The Ultimate Trump Card

1200px-Playing_card_heart_A.svgYou don’t assert a “right” as a tactic to undermine a standard and it’s not un-American to guard the substance and definition of human rights and ensure that they’re not being played as some kind of trump card to prevent a conversation between the contending ideas as they legitimately exist.

Homosexuality is Inborn

Everything about the homosexual debate as it’s currently being facilitated in our culture today assumes that homosexuality is inborn which is not true. The study that is most often quoted as proof that homosexuality is inborn is the one done in 1991 by Simon LeVay where he examined several cadavers and noticed that a certain region of the brain was larger in heterosexuals than in homosexuals.The scientific community was not unaminous in their acceptance of his findings. Comments from other scientists in response to LeVay’s work are noteworthy. Dr. Richard Nakamura of the National Institute of Mental Health says it will take a “larger effort to be convinced there is a link between this structure and homosexuality. Dr. Anne-Fausto Sterling of Brown University is less gentle in her response. She says, “My freshman biology students know enough to sink this study.1

There have been other studies since then and the verdict is still abysmal. And what it makes it so exasperating is that there’s nothing definitive, let alone substantantial and yet, “…just because scientists don’t know the specific mechanisms that cause sexual orientation doesn’t mean that they aren’t confident that they are biological in nature.2”  In other words, we can’t find anything, but we’re not going to stop insisting that it’s there.

This is the point I was making earlier. Remove the notion that homosexuals are being dictated to by their physiological and psychological makeup and you’ve got an entirely different conversation. It’s no longer about “rights,” it’s about choices.

You Say You Don’t Agree…

You say that you don’t agree. OK. Based on what? You do a good job of connecting the dots, as far as suggesting that I maintain a perspective that defines all homosexuals as lying, immoral, lazy and lost. It just depends on the individual. If you know that the above mentioned study was conducted by a man driven by the depression brought on by the death of his gay lover and was determined to find something in his study to substantiate the idea that homosexuality was inborn or he, “…would give up a scientific career altogether3” – if you’re aware of those dynamics as well as all of the other irresponsible science that supposedly proves homosexuality to be genetic and yet insist that it’s an open and shut case, then, yes, you’re a liar. On the other hand, if you’ve never popped the hood on the nonsensical determination of scientists to prove the existence of a “gay gene” and you merely repeat the matra as it’s broadcast in the media, you may not be a liar, but you’re certainly not accurate.

Meanwhile, the machine continues to run based on the idea that homosexuality is genetic. And as long as that myth is perpetuated, than any kind of criticism or concern is labeled pathetic if not worse. It is not “enlightened” or “patriotic” or “godly” or even “compassionate” to accept irresponsible science as authoritative or to embrace the notion that morality can be edited to suit your particular preferences. You don’t want to accept the Bible as the bottom line, fine. Then what is your foundation? The fact that an Episcopal priest is critical of someone not supportive of gay rights is a perfect illustration of what happens you abandon your transcendent moorings and allow your ship to drift in an endless sea of personal opinions and preferences.

It’s Not Hypocritical

No, sir. I’m bone weary of this debate where you’ve got the wizard off to the side blowing a bunch of green smoke and fire, claiming to possess the moral high ground when the fact of the matter is they’ve got nothing but a perverse determination to eliminate anything that says you’re responsible for your actions. It’s not hypocritical to state that there are moral absolutes that everyone needs to abide by. It’s only hypocritical if I say you shouldn’t be a practicing homosexual all the while living a gay lifestyle myself. And likiing homosexuality to interracial marriage…again, the only way you can equate those two is if you maintain the idea that homosexuality is no different than your ethnicity. If it’s not a choice, then you have a point. If it is a choice, then you’re just regurgitating bogus headlines designed to disguise the issue as a cause as opposed to the plot that it truly is.

Scripture as a Whole or Just Parts?

One last thought: Some want to discount the idea of Scripture serving as philosophical starting point when it comes to defining what’s moral and what’s not.

Scripture as a whole or just certain parts?

You can’t dismiss the whole thing because that just wouldn’t make sense. Our country’s inception was based on the idea that we’re “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable, human rights…” We’ve got “In God We Trust” on our coinage. The most often cited / repeated character in the architecture of Washington D.C. is Moses. Read through Washington’s farewell address or the Mayflower Compact or ponder the Marine Corps motto. You can’t punt the whole thing because if you do you wind up losing the very thing that our whole legislative history and infrastructure is based on. So we’ve got to keep parts of it. Who decides which parts?

Does the Bible say homosexuality is wrong? Sure does. Old and New Testament. Could it be that maybe God knew what He was talking about when He said, “No?”

This isn’t about “rights.” It never has been. It’s a group of individuals who want to present their choice as a genetic default and erase any consequence or grounds for criticism by posing as victims thus casting anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle as a villain and any enterprise that condemns them as oppressive. It’s an effective and brilliant tactic, but it’s a tactic and I, nor anyone who sees it for what it is, will ever buy it.

For more reading, feel free to peruse the following:

Is Homosexuality Sinful? -> five part series that addresses those ideas being circulated that say the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology -> solid three part series by Joe Dallas that details the science, the social and the theological arguments in favor of homosexuality and how they’re fundamentally flawed (Part II, Part III)

What if Homosexuality Was a Moral Issue? -> an elaboration on the debate if it were a moral issue and not presented as something inborn

What Are Gay Rights? -> What are gay rights and how are they different than heterosexual rights or any other human rights?

The Real Contest -> beneath the din of words like “justice” and “compassion,” you have a contest that is far more base and far more significant

 

1 . Exodus Global Alliance, “Responding to Pro-Gay Theology, Part I: Social Justice Arguments”, Joe Dallas https://www.exodusglobalalliance.org/respondingtoprogaytheologypartip344.php, accessed July 5, 2018

2. Politifact, “Tim Pawlenty says there’s no scientific conclusion that being gay is genetic”, Louis Jacabson, accessed July 5, 2018, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/13/tim-pawlenty/tim-pawlenty-says-theres-no-scientific-conclusion-/

3. Newsweek, Newsweek Staff, “Homosexuality: Born or Bred?”, https://concernedwomen.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf, accessed July 5, 2018

 

What Are Gay Rights?

51Rfo3rFaRL._SX310_BO1,204,203,200_So, here’s the question: What are gay rights and how are they different than heterosexual rights or any other human rights?

Here’s the dilemma: If you ask the wrong questions, you inevitably arrive at the wrong conclusions.

Homosexuality, like so many other issues that dominate cultural conversations, are cloaked in noble sounding verbiage in order to veil the fact that the underlying controversy isn’t about rights as much as it’s about Absolutes.

