Wednesday, November 21, 2018

Trump the racist?

I was sitting in a hotel dining area in Texas eating breakfast when I heard Donald Trump announce on the television behind me his intention to run for the Republican presidential nomination. I knew that when he mentioned illegal immigration, his political opponents -- who knew that they’d be actual enemies? -- would twist his statement into hatred of Mexicans and people of Mexican descent.

He denounced David Duke in the '90s;

He’s repeatedly denounced racial hatred in general and anti-Semitism in particular;

He’s been the best friend Israel’s had in the White House in at least a generation;

It turns out that Mexico also opposes illegal immigration -- when they’re the victims of it; and

Cohen's "racist" has been refuted by Candace Owens and Lynne Patton.

Thursday, June 07, 2018

A Brief Account of the Perverse and Unending Rampage of Daniel Ramos

The details of which are available for your perusal here.

Poking through the comments of various articles as is my wont, I stumbled upon Daniel perseverating in error and being unnecessarily rude about it, even after being corrected multiple times. When I pointed out his behavior, he began attacking me.

Unwilling to let defamation go unanswered, I replied. And I've been replying for over a month now, since Daniel will tell any lie, fling any smear, hurl any profanity, engage in any bit of name-calling, and project any fault in order to distract from his behavior in this exchange.

(I don't blame him entirely; if I'd made such a complete mockery of myself, I'd want to run, too. Only Daniel hasn't had the sense to quit digging, and he shows no signs of letting up. And that's the reason for this summary: To provide a response to whatever new nescience Daniel comes up with, to summarize for the honest reader the last few weeks of his disgraceful behavior, and to make more visible his utter mendacity and complete lack of integrity.)

When Daniel's vile and puerile name-calling, appeals to the bodily functions of various organisms (real and imagined), fuming that other readers were unaware of what he was secretly thinking, deflecting and projecting shamelessly, and outright lying proved ineffective, he resorted to attacking (wrongly) my comma usage, criticizing my wordplay, appealing to upvotes from his dutiful Shep, accusing me of creating false accounts" to make it seem as if a lot of people have an issue with" him, profile diving, comment mining, Disqus spamming (21 notifications as of this moment, from the original two), stalking, and trying to recruit Trump-loving racialists/tribalists to protect himself from me.

Daniel's also accused me of conspiracy theorizing, libeled me by casting my opposition to jihad and shari'a as a murderous hatred of Muslims, persisted revealingly in twisting a very apropos comparison of him to a raging and petulant monster into a homosexual advance, whined about himself being Jean Valjean to my Javert (a persecuted "real Christian," as though the Son of God endorses lying and profanity), and cried that I'm "tearing [his] reputation to shreds" when I've merely posted his comments in context.

All of which, of course, are Daniel's gutless attempts to distract from his shameful behavior.

1) This little fandango began with a (likely honest) misunderstanding of the nature of RCP's reporting on polls. That's not a problem; everyone errs. The trouble was that when another user pointed out Daniel's misunderstanding (several times), he not only persisted in the error but was obnoxious in doing so. (This appears to be a fundamental aspect of his character and not an aberration, as anyone who's familiar with Daniel knows.):
Brisa (before and after Daniel’s initial "error"): "a rolling average that consists of the major polls," "I said that in my original post that you responded to," "the very first sentence," "a rolling average of ALL the polls that are conducted," and, "Not one. ALL the reputable ones [...]."

Daniel: " poll."
Daniel followed up that brilliance with the following gems:
Daniel: I'm well aware of how RCP conducts its polls [...] I didn't say they did [conduct polls]

Daniel: mischaracterize what I said because it's easier than actually addressing what I meant

Daniel: the closest pantomime to "wit" you've shared is the copy pasted Latin you have on your bio [...] how exactly did me not mentioning TJ's involvement automatically result in you ASSuming I wasn't aware of it?

Daniel: you stated that if I had admitted to error, you would have laughed it off
Me: At any point, you could have laughed off your initial mistake, but you lied after that, after that, and then again.

Daniel: That doers't mean I hate [Trump] that just means I intensely dislike him
Dictionary: Hate [hāt] verb. Feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone).
2) To Daniel's credit, he did make an early conciliatory effort. Here is my reply to that:
The problem was not the initial mistake/error/whatever -- we all make them. The problem was that when your error was pointed out, you persisted in the error and attacked those noting it.

My initial comment about you was that it appeared that you cared more about your talking points than the facts. To that you reacted with hostility, two more contradictions, and all the personal stuff.

I mean no offense here, but I sense that even in your amiable post above, you're reluctant to deal honestly with the nature of your comments. You and I cannot be without division if you're going to state falsehoods and defend them with hostility. You've seen some of my comments; you must realize that I don't work that way.

I am a miserable sinner, but all that your work to expose my error has produced is an obvious typo/auto-incorrect.

I appreciate your effort here. Peace.
3) Upon pointing out that Daniel was pretending that the conflict was simply some kind of mutual misunderstanding, he raged. Here is my response to that:
This is giving you the benefit of the doubt, but it looks like you're so angry and bitter that you don't realize that a person might check his Notifications from oldest to newest, which is what I do. That means that your conciliatory post was the last thing that I saw yesterday. My last words to you were posted in kindness.

You've not only spent your entire day today (how sad!) frothing for no reason, you've taken what was a genuinely caring and honest response and thrashed it to bits.

You began the ugliness. Since I won't let you lie with impunity -- and I doubt that anyone who stumbles upon this is masochistic enough to go back and see how this began -- I'm posting below what led to my initial comment regarding you.

You obviously need help, Daniel. I hope you find it.
4) In one of Daniel's better moments, he appealed to upvotes:
Daniel: Funny how I'm the one getting up votes in our exchanges, and you're not. Does that tell you something?

Me: It tells me that you're desperate for approval and that you believe that argumentum ad populum is more valuable than your dignity. Truth needs no upvotes. (Which explains why you crave them.)
5) Daniel continued foaming at the mouth, prompting this reply:
It appears that your conciliatory post was just another deflection. Either that, or you're constitutionally incapable of honest self-assessment.

Exposing your falsehoods with your own words is neither truculence nor hypocrisy; it's exposing your falsehoods with your own words. Your projecting, deflecting, pathetic name-calling, lame "zingers," and childish attempts to turn my comments around do nothing to change that.

Deal forthrightly with that, if you can.
He couldn't.

6) Grasping desperately at a rhetorical straw, Daniel accused me also of conspiracy theorizing: He disappeared right after a particularly forceful thrashing and reappeared right after I asked him where he'd gone. He didn't like my explanation for it; I acknowledged his as soon as he offered it:
That's quite a coincidence; it was five days ago, right after you'd been irrevocably eviscerated, that you closed up shop. And now, you resume after my noting your disappearance.

That's fine. My explanation gave you too much credit: In mine, you come to your senses and realize what a tremendous mockery you've made of yourself; in yours, you're returning to wallow in your own filth.
7) And when none of that worked, he libeled me in defense of jihad and shari’a. Jumping on his racialist/tribalist Trumpkin's disgraceful and historically illiterate attack, he repeated the absurd lie, hoping that it would stick. Here's my reply:
As for your scurrilous and libelous "murderous Muslim hatred"? That's your most shameful lie of all.

You've been creeping through my profile and comment history for weeks now, and you've got the link to my 'blog. Where are my comments expressing murderous hatred for Muslims? All you've got is a pathetic aping of your Trump buddy's historically illiterate attempt to smear me.

You're such an amoral and ignorant coward.

You can be constitutionally averse to honest criticism; you can rage at anyone who dares to point out your mendacity, and you can waste everyone's time with your ridiculous and repetitive nescience, but you can lie about neither jihad and shari'a nor my opposition to them.

Nowhere have I stated that I hate Muslims, nor do I wish to harm anyone. I do hate tyranny with every fiber of my being, and Islam as preached and practiced by Muhammad is especially vile: He sacralized the violation of all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, blasphemed the Son of God, and demanded the enslavement and slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert.

You're attacking me over my opposition to that, defaming me as only the most despicable Islamic apologists and their Useful Idiots on the Left can.

So, shameless, lying, craven Daniel -- not "ad homs," just accurate descriptions you'd do well to take to heart -- how does it feel to be so desperate to save unsalvageable face that you're making common cause with racialists/tribalists, Trumpkins, leftists, and jihadists?
8) Dangling desperately from the end of his rhetorical rope, Daniel's resorted finally to suggesting repeatedly -- despite having the reference explained to him multiple times –- that my comparison of him to Anthony Fremont, the murderously petulant little demon in "It's a Good Life" from The Twilight Zone (what Daniel calls an "obscure pop-culture reference) who deforms, banishes, and otherwise destroys anyone who disagrees with or criticizes him, is really a flirtation.

Here's a classic case of projection:
Daniel: It's not the first time I've been hit on by a dude […] Speaking of Freud, he would have a field day with closet homosexuals like you, those who enjoy trolling for the purpose of inflicting pain and then get butt hurt (pun intended) when they are granted pain in return. This might explain why the initials to your name is "S" and "M." Is this another sign of your "alternative" lifestyle choice(s)?

Me: Isn't that revealing? I reference a diabolical little monster, and you come up with that. Only the depraved and the perverse can twist a perfectly apt reference to a demoniacal imp into something flirtatious. […] I'm not "tearing [your] reputation to shreds"; you are, shameless liar. Here's the context:
You're cute when you're desperate, Anthony.


Only to the depraved is "cute" necessarily prurient. (There's a new subject to bring up with your therapist.) And just so you know, "Anthony" is a reference to Anthony Fremont, the little, demoniacal tyrant from "It's a Good Life." I'm sure that if you had his powers, you'd use them.


What does it say about you that you're perseverating in the lie that you were being hit on? As I noted to you, that was a reference to Anthony Fremont, the demoniacal little tyrant from "It's a Good Life." Like Fitzgerald Fortune (look it up), anytime anyone does anything that he doesn't like, he rages. Thankfully, your "powers" are limited to only outright lies, shameless projection, and synonyms for the bodily functions of various organisms (both real and imagined).


Lying, illiterate Daniel. Here's what I posted to you 20 hours ago:

Only to the depraved is "cute" necessarily prurient. (There's a new subject to bring up with your therapist.) And just so you know, "Anthony" is a reference to Anthony Fremont, the little, demoniacal tyrant from "It's a Good Life." I'm sure that if you had his powers, you'd use them.


So, even though I explained the reference and posted the explanation again, you're persisting in it? Isn't that what some guys do when they're not really straight, and simply testing the waters to see if the other guy isn't straight either?


Here it is again:

Only to the depraved is "cute" necessarily prurient. (There's a new subject to bring up with your therapist.) And just so you know, "Anthony" is a reference to Anthony Fremont, the little, demoniacal tyrant from "It's a Good Life." I'm sure that if you had his powers, you'd use them.
9) Daniel then began whining that I "lied" about helping my "friend":
Daniel: you claimed that you were helping out Brisa for no other reason than because it was the right thing to do [...] The fact that you knew her gender [...]

Me: So, you admit that you were bullying a female. You're like a "bible superhero" or an "accountability god," aren't you?

Speaking of "stupid, unoriginal, despicably hypocritical, and shamelessly lying parrots," you're making things up (again) in order to deflect from your utter lack of integrity and decency.

And you just admitted it. Thanks.

You've proven your unwillingness (or inability) to get basic facts straight, so I'll help you out.

"White knighting," etc. are your absurdities. I never claimed that I "helped" anyone because "it was the right thing to do." As I've stated all the way through your little rampage, you were lying obnoxiously, so I called you on it. Your fragile and etiolated sense of self fractured at the criticism, so you raged. And you haven't stopped.

I still don't know Brisa's gender (as if it has anything to do with anything). My first references to Brisa used "he/she" (changed to just "Brisa"; look it up, Shep), but based on the apparent origin of the name and its ending, I figured it was safe to go with the feminine pronoun.

There. You got to deflect again for a bit. Feel better, Oz, the Great and Terrible? (At least he was decent once his lies were exposed.)

I've offered you the last word. You should take it.
10) And now, Daniel's fuming that I "lied" when I offered him the last word, ignoring the fact that the last word was his as long as it was neither false nor obnoxious.
Daniel: Wrong. Just 7 days ago you started saying "You can have the last word." without any additional context to that sentence.

Me (posted the day before the shortened version Daniel references above): You can have the last word, as long as it is neither false nor obnoxious.


You can have the last word, as long as it is neither false nor obnoxious.
And two days before:
You can have the last word, as long as it is neither false nor obnoxious.


You can have the last word, as long as it is neither false nor obnoxious.


You can have the last word, as long as it is neither false nor obnoxious.


You can have the last word, as long as it is neither false nor obnoxious.


You can have the last word, as long as it is neither false nor obnoxious.


You can have the last word, as long as it is neither false nor obnoxious.


You can have the last word, as long as it is neither false nor obnoxious.
11) These replies to Daniel are, perhaps, a good place to end:
Your persecution complex ("accountability god") is just another deflection. (And awfully whiny.) I'm no "self-appointed" anything; you erred; when another user corrected you, you responded obnoxiously. When I noted that, you began attacking me.

Your attempts to make "Javert" stick are sad. I love Les Mis; it's a beautiful and tragic presentation of the Gospel, but it doesn't apply here. Although you've certainly committed crimes against truth and logic (and commas), I'm no Pharisee with a badge, and you're no convict with a heart of gold.

You keep referring to my "friend"; I merely sympathized with the person who corrected you and whom you started to smear. Which, of course, has nothing to do with your inability to tell the truth.

Neither did I say that I would have laughed it off; I said that you could have: At any point, you could have laughed off your initial mistake, but you lied after that, after that, and then again. Why are you turning around such simple facts?

It doesn't have to be like this; I'm happy to be your friend. You've got to stop being dishonest and rude.


You've rejected my comments about it several times, but I'll repeat it: I sincerely commended you for that post. It seems that you don't hear this (or you don't want to hear it), but you put me in a difficult position: Should I just accept the post for the sake of peace, or should I point out that your implying that it was a kind of mutual misunderstanding was not true? It seemed that the right thing to do was to point it out.

As I've mentioned previously, I would have never posted to or about you to Brisa if you hadn't been wrong and obnoxious to her. I despise bullies. And I wouldn't have persisted in replying to you if you weren't constantly lying, projecting, deflecting, and insulting.

What you call, "tearing [your] reputation to shreds," has been only showing what and how you're posting.

Do with that what you will.

Update, June 18th: Daniel's oozed into another thread, stalking me here looking for typos.

Update, June 22nd: Daniel's now stalking me here. Talk about someone in desperate need of attention.

Update, June 25th: Now the sociopath is stalking me here.

Update, July 7th: The reprobate persists.

Update, Perpetuity the nth: Daniel the Disqus Stalker, Inveterate Liar, Malignant Narcissist, Podiatric Einstein, Asthmatic Would-Be Marine, Apoplectic Apothecary, and Prurient and Pathological Projector* continues his war against logic, decency, and his own dignity.

*All honorifics derived from Ramos's own comments.

Monday, March 06, 2017

Darwin's Crime Scene Investigators

This is in response to @JaTapps, who dances around Darwin's difficulties like Fred Astaire on Red Bull:
I overestimated you. Considering the limitations of Twitter, I thought that you would be able to address the salient points of your creation myth directly, not run like a coward:
a) You absurdly try to dismiss a perfectly useful English word ("kind") while dancing around your misuse and abuse of "species." (If you must have it translated into your own dialect, then genus or species seem the best fit. Family may or may not be too broad, depending on the family.)

b) When you define all fossils as transitions (including the latest, since everything is always "evolving," right?), then you're not only reading your faith into the facts, but you're sidestepping the issue. Why did Darwin need them? Because you can't get from A to Z without all the letters in-between. He needed proof of Evolution's "failures."

c) The only aspect of macroevolution that really matters in the controversy is simpler forms' "evolving" into newer, more complex forms. All you've got are bacteria to bacteria, mollusks to mollusks, fish to fish, and finches to finches. No one's seen otherwise, ever.
There. That's a tidy summary of your prevarications. Now, back to the original question and its follow-up:
1) Who has seen Life arise apart from the same kind of Life (or its programs)?

2) We've seen Life arise from only the same kind of Life (or its programs). Whom does that support, Moses or Darwin?
And this to a serious offering from @4_site_paradigm, who asks, "can you not investigate a crime scene despite no witnesses? Should we discard the plethora of evidence[?]":
That's a perfectly good question. The problem is not the evidence, but the interpretation. If you approach the scene having determined a priori that it was an accident, then that's what you'll see.

That's fine if it was an accident, but if it was a crime, then you're dead wrong.

You're saying that Life arises apart from the same kind of Life (or its programs). Who's seen that? Ever?

I'm saying that we've only ever seen Life arise from the same kind of Life, etc., which is absolutely true. Dogs from dogs, cats from cats, bacteria from bacteria, coelacanth from coelacanth, finches from finches. Man from Man.

Besides that, the basic unit of Life, the cell, is an incredibly complex Von Neumann-type metabolic machine. Who's ever heard of a machine arising from the muck by accident? And Life's programs, genetic code. In your experience, from where do machines and programs come?

You're discarding the evidence that doesn't suit your creation story.
And this in reply to methos1975, from here:
Comments were closed, so I'll just point out (for now) that you offered nothing that supports your claim that Life arises apart from the same kind of Life (or its programs).

Minor variations within species/genus -- as the organism's pre-existing genetic code allows -- examples of human manipulation of that code and its elements, and assumed descent when all you have are similarities are not evidence of your fundamental truth claim.

In other words, you still haven't answered the questions.

As for the second part of your reply, utter Biblical and historical illiteracy doesn't offer much to work with.

It is telling that you advocate for what no one has ever seen, but reject utterly the eyewitness testimonies of generations.

So much for reason and empiricism.

Friday, July 22, 2016

Notes on Trump

From here:
Unity. It does not mean what you think it means. Also .. he offered Ted a home? The Republican party was the home for conservatives long before it was home for preening autocratic, oligarchic, egomaniacal, orange-skinned, small-handed, big-government reality show celebrities, pal.

Thursday, June 30, 2016

The Darwinist's blind faith

The foundation of Science is observable fact. That Darwinists must fabricate causal links is an admission that they've got no actual empirical evidence on which to base their religion.

Darwinists condemn what they insinuate is a religious zealot's making things up to fit his worldview, but when they themselves do it, it's called "Science." For anyone else, it's to the Inquisitor!

From here:
Interestingly, some defenders of dinosaur-to-bird evolution discount this evidence against their theory by saying, ‘The proponents of this argument offer no animal whose lungs could have given rise to those in birds, which are extremely complex and are unlike the lungs of any living animal." Of course, only evolutionary faith requires that bird lungs arose from lungs of another animal.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

A fraction of a man

"God created man in His own image,
in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them."
-Genesis 1:27

Offered in response to someone (likely Muslim) defending another tyrant's suggestion that women should surrender their God-given liberties in order to serve the men who dominate them:
Half a man views women as chattel.

A quarter of a man defends that half a man.

A standard response (and more) to the vulgar and idiotic racists emboldened by Donald Trump

The Vile Orange Bigot has coaxed out of the shadows a lot of his fellow racist swine. Rather than waste time refuting every attack individually, it seemed prudent to cobble together several responses to their nescience.

Here is a synthesis of several replies to one of these witless worms and his Trump-inspired, profanity-laden cowardice:
Name-calling, character assassination, and bigotry from another racist Democrat.

This isn't elementary school; you're defaming someone you know nothing about, and you're doing it on racial grounds. Are you always such a lying, vulgar idiot? You see my nom de guerre and assume that you know something about me.

If you weren't such an historically-illiterate coward, then you would know that Santiago Matamoros is a first-century Jew, an Apostle. Saint James the Moor-slayer, the patron saint of Spain during its eight-hundred-year Reconquista to free itself from Islamic tyranny.

But you don't care about facts. It's not up to a Trump supporter to know anything about the things on which he comments. Just like your candidate -- who has already promised touch-back amnesty and negotiations on deportation, credulous loser -- you attack first and think after, if at all.

How does it feel to make Obama supporters look informed, patriotic, and noble?

Crawl back under the liberal rock from which you slithered, vulgar wretch.
Here's a recent head-shot that found its mark:
What's in a name, illiterate racist?

Trump says that he loves the ignorant.

You must be his favorite.

And another:
Wonderful! Another vile, racist Democrat.

Facts are "stupid" only to tyrants and slaves, and your red-faced, orange-haired buffoon has certainly clowned you.

As for your idiotic and bigoted smear, if you had any integrity, any historical literacy, any dignity at all, then you would know that my nom de guerre belongs to a first-century Jew, one of Christ's Apostles, the patron saint of Spain's eight-hundred-year war to free itself from Islamic tyranny.

You're such an ignorant coward. You deserve Trump.
And another:
How can a first-century saint be "illegal," nescient?

You're a credit to your candidate, illiterate racist.
And another:
Inapt, clumsy, and nescient.

Try again, racist Democrat.
And another:
So, you're just another historically-illiterate and racist Democrat. You know literally nothing about either Santiago Matamoros or me.

Can you be any more nescient?
And another:
The ignorant racists are oozing out of the woodwork, aren't they?

You know, if you had any intellectual integrity, historical literacy, or basic human decency, then you'd have saved yourself the embarrassment of exposing your bigotry over a nom de guerre honoring the patron saint of Spain's eight-hundred-year Reconquista to free itself from Islamic oppression.

But not you. Attack however stupidly whomever points out that you're being played for a fool by the other pathologically-lying liberal from New York.

Monday, June 20, 2016

Donald Trump is a Trojan horse and the embodiment of every absurd lie that liberals tell about Conservatives

Donald Trump is a RINO who will say anything, no matter how shameful, in order to win. He's the other lying liberal from New York, he's broken every promise made to his constituents, and he is a fraud completely unfit to serve as president.

If Trump were only a petty, bitter, pathetic, vile, little man who fears and loathes women, then there might be something to work with there. (His wife's public criticism of his craven personal attacks offers some hope for him). But Donald Trump is much more than just a red-faced, orange-haired blowhard.

Donald Trump is a fundamentally dishonest liberal whose "conversion" is not only conveniently recent but obviously feigned; Trump has already promised his support for nearly every item on a liberal's Festivus list, including: touch-back amnesty, declaring that "hopefully they all come back"; negotiations on deportation and not the enforcement of existing law; socialized medicine more absolute than Barack Obama's; more funding for Planned Parenthood, despite their mass slaughtