays more truth on them — and even more directly than before.  That’s going to leave a mark.

Here’s more of the passage:

Woes to the Pharisees and Lawyers

37 While Jesus was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him, so he went in and reclined at table. 38 The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash before dinner. 39 And the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. 40 You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also? 41 But give as alms those things that are within, and behold, everything is clean for you. 42 “But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. 43 Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the best seat in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces. 44 Woe to you! For you are like unmarked graves, and people walk over them without knowing it.” 45 One of the lawyers answered him, “Teacher, in saying these things you insult us also.” 46 And he said, “Woe to you lawyers also! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers . . .

I asked in the title if Jesus was being loving here.  The answer, of course, is yes, because Jesus was always loving.  But too many people equate loving with nice/patronizing/indulging/etc., so whenever I come across these verses I like to add them to the “Was Jesus being loving when He said _____?” list.

We aren’t Jesus, of course, but we are called to speak the truth.  Political correctness, where you speak lies in order to maintain your popularity, isn’t loving.  We should sow the seed generously — the seed being the word of God.

Tolerance demands disagreement

I figure there are two common reactions to the title of this post.

1. Duh.

2. Huh?

I’m assuming (hoping!) you loyal readers had the first option.

By definition, you can only tolerate that with which you disagree.  Example: I like the Pittsburgh Steelers.  But if you like another team I tolerate your views.  If you are one of those kind and wonderful people who like the Steelers, then I don’t tolerate you.  Why?  Because there is nothing to tolerate.  We agree on the awesomeness of the Steelers!

Sadly, our culture has perverted the word tolerance to mean acceptance and affirmation.  But that is the opposite of the real meaning of the word.  And ironically, the same people who have changed the meaning of the word by 180 degrees are intolerant of others in the classic sense of the word.  If you disagree with them they will be very quick not to tolerate you.

Political correctness is deadly once again

As I noted here, political correctness is the adult version of Jr. High peer pressure: People say things they know are false because they are afraid of being unpopular.  That would be irritating enough if the consequences weren’t so severe and often deadly.

See Report: Political Correctness Prevented FBI, DoD from Stopping Maj. Hasan | Verum Serum.

Today the Senate Homeland Security Committee released an independent report on the Ft. Hood shootings. The 91 page report is titled A Ticking Time Bomb: Counterterrorism Lessons from the US Government’s Failure to Prevent the Fort Hood Attack. The gist of it is that the FBI and Hasan’s superiors had more than enough information to prevent the shootings and likely would have done so if not for political correctness.

. . .

But the most stunning portion of the report is the section that offers details about the nature of Hasan’s radicalization as witnessed by his fellow officers:

Hasan advanced to a two-year fellowship at USUHS…Less than a month into the fellowship, in August 2007, Hasan gave another off-topic presentation on a violent Islamist extremist subject instead of on a health care subject. This time, Hasan’s presentation was so controversial that the instructor had to stop it after just two minutes when the class erupted in protest to Hasan’s views. The presentation was entitled, Is the War on Terror a War on Islam: An Islamic Perspective?Hasan’s proposal for this presentation promoted this troubling thesis: that U.S. military operations are a war against lslam rather than based on non-religious security considerations. Hasan’s presentation accorded with the narrative of violent Islamist extremism that the West is at war with Islam. Hasan’s paper was full of empathetic and supportive recitation of other violent Islamist extremist views, including defense of Osama bin Laden, slanted historical accounts blaming the United States for problems in the Middle East, and arguments that anger at the United States is justifiable…The instructor who stopped the presentation said that Hasan was sweating, quite nervous, and agitated after being confronted by the class.

Hasan’s promotion of violent Islamist extremist beliefs continued after the presentation. One classmate said that Hasan supported suicide bombings in another class. He told several classmates that his religion took precedence over the U.S. Constitution he swore to support and defend as a U.S. military officer.

Read the whole thing.  This is what happens when people are too afraid to criticize Islam (or the gay lobby, or whatever the PC-police say is off limits).

Political correctness can be deadly

Political correctness is the adult version of Jr. High peer pressure: People say things they know are false because they are afraid of being unpopular.

I urge everyone — and especially Christians — to avoid saying foolish, politically correct things.  Some people need to grow spines, or guts, or fill-in-your-preferred-body-part.

I’m not saying to be belligerent jerks about it.  Just speak the truth graciously — but speak the truth.  Don’t say things you know aren’t true.  Don’t say the opposite of what God said in his word.

Christians throughout history sacrificed wealth, freedom and even their lives rather than deny essential truths such as the deity of Christ and many still suffer greatly today for the same reasons.  Yet so many of us are too afraid to state the obvious: Jesus is God.  He is the only way to salvation, and apart from trusting in him you will spend an eternity in Hell separated from your creator and paying for your sins.  Other religions are false.  Not all Muslims are terrorists, but Islam is not a religion of peace.  God’s original plan and ideal for marriage is one man and one woman for life.  Abortion kills innocent human beings and is wrong.  And so on.

Too many people have a perverted view of love, where they view it as sentimental indulgence and use it to rationalize and even encourage sin.  That isn’t the Biblical view of “agape” love that has people’s long-term best interests at heart.

Was Jesus loving?  Of course.  All the time?  Of course.  And that means He was being loving when He spoke the truth about sin, Hell and more. People need to read all of the Bible and remember that God –who is all loving — inspired it all.  Even the parts that make us squirm in our politically correct society.  Scan the Gospels and the rest of the Bible and see how much of it would qualify as politically correct “love” in our culture.  Then decide which side you will choose.