A person’s right to be happy is subordinate to their responsibility to be moral. If the behavior in question is revealed as being immoral, then the person’s “right” to act out what is defined as reprehensible is an obvious exercise in futility. A person may have the “right” to speed the wrong way down a one way street, but not without having to contend with the consequences.

The campaign to legalize gay marriage and to promote things like “gay pride” and the recent legislation that’s being entertained in different parts of the country to enforce the use of preferred pronouns is nothing more than a desperate attempt to take down any signs that define the moral road that we’re on as being “one way.” In other words, there are no moral Absolutes save those that we’re willing to establish for ourselves.

There’s so much more to this that what might appear to be nothing more than an innocent reach for happiness and fulfillment.

The “Gay Agenda” has been in place since the late eighties and, despite it being a monumental task, those that would champion the demise of moral absolutes in favor of the LGBT mantra have done a fabulous job. “The Overhaul of Straight American” and “After the Ball” are two of the principal publications that detail the strategy that is now more than three decades old (click here to learn more about “The Gay Agenda” – an informative book by Alan Sears and Craig Osten). Authored by homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in 1987 and 1989 respectively, the primary task was, and has always been, the destruction of the traditional moral paradigm in the way it condemns homosexuality according to a very well thought out and very well financed strategy – part of which includes legislation founded on the idea that there are “victims” out there being “oppressed” and some kind of legal measure is needed in order to accommodate them appropriately. We’re no longer asking “Is it right,” rather we’re asking, “Is it Constitutional?” And it’s in the context of amending the Constitution and editing the legal code that what was and is morally perverse is now being accepted as a legal, and therefore acceptable, sexual orientation.  

But here’s the thing:

While most of what undergirds the foundation upon which the concept of moral absolutes is based is a Judeo-Christian philosophy, it can be supported with something that is entirely pragmatic – at least from the standpoint that there must be a transcendent moral absolute in place in order to prevent societal chaos. (“It’s Not About Injustice”)

In short, the whole conversation about “rights” is an intentional sidestepping of what represents the real question which is “Are there Moral Absolutes?”

Short answer: Yes.

There are Absolutes and the Author of those Absolutes, according to our own Declaration of Independence is our “Creator.” And our Creator, according to the collective mindset represented by the signatures on that document, is the God of the Bible. Your right to be happy, therefore, is possible only in the context of your resolve to be moral. That’s the morality as articulated by Scripture. That’s the essence of the philosophy we founded our appeal for independence upon and that’s the Divine Substance that backs our legislative conscience and cultural norms. To suggest otherwise is to turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to history, common sense psychology and practical theology. And should you insist that none of that is relevant let alone Authoritative, you reveal your argument to be rooted more in metaphysical baggage then it is in responsible thought processes.

You do have the right to live however you want, but you do not have the right to define moral absolutes and until that issue is acknowledged and addressed appropriately, keep your petitions and your agendas to yourself.

 

 

 

Trump Lied 6,000 Times – According to CNN

t1cnnpolitics

President Trump Lied More Than 3,000 times in 466 Days – article featured on CNN Politics

When you say Trump lied 6,000 times, can you cite each ocurrence? Probably not. So where are you getting your information from? Most likely you’re listening to those news sources that give you the narrative that best caters to your preferences, which isn’t a bad thing provided the narrative is accurate.

But it’s not.

A lie, in the mind of Democrat, is simply a statement they don’t agree with. A micro-agression is something a Democrat doesn’t want to hear. Racism, in the mind of a liberal Democrat, is any situation where a minority isn’t being favored. Fascism is what Democrats call a Democracy when they’re not in charge. Compassion, in the absence of wisdom, is nothing more than a subsidy and justice is nothing more than favoritism.

It’s a non-stop play on words designed to invoke an emotional response in order to compensate for a disconcerting lack of logic and substance.

6,000 lies? Take a look at something I put together in response to the NYT article that was unprecedented, at least in my lifetime. A full page cover article detailing the “100 lies” that Trump had told since being in office. I went through every “lie” and uncovered a “bigger picture” that revealed the NYT as either flawed or, in some cases, downright misleading. Click here if you want to look through them. Bottom line: The Times disgraced themselves throughout Trump’s campaign and they continue to pose as enlightened watchdogs of truth and justice when the fact of the matter is, truth is relative and justice is whatever best caters to their socialistic strategy.

And it’s not just print media. Even film footage is circulated that shows Trump doing things that appear thoughtless or even cruel. There’s clips of him being critical of John McCain. Mind you, I’m a nine year veteran of the USMC, so don’t hear this as outrageous, given McCain’s sterling performance as a war hero. McCain ran for President in 2008 and Trump was one of his more significant donors. You would think, as a matter of sheer courtesy, McCain would’ve been more discreet had he any reservations about Trump when he ran, but instead McCain mocked him as well as his supporters. In addition, given his outrageous stand on some of the more volatile issues recently where he distanced himself from his own party as well as a sane perspective, it’s obvious he’s not as concerned with honor or integrity today as he was back during the days of Vietnam.

And then there’s the one you cite about Trump mocking a reporter with disability. Here’s the thing: If it’s a film clip, chances are excellent there’s an additional footage that reduces the Left’s accusations to nonsensical outbursts. CRTV has an excellent piece that documents several examples.

If you’re a “Trump-hater”, chances are you’re not going to change my convictions and I doubt I’m going to change yours in that convictions tend to be convoluted combinations of logic and passion. But…from my perspective, if the liberal media is your source and you make no attempt to backup your thoughts with supplementary sources, then there’s a good chance there’s a bigger picture out there that you’re missing.

Go Trump!

 

Why I Will Vote For Donald Trump

25 Questions

Democrats Hate God?

The Today Show – June 19, 2018

d-today-bw-logo-4_3It never ceases to amaze me that policies put forth by the Trump administration are demonized because he’s Trump. If you go back to his democratic counterparts, you see the same dynamics. The only difference is they’re applauded whereas Trump is reacted to as though he was a villain.

One other observation: I caught a snippet of the Today Show this morning. They had audio sound bytes of children who had been separated from their parents as a result of mom and dad being deported back to their country. On the surface, you’re compelled to feel compassion for the kids and you want to stop whatever it is that’s making them cry.

But wait.

If your mom and dad knowingly broke the law in the way they came over here and then put you at risk every day by attempting to remain below the legislative radar, who do you hold responsible when they’re caught and told to go back to their home country? Do you direct your indignation to the one who is enforcing the law, or do you indict the ones who broke the law to begin with?

Let’s think of it another way: Imagine a person breaks the law and has to go to prison. Do we play sound bytes of his children crying as he’s getting ready to be incarcerated as a way to gloss over the fact that he’s committed a crime that’s punishable by imprisonment? No. But the media has no problem in attempting to cite “compassion” as a way to minimize the problem of illegal immigration. Compassion in the absence of wisdom is nothing more than a subsidy and this nonsense has to stop.

Over 60% of illegals are on some kind of government subsidy. Couple that with the amount of crime being committed by illegals, the drain they inflict on the economy and the security issues that arise as a result of poor border security, you’ve got a real problem. It’s not a problem, however, from the standpoint of opportunistic democrats who deny them citizenship but will simultaneously given the the ability to vote (and what party do you think those illegals will vote for?).

And one other observation that I just came in contact with. The 2002 Homeland Security Act talks about children being separated from their parents and the accommodations that will be made for them. This has been addressed and it was made into law and…

…it was passed by a Democratic congress.

Go, Trump! That’s all I’ve got to say. It’s hard to be just when your counterparts have been lackadaisical in their application of the rule of law, but what’s right is right and let the naysayers on the Today Show and the liberal media continue their rant and all that they do to further their own demise.

Go, Trump!

Reich and Immigration

reichRobert Reich is an American political commentator, professor, and author. He served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. He was Secretary of Labor from 1993 to 1997. He was a member of President-elect Barack Obama’s economic transition advisory board. Recently, he put out a video in association with moveon.org that accused President Trump of lying about immigration and he sets out to destroy several of Trump’s statements as myths.

The problem is that Reich overlooks a lot of research and statistics that reinforce Trump’s stance and, given the obvious left-leaning political disposition of Reich, you can’t help but want to pop the hood on what he’s saying to see if he has a point.

You be the judge…

I) Immigrants Take Away American Jobs

This is the first lie that Trump is supposedly circulating. Reich insists that immigrants add to economic demand and therefore create the need for more jobs.

On the surface, that might seem like a credible perspective, but here’s the problem: It’s not the number of jobs, it’s the fact that immigrants are willing to work for a lot less than their American counterparts. As a result, illegal immigrants are working those jobs that would otherwise be staffed by American citizens.

It’s interesting because back in 1995, Reich himself  said, “Undoubtedly access to lower-wage foreign workers has a depressing effect [on wages].” If an employer is looking at two equally qualified candidates and one is willing to work for $7.00 an hour and the other isn’t willing to work for less than $10.00, who do you suppose gets the job?

II) We don’t need Any More Immigrants

Reich says America is aging and we therefore need more people to support those will be retiring. The problem with that idea is that 52% of legal immigrant households with children are on government assistance. In all, nearly 60% of immigrants – illegal and legal – are on government assistance compared to 39% of native households. It’s virtually impossible to be supporting other people when you can’t support yourself.1

III) Immigrants are a Drain on Public Budgets

Here, Reich attempts to combat this reality by saying that undocumented immigrants paid 11.8 billion dollars in state and local taxes in 2012 and that would increase another 2.2 billion assuming comprehensive immigration reform would occur.

Champions of illegal immigration will quote statistics like the fact that in 2014, the IRS collected over 9 billion dollars in income tax from those filing using an ITIN (Individual Tax Identification Number). This coming from roughly 4 million illegals. On the surface, that doesn’t look especially unhealthy. However, when you consider the number of illegal immigrants that live in this country, that figure becomes disconcerting.

The number of illegal immigrants is a figure that comes from census data. In other words, it’s assuming that an illegal immigrant is answering a survey. People who have left their families, paid hefty sums to smugglers, travelled thousands of miles and have broken American law in order to enter this country have little incentive to answer a US government questionnaire.

When you look at bank deposits going from the US to Mexico, when you consider the number of housing permits that are being granted, when you look at school enrollment – when you consider information beyond statistical info based on surveys of people who don’t want to answer surveys, you come up with a much larger number.

Bear Stearns is a global investment bank. In 2005, they had some financial interests that were linked to, what needed to be, an accurate number of illegal immigrants in this country. Unfettered by any kind of political agenda, analysts Robert Justich and Betty Ng estimated the total number of illegal immigrants at being around 20,000,000. Bear in mind, they were advising clients about something important: their money!2

The very next year, Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele – two Pulitzer-prize winning journalists for Time magazine, did their own study and concluded that “the number of illegal aliens flooding into the U.S. this year will total 3 million – enough to fill 22,000 Boeing 737-700 airliners, or 60 flights every day for a year. It will be the largest wave since 2001 and will roughly triple the number of immigrants who will come to he U.S. by legal means.”3

That was 2006. So assuming that number has stayed consistent, that means today we have an additional 36,000,000 illegals in this country. So, let’s not be too excited or too casual when we hear that we’ve collected 9 billion dollars from 4 million illegals. That’s a toxic number when you compare it to the actual number of illegals that are living in this nation.

IV) Legal and Illegal Immigration is Increasing

Reich says that he net rate of illegal immigration into the US is 0%. Again, this is going to be based on census data which is not reliable. As the aforementioned analysts Justich and Ng told the Wall Street Journal, “the assumption that illegal people will fill out a census form is the most ridiculous concept I have ever heard of.”4

Conclusion

Reich concludes his video by suggesting that Trump, or anyone who thinks like him when it comes to illegal immigration, are looking to blame immigrants for the economic tensions facing the middle class. He says it’s all part of a game that’s rigged to favor the wealthy and the better approach is to work towards “comprehensive immigration reform” that gives illegals a pathway to citizenship.

Question: What is it that makes illegal immigration so difficult to define as a problem when the facts are so obvious? And bear in mind, we’re just looking at what the Left chose to address in the context of Reich’s video. We’re not looking at the criminal activity that’s happening within the ranks of illegals. It truly is a problem! Who is it that gains by defending illegal immigrants?

This comes from the “Center for Immigration Studies” in an article entitled, “Immigration, Political Realignment, and the Demise of Republican Political Prospects” written in 2010.

A comparison of voting patterns in presidential elections across counties over the last three decades shows that large-scale immigration has caused a steady drop in presidential Republican vote shares throughout the country. Once politically marginal counties are now safely Democratic due to the propensity of immigrants, especially Latinos, to identify and vote Democratic.

Again…

You be the judge.

 

 

 

1. “Adios America”, Ann Coulter, Regnery Publishing, Washington, D.C. 2015, p15

2. Ibid, p74

3. Ibid, p74

4. Ibid, p73

That’s Going to be a Good Day!

diamondThere’s a day coming when all of this posturing as objective journalism and concerned censorship is going to be revealed for the dark and sinister art that is.

At one point, one of the congressmen in this video made mention of Alan Keys in the context of how one of the most censored and criticized people groups in America are black conservatives. He then went on to say that if you throw Christianity into the mix, you’re at “the bottom of the pile.”

I think he’s right.

You’ve got facts, information and truth (FIT). Facts are headlines, information is judiciously selected data to reinforce those headlines, but the truth is a comprehensive picture for what the issue truly is and not just the feelings that can be highlighted in order to manipulate public opinion.

I was listening to a presentation recently where the commentator was saying that you shouldn’t follow your passion. Rather, bring it with you as you pursue a course characterized by wisdom.

Well put.

Feelings are powerful motivators, but they can be harnassed and used by forces that have some unhealthy agendas. Shutting down conservative voices in the name of being “hateful” or “harmful” might work for a season, it may sound appropriate and even wise, but it’s all smoke and mirrors. It’s a thin veil used to cover up something that’s amoral, godless and toxic and one day it will be revealed for what it is…

…and that’s going to be a good day (see Proverbs 1:20-33)!

Robert Reich and His 5 Points to Counter the NRA

reichRobert B. Reich is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. He served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He is very much a Left leaning educator and public speaker and reveals himself as such by praising Socialism, a single payer health care system and a 90% income tax rate.

It’s important to acknowledge his political paradigm because any time you hear someone with that kind of background voice their problems with the NRA or any other issue that is traditionally supported by a Conservative viewpoint, you want to be extra diligent in the way you process his statistics and his platform overall.

He recently published a video where he articulates “Five Points to Counter the NRA.” It’s an effort to counter what he refers to as “NRA propaganda.” It’s a tragedy when the defense of one’s Second Amendment right is referred to as “propaganda,” but then, this is how Progressives champion their rhetoric – by implying that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is evil, cruel and ignorant.

His platform is well presented, but there’s more to what he would say than what he communicates and in the end, his presentation isn’t so much a refutation of NRA or the logic he would use to edit the Second Amendment as much as it’s yet another example of how the Left manipulates the facts in an effort to undermine the truth.

Here we go…

1) First off, “Gun laws save lives.”

Reich quotes figures that come from a 1994 assault weapons ban that supposedly resulted in a decrease in instances of gun violence in which six or more people where shot and killed by 34%. To cite that legislation as a slam dunk is misleading. Fact is, the ban had a very small effect on gun violence and you can check that out at https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/.

Bottom line: You don’t need an assault rifle to kill several people in one episode. You can do it with any one of a number of options which is referred to in a report by Christopher Koper in 2003 dealing with mass murders that said whatever decline might’ve occurred in large scale killings that resonated as conclusive was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”

And as far as the number of victims increasing by 200% since 2004, it’s not the frequency of the tragedies, it’s the body count. The number of mass shootings today isn’t much different than what they were in the 80’s and 90’s. It’s not the weapon, it’s the character and the decadence of the one holding the weapon.

2) The Framers’ intent was to allow for a “well regulated militia” not the means by which people could terrorize their communities.

True. But if you refer to James Madison, the one who is considered to be the “Father of the Constitution,” he defined the militia as something that was composed of the “body of the people.” In other words, you cannot state that the Founders were referring to the National Guard in the Second Amendment without overlooking the intent and the supplemental writings of those involved in crafting the Bill of Rights. You can see an example of that when you look at a comment made by Madison on June 8, 1789:

“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country….”
(James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]).

The emphasis being on “the body of the people.” Not weekend warriors in uniform, rather the general populace.

3) More guns will not make us safer.

Reich refers to 30 careful studies that show that guns are linked to more crimes, rapes and others. He elaborates by stating that most violent crime involves a weapon. Exactly. That’s part of what makes that particular genre of criminal activity so destructive. But if the law was sufficient in and of itself, then the fact that murder is illegal should be enough of a deterrent to prevent one person from killing another. But it’s not. How do you suppose someone who has no regard for the law is going to be affected in his resolve to procure a weapon simply because it’s “illegal?” Can you not see the nonsensical dynamic of this whole argument?

And by the way, polls and studies have their place. But anytime you see a poll or report cited by the Left, you need to pop the hood on said study and see what questions were being asked and how they were posed. For example:

Question: “Do you support common sense precautionary measures where guns in the home are concerned?”
Answer: “Yes!”
Conclusion: The majority of America supports rewriting the Second Amendment.

There is very little that one can be certain of when it comes to “statistics” when the entity conducting those studies has an agenda directing their findings.

One other example is this article in Vox where the author insists that fewer guns result in fewer gun related deaths and quotes the gun control / confiscation that happened in Australia in 1996. Very few journalists will even mention the fact that in the aftermath of 650,000 guns being confiscated, Australia saw a spike in manslaughter, sexual assault, kidnapping, armed robbery in the aftermath. Did they involve a gun? Some did, some didn’t but the notion that less weapons means less crime is bogus.

4) The vast majority of America supports stronger gun control laws.

It all depends on how phrase the question. Click here to see a study that shows how less than half of America favors stricter gun control laws:

5) The NRA is a special interest group with a stranglehold on the Republican party.

Anytime the Left is interested in making a point, they will focus on “feelings” and indict anyone who differs with them as either being hopelessly stupid or genuinely sinister. This claim is an example of that. Does the NRA make political contributions? Absolutely! Over the course of the last 20 years, the NRA has contributed 3.5 million dollars. But compare that dollar amount to what Tom Steyer, the anti-global-warming activist gave to Democrats in 2016 alone: 90 million. In terms of lobbying and political contributions, the NRA and the gun industry generally spend next to nothing compared with the big players. According to OpenSecrets, the NRA spent $1.1 million on contributions in 2016 and $3 million on lobbying. The food and beverage industry has spent $14 million on lobbying in 2017 alone. Alphabet, Google’s parent company, spent $9 million on contributions in 2016 (click here to read more).

Dems act all indignant when it comes to lobbying provided the lobbying is done by an entity that they despise. But pop the hood on the lobbying that occurs in their camp and not a critical word is spoken.

And bear in mind as well that it’s not so much about the money as much as it’s about the votes. The NRA doesn’t have to spend much money to clarify to their political allies that their constituents care deeply about about gun rights. That isn’t the case with some of their liberal counterparts and the topics they want to force down the throats of the American populace. Still, any money spent by the NRA will be underscored as a sinister mechanism despite the excessive amount of cash and favors that occur under the table in the world of Progressive politician.

Any content coming from the Left needs to be examined for literary slight of hand and statistical padding because, in the end, they don’t have a point as much as they have a problem. That being that they’re not in charge and the promises Trump made during his campaign are being honored which leads to the strengthening of the nation that Obama so zealously strove to weaken.

There you have it!

Is America More Depraved Than Other Nations?

balance-2858897_960_720The questions is, “Is America more depraved than other nations?”

This comes from the questions that are voiced in the context of the debate pertaining to gun control. Some want to believe that increased legislation will solve the problem of gun related crime, others are insisting that it has nothing to do with laws as much as it has to do with the culture producing the villains pulling the trigger. Those who lean towards a legislative solution mockingly ask if America is more depraved than other nations, implying that in order for the cultural perspective to be credible, it would have to be demonstrated that America is more depraved than her international counterparts.

The answer to the question is, “Yes!” But not so much in terms of the number of people that are willing to commit murder, although that is the case in some instances. The real depravity is represented by the volume and the philosophical foundation of those voices that insist on targeting the legal system for resolution as opposed to the culture that’s producing the villains that are pulling the trigger. To adopt a conviction that criminal activity can be remedied simply by crafting new laws or changing existing ones is to ignore, not only the testimony of history and the cultures of nations that have lower crime rates, it flies in the face of the Absolute Truths that are communicated in Scripture. From that standpoint, it encourages a lack of accountability on the part of those that are guilty of murder and it creates a more humanistic environment that seeks to distance itself from any notion of personal responsibility and moral Absolutes.

Consider this…

Question: Who is Lee Harvey Oswald?

Think about that for a minute…

Japan has a remarkably low crime rate. Not just in terms of criminal activity involving firearms, but crime in general. The reason is not due to the availability of weapons as much as it’s a cultural dynamic that awards an outrageously lethal stigma to anyone who engages in criminal behavior. That’s not to say that it doesn’t have a darker side, but it is nevertheless a relatively safe country because of the culture.

…because of the culture.

Better laws don’t make better men. If the law in and of itself was sufficient, the fact that murder is illegal should be enough of a deterrent to prevent people from killing one another. But it doesn’t. What yields the lower criminal activity rate in Japan is the philosophical makeup of their citizenship and not the legal fibers that comprise their national legislative tapestry.

The United States depends on that dynamic as well. Os Guiness once said, “The framers also held that, though the Constitution’s barriers against the abuse of power are indispensable, they were only “parchment barriers” and therefore could never be more than part of the answer. And in some ways they were the secondary part at that. The U.S. Constitution was never meant to be the sole bulwark of freedom, let alone a self perpetuating machine that would go by itself. The American founders were not, in Joseph de Maistre’s words, “poor men who imagine that nations can be constituted with ink.” Without strong ethics to support them, the best laws and the strongest institutions would only be ropes of sand.”

Another quick question: Who is John Wilkes Booth?

Ponder that…

Consider the nation of Switzerland. They are also listed along with the Japanese as having one of the lowest crime rates in the world. All young men are obligated to serve in the military and after being discharged, many take their military grade semiautomatic weapons home with them. Despite the large number of weapons in the hands of the citizenry, their murder rate is way below that of Chicago. Again, the reason for this is obviously not in the manner in which they try to control the distribution of guns in their country, rather it’s the inclination on the part of the individuals who make up the Swiss population to commit murder. That is significant given the fact that in Switzerland, there are 40 gun homicides a year compared to fact that in the US there are 31 every day and most of the violent crime committed in Switzerland is committed by foreigners.

It’s not the “law” that makes the difference. It’s the character of the individual and the extent to which they’re willing to abide by the law.

Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated John F. Kennedy. John Wilkes Booth killed Abraham Lincoln. Their names are known, not the caliber of the weapon nor the due process or the lack thereof that allowed them to procure the weapon they used to kill their victims. Their names are known because their crime was associated with their personal depravity and not their gun permits.

What is the name of the individual who murdered the 17 students in Parkland, Florida?

If you’re like most, you have to google it to look it up.

Nikolas Cruz is a heinous human being. Yet, you don’t hear his name very often. Rather, all you’re hearing is about the “system” that allowed Cruz access to a weapon.

Not only is murder illegal, it’s cruel and despicable. The difficulty in procuring a gun is incidental in the mind of a person who’s determined to randomly end the lives of 17 young strangers. Another law is not going to make a difference in the rationale of someone who’s already resolved to disobey, not only the law, but every moral impulse that would otherwise govern a decent human being. And to insist otherwise is…

..depraved.

It’s depraved because it doesn’t look at Lee Harvey Oswald or Jame Earl Ray or John Wilkes Booth. It looks at pistols and rifles and gun permits for the same reason it looks at the lack of free contraceptives, the fact that a designated driver wasn’t available or a difficult childhood as a way in which to create a blameless culture where wickedness doesn’t exist, only flawed systems.

It’s the same rationale that dilutes Christianity down to a code of ethics by saying,  in the words of John Shelby Spong, “Christianity is, I believe, about expanded life, heightened consciousness and achieving a new humanity. It is not about closed minds, supernatural interventions, a fallen creation, guilt, original sin or divine rescue.”1 While that may not be the spiritual paradigm of every person that thinks editing the Second Amendment is a logical course of action, it is nevertheless the philosophical mantra of its strongest advocates (69% of atheists identify themselves as Democrats).

Sin is a choice and it’s one that you are responsible for. That is the one of the Absolutes that opponents of Christianity despise the most.  Evil is relative and wherever wrongdoing can be identified, it is the result of outside forces and not the sinister impulses of the individual themselves. God is dismissed as a Redeemer since He’s also the Author of the dynamic that incriminates human kind to begin with.

No mention is made of man’s choice to dismiss God and promote themselves as their own Absolute. An option that needed to be available in order for love to exist. An option that was explained as being lethal, yet embraced nevertheless believing themselves to be equivalent to and therefore deserving of the Divine Platform that governed their existence.

A choice that would require God Himself to die in order to satisfy the eternal debt incurred as a result of man’s depravity.

A choice that could be temporarily medicated with a legal code – a system of laws that allowed for a short term removal of the lethal stigma man wanted over the unpolluted fellowship God had originally put in place.

That body of legislation, however, that could not effect any real solution because man’s character is such where the fact that something is written down doesn’t affect any real change in their resolve to be immoral.

That is the Message of Scripture, it’s the mindset of our Founders, it’s the testimony of history, it’s the reality of those nations that have lower crime rates and to believe otherwise is…

…depraved.

 

 

1. Brainy Quote, John Shelby Spong, https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/john_shelby_spong, accessed March 30, 2018

110 Rules of Civility and Good Behavior

washingtonBy age sixteen, Washington had copied out by hand, 110 Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation. They are based on a set of rules composed by French Jesuits in 1595. Presumably they were copied out as part of an exercise in penmanship assigned by young Washington’s schoolmaster. The first English translation of the French rules appeared in 1640, and are ascribed to Francis Hawkins the twelve-year-old son of a doctor.

Richard Brookhiser, in his book on Washington wrote that “all modern manners in the western world were originally aristocratic. Courtesy meant behavior appropriate to a court; chivalry comes from chevalier – a knight. Yet Washington was to dedicate himself to freeing America from a court’s control. Could manners survive the operation? Without realizing it, the Jesuits who wrote them, and the young man who copied them, were outlining and absorbing a system of courtesy appropriate to equals and near-equals. When the company for whom the decent behavior was to be performed expanded to the nation, Washington was ready. Parson Weems got this right, when he wrote that it was ‘no wonder every body honoured him who honoured every body.'”

1. Every Action done in Company, ought to be with Some Sign of Respect, to those that are Present.

2. When in Company, put not your Hands to any Part of the Body, not usually Discovered.
Be considerate of others. Do not embarrass others.

3. Show Nothing to your Friend that may affright him.

4. In the Presence of Others Sing not to yourself with a humming Noise, nor Drum with your Fingers or Feet.

5. If You Cough, Sneeze, Sigh, or Yawn, do it not Loud but Privately; and Speak not in your Yawning, but put Your handkerchief or Hand before your face and turn aside.

6. Sleep not when others Speak, Sit not when others stand, Speak not when you Should hold your Peace, walk not on when others Stop.

7. Put not off your Cloths in the presence of Others, nor go out your Chamber half Dressed.

8. At Play and at Fire its Good manners to Give Place to the last Commer, and affect not to Speak Louder than Ordinary.

9. Spit not in the Fire, nor Stoop low before it neither Put your Hands into the Flames to warm them, nor Set your Feet upon the Fire especially if there be meat before it.

10. When you Sit down, Keep your Feet firm and Even, without putting one on the other or Crossing them.

11. Shift not yourself in the Sight of others nor Gnaw your nails.

12. Shake not the head, Feet, or Legs roll not the Eyes lift not one eyebrow higher than the other wry not the mouth, and bedew no mans face with your Spittle, by approaching too near him when you Speak.

“&c” here is et cetera, as in “and the others” or ” and company

13. Kill no Vermin as Fleas, lice ticks &c in the Sight of Others, if you See any filth or thick Spittle put your foot Dexterously upon it if it be upon the Cloths of your Companions, Put it off privately, and if it be upon your own Cloths return Thanks to him who puts it off.

14. Turn not your Back to others especially in Speaking, Jog not the Table or Desk on which Another reads or writes, lean not upon any one.

15. Keep your Nails clean and Short, also your Hands and Teeth Clean yet without Showing any great Concern for them.

16. Do not Puff up the Cheeks, Loll not out the tongue rub the Hands, or beard, thrust out the lips, or bite them or keep the Lips too open or too Close.

17. Be no Flatterer, neither Play with any that delights not to be Play’d Withal.

18. Read no Letters, Books, or Papers in Company but when there is a Necessity for the doing of it you must ask leave: come not near the Books or Writings of Another so as to read them unless desired or give your opinion of them unasked also look not nigh when another is writing a Letter.

19. Let your Countenance be pleasant but in Serious Matters Somewhat grave.

20. The Gestures of the Body must be Suited to the discourse you are upon.

21. Reproach none for the Infirmities of Nature, nor Delight to Put them that have in mind thereof.

22. Show not yourself glad at the Misfortune of another though he were your enemy.

Don’t draw attention to yourself.

23. When you see a Crime punished, you may be inwardly Pleased; but always show Pity to the Suffering Offender.

24. Do not laugh too loud or too much at any Public Spectacle.
25. Superfluous Complements and all Affectation of Ceremony are to be avoided, yet where due they are not to be Neglected.

26. In Pulling off your Hat to Persons of Distinction, as Noblemen, Justices, Churchmen &c make a Reverence, bowing more or less according to the Custom of the Better Bred, and Quality of the Person. Amongst your equals expect not always that they Should begin with you first, but to Pull off the Hat when there is no need is Affectation, in the Manner of Saluting and resaluting in words keep to the most usual Custom.

27. Tis ill manners to bid one more eminent than yourself be covered as well as not to do it to whom it’s due Likewise he that makes too much haste to Put on his hat does not well, yet he ought to Put it on at the first, or at most the Second time of being asked; now what is herein Spoken, of Qualification in behavior in Saluting, ought also to be observed in taking of Place, and Sitting down for ceremonies without Bounds is troublesome.

28. If any one come to Speak to you while you are are Sitting Stand up though he be your Inferior, and when you Present Seats let it be to every one according to his Degree.

29. When you meet with one of Greater Quality than yourself, Stop, and retire especially if it be at a Door or any Straight place to give way for him to Pass.

30. In walking the highest Place in most Countries Seems to be on the right hand therefore Place yourself on the left of him whom you desire to Honor: but if three walk together the middest Place is the most Honorable the wall is usually given to the most worthy if two walk together.

31.If any one far Surpasses others, either in age, Estate, or Merit yet would give Place to a meaner than himself in his own lodging or elsewhere the one ought not to except it, So he on the other part should not use much earnestness nor offer it above once or twice.

32. To one that is your equal, or not much inferior you are to give the chief Place in your Lodging and he to who ‘is offered ought at the first to refuse it but at the Second to accept though not without acknowledging his own unworthiness.

33. They that are in Dignity or in office have in all places Precedency but whilst they are Young they ought to respect those that are their equals in Birth or other Qualities, though they have no Public charge.

When you speak, be concise.

34. It is good Manners to prefer them to whom we Speak before ourselves especially if they be above us with whom in no Sort we ought to begin.

35. Let your Discourse with Men of Business be Short and Comprehensive.

36. Artificers & Persons of low Degree ought not to use many ceremonies to Lords, or Others of high Degree but Respect and highly Honor them, and those of high Degree ought to treat them with affability & Courtesy, without Arrogance.

37. In speaking to men of Quality do not lean nor Look them full in the Face, nor approach too near them at lest Keep a full Pace from them.

38. In visiting the Sick, do not Presently play the Physician if you be not Knowing therein.

39. In writing or Speaking, give to every Person his due Title According to his Degree & the Custom of the Place.

Do not argue with your superior. Submit your ideas with humility.

40th Strive not with your Superiors in argument, but always Submit your Judgment to others with Modesty.

41. Undertake not to Teach your equal in the art himself Professes; it Savours of arrogance.

42. Let thy ceremonies in Courtesy be proper to the Dignity of his place with whom thou converses for it is absurd to act the same with a Clown and a Prince.

43. Do not express Joy before one sick or in pain for that contrary Passion will aggravate his Misery.

When a person does their best and fails, do not criticize him.

44. When a man does all he can though it Succeeds not well blame not him that did it.

45. Being to advise or reprehend any one, consider whether it ought to be in public or in Private; presently, or at Some other time in what terms to do it & in reproving Show no Sign of Cholar but do it with all Sweetness and Mildness.

46. Take all Admonitions thankfully in what Time or Place Soever given but afterwards not being culpable take a Time & Place convenient to let him him know it that gave them.
Do not make fun of anything important to others.

If you are corrected, take it without argument. If you were wrongly judged, correct it later.

47. Mock not nor Jest at any thing of Importance break [n]o Jest that are Sharp Biting and if you Deliver any thing witty and Pleasant abstain from Laughing thereat yourself.
If you criticize someone else of something, make sure you are not guilty of it yourself. Actions speak louder than words.

48. Wherein you reprove Another be unblameable yourself; for example is more prevalent than Precepts.

49. Use no Reproachful Language against any one neither Curse nor Revile.
Do not be quick to believe bad reports about others.

50. Be not hasty to believe flying Reports to the Disparagement of any.

51. Wear not your Cloths, foul, ripped or Dusty but See they be Brushed once every day at least and take heed that you approach not to any Uncleaness.

52. In your Apparel be Modest and endeavor to accommodate Nature, rather than to procure Admiration keep to the Fashion of your equals Such as are Civil and orderly with respect to Times and Places.

53. Run not in the Streets, neither go too slowly nor with Mouth open go not Shaking your Arms kick not the earth with R feet, go not upon the Toes, nor in a Dancing fashion.

54. Play not the Peacock, looking every where about you, to See if you be well Decked, if your Shoes fit well if your Stockings sit neatly, and Cloths handsomely.

55. Eat not in the Streets, nor in the House, out of Season.

Associate with good people. It is better to be alone than in bad company.

56. Associate yourself with Men of good Quality if you Esteem your own Reputation; for ‘is better to be alone than in bad Company.

57. In walking up and Down in a House, only with One in Company if he be Greater than yourself, at the first give him the Right hand and Stop not till he does and be not the first that turns, and when you do turn let it be with your face towards him, if he be a Man of Great Quality, walk not with him Cheek by Joul but Somewhat behind him; but yet in Such a Manner that he may easily Speak to you.

58. Let your Conversation be without Malice or Envy, for ‘is a Sign of a Tractable and Commendable Nature: And in all Causes of Passion admit Reason to Govern.

Never break the rules in front of your subordinates.

59. Never express anything unbecoming, nor Act against the Rules Moral before your inferiors.

60. Be not immodest in urging your Friends to Discover a Secret.

Some things are better kept secret.

61. Utter not base and frivolous things amongst grave and Learned Men nor very Difficult Questions or Subjects, among the Ignorant or things hard to be believed, Stuff not your Discourse with Sentences amongst your Betters nor Equals.

A person should not overly value their own accomplishments.

62. Speak not of doleful Things in a Time of Mirth or at the Table; Speak not of Melancholy Things as Death and Wounds, and if others Mention them Change if you can the Discourse tell not your Dreams, but to your intimate Friend.

63. A Man ought not to value himself of his Achievements, or rare Qualities of wit; much less of his riches Virtue or Kindred.

64. Break not a Jest where none take pleasure in mirth Laugh not aloud, nor at all without Occasion, deride no mans Misfortune, though there Seem to be Some cause.

65. Speak not injurious Words neither in Jest nor Earnest Scoff at none although they give Occasion.

66. Be not froward but friendly and Courteous; the first to Salute hear and answer & be not Pensive when it’s a time to Converse.

Do not detract from others nor be overbearing in giving orders.

67th Detract not from others neither be excessive in Commanding.

68. Go not thither, where you know not, whether you Shall be Welcome or not. Give not Advice without being Asked & when desired do it briefly.

If two people disagree, do not take one side or the other. Be flexible in your own opinions and when you don’t care, take the majority opinion.

69. If two contend together take not the part of either unconstrained; and be not obstinate in your own Opinion, in Things indifferent be of the Major Side.

70. Reprehend not the imperfections of others for that belongs to Parents Masters and Superiors.

71. Gaze not on the marks or blemishes of Others and ask not how they came. What you may Speak in Secret to your Friend deliver not before others.

72. Speak not in an unknown Tongue in Company but in your own Language and that as those of Quality do and not as the Vulgar; Sublime matters treat Seriously.

Do not correct others when it is not your place to do so.

73. Think before you Speak pronounce not imperfectly nor bring out your Words too hastily but orderly & distinctly.

74. When Another Speaks be attentive your Self and disturb not the Audience if any hesitate in his Words help him not nor Prompt him without desired, Interrupt him not, nor Answer him till his Speech be ended.

75. In the midst of Discourse ask not of what one treateth but if you Perceive any Stop because of your coming you may well intreat him gently to Proceed: If a Person of Quality comes in while your Conversing it’s handsome to Repeat what was said before.

76. While you are talking, Point not with your Finger at him of Whom you Discourse nor Approach too near him to whom you talk especially to his face.

77. Treat with men at fit Times about Business & Whisper not in the Company of Others.

Don’t compare yourselves amongst yourselves.

78. Make no Comparisons and if any of the Company be Commended for any brave act of Virtue, commend not another for the Same.

79. Be not apt to relate News if you know not the truth thereof. In Discoursing of things you Have heard Name not your Author always A Secret Discover not.

Do not be quick to talk about something when you don’t have all the facts.

80. Be not Tedious in Discourse or in reading unless you find the Company pleased therewith.

81. Be not Curious to Know the Affairs of Others neither approach those that Speak in Private.

Do not be curious about the affairs of others.

82. Undertake not what you cannot Perform but be Careful to keep your Promise.

83. When you deliver a matter do it without Passion & with Discretion, however mean the Person be you do it too.

Do not start what you cannot finish. Keep your promises.

84. When your Superiors talk to any Body hearken not neither Speak nor Laugh.

85. In Company of these of Higher Quality than yourself Speak not til you are asked a Question then Stand upright put of your Hat & Answer in few words.

86. In Disputes, be not So Desirous to Overcome as not to give Liberty to each one to deliver his Opinion and Submit to the Judgment of the Major Part especially if they are Judges of the Dispute.

87. Let thy carriage be such as becomes a Man Grave Settled and attentive to that which is spoken. Contradict not at every turn what others Say.

88. Be not tedious in Discourse, make not many Digressions, nor repeat often the Same manner of Discourse.

Do not speak badly of those who are not present.

89. Speak not Evil of the absent for it is unjust.

90. Being Set at meat Scratch not neither Spit Cough or blow your Nose except there’s a Necessity for it.

91. Make no Show of taking great Delight in your Victuals, Feed not with Greediness; cut your Bread with a Knife, lean not on the Table neither find fault with what you Eat.

92. Take no Salt or cut Bread with your Knife Greasy.

93. Entertaining any one at the table, it is decent to present him with meat; Undertake not to help others undesired by the Master.

94. If you Soak bread in the Sauce let it be no more than what you put in your Mouth at a time and blow not your broth at Table but Stay till Cools of it Self.

95. Put not your meat to your Mouth with your Knife in your hand neither Spit forth the Stones of any fruit Pie upon a Dish nor Cast anything under the table.

96. It’s unbecoming to Stoop much to ones Meat Keep your Fingers clean & when foul wipe them on a Corner of your Table Napkin.

Don’t take so big a bite that you must chew with your mouth open.

97. Put not another bit into your mouth till the former be swallowed. Let not your morsels be too big for the jowls.

98. Drink not nor talk with your mouth full; neither gaze about you while you are drinking.

99. Drink not too leisurely nor yet too hastily. Before and after drinking, wipe your lips; breath not then or ever with too great a noise, for its uncivil.

100. Cleanse not your teeth with the table cloth napkin, fork, or knife; but if others do it, let it be done without a peep to them.

101. Rinse not your mouth in the presence of others.

102. It is out of use to call upon the company often to eat; nor need you drink to others every time you drink.

103. In the company of your betters, be not longer in eating than they are; lay not your arm but only your hand upon the table.

104. It belongs to the chiefest in company to unfold his napkin and fall to meat first, but he ought then to begin in time & to dispatch with dexterity that the slowest may have time allowed him.

105. Be not angry at the table whatever happens & if you have reason to be so, show it not; put on a cheerful countenance especially if there be strangers, for good humor makes one dish of meat a feast.

106. Set not yourself at the upper of the table; but if it be your due or that the master of the house will have it so, contend not, least you should trouble the company.
Show interest in others conversation, but don’t talk with your mouth full.

107. If others talk at the table, be attentive but talk not with meat in your mouth.

108. When you speak of God or his attributes, let it be seriously & with reverence. Honor & obey your natural parents although they be poor.

109. Let your recreations be manful not sinful.

Don’t allow yourself to become jaded, cynical or calloused.

110. Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.

For more information, click here.

Democrats Hate God?

Crucifix-1.jpg~originalThe special election that happened recently in Pennsylvania for its 18th district had GOP candidate saying that Democrats were energized by a hatred for the country, the President and God…

OK.

No one in their right mind is going to say that they hate God. But pause for a minute. Let’s pop the hood on the tension that exists in our culture right now and see what it is that characterizes the lines that are being drawn every day with ever increasing vitriol and passion.

If you fly the banner of the Democrat party, you, by default, are siding with a party that champions Partial Birth Abortion, Same Sex Marriage and the Doctrine of Entitlement, correct?

Partial Birth Abortion. Granted it’s an extreme version of a “woman’s right,” but it still falls under the category of abortion and that is something the Democrat party supports.  According to Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez, “…all Democratic political candidates must be 100 percent pro-abortion, or, as he put it, ‘pro-choice.'”

Correct?

Same Sex Marriage. Every one has the right to be happy. If an individual feels romantically drawn to a person of the same gender,  that is their choice and it needs to be honored. Not just tolerated. It has to be honored. Hillary Clinton said before the United Nations: “Like being a woman, like being a racial, religious, tribal, or ethnic minority, being LGBT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.”

Yes?

The Doctrine of Entitlement. Your future is restricted by virtue of any one of a number of factors including racism, poverty and those who would impose their moral preferences on you in a way that is aggressive and therefore destructive. And not just in the present. Our country is guilty of generations worth of injustice and bigotry and the fallout translates to whole people groups who rate reparations and special consideration.

Now, this isn’t the whole of the Democrat platform, but we’re on the same page – we’re reading from the same piece of music. I’m not coloring outside the lines…

Now, let’s go through these one at a time.

Abortion. You’re ending the life of the child that’s growing within you because you don’t want the responsibility of raising a child. You argue that it’s your body and therefore your “right” to terminate your pregnancy.

You have the right to say “No” to being intimate with a man. You don’t have the right to end the life of another human being. It is not a random organ that you’re destroying. An abortion doesn’t remove your liver. An abortion kills the child that depends on you for its life and you’re destroying it.

God says that He knew you before you were born (Jer 1:5). God condemns murder (Ex 20:13). Abortion, therefore, is absolutely wrong according to God.

You know, the God you love and revere.

Everyone has the right to be happy. After all, it says so in our Declaration of Independence: “…life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Inalienable rights.

But who gave you those rights? According to Tom Jefferson, God gave you those rights. But that’s where it gets a little twisty. Because He also gave you some moral guidelines and you see homosexuality addressed specifically in both the Old and New Testaments.

Detestable. That’s how God refers to homosexuality in the book of Leviticus. You can also read about it in Romans 1:27.

As far as “entitlement” goes, the fundamental flaw in the Democrat platform is the way in which it glosses over incriminating statistics such as the High School dropout rate and children born out of wedlock within the black community. However economic disparity is obviously precipitated by a such dynamics, the battlecry is “institutional racism” and other such mantras.

Scripture says if you don’t work, you don’t eat (2 Thess 3:10). If you’re going to quit High School and then insist that you’re worthy of some kind of assistance because of an institution that was ended at the expense of 360,000 caucasians who fought and died as part of the Union Army, you’re not asserting racism as a topic, you’re attempting to use it as a tactic.

You are responsible for your actions. On Judgment Day, it says in Romans 2:6, “God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” You will not answer for what has been done to you or what has been said about you. You will answer for what you did and what you chose. Insisting that your path was hampered doesn’t change the fact that you’re still responsible for your path. You also see that illustrated in the parable of the talents in the book of Matthew.

But that’s not consistent with the Democrat platform where the emphasis is on systemic flaws, cultural hardships and anything else that can be shaped into a credible sounding argument. Never mind the Absolute of God’s law or the Resources He makes available.

Do you smell that?

At every turn, on every topic, you want to maintain a conviction that is contrary to Scripture. You use words like “social justice” and “compassion,” but in the absence of godly wisdom, justice is nothing more than favoritism, compassion is a mere subsidy and love is a form of manipulation.

You may not hate the god you allow into the halls of your mentality, but that god isn’t the One Who authored the Bible or crafted the universe. That god is the host of the heaven referenced in the musical “Spring Awakening” where all will be forgiven.

No, you’re right. You don’t hate your god.

But you have very little patience or time for the God Who condemns the very behaviors you want to insist are noble. Don’t kid yourself into thinking you’re fooling Him…

…or anybody else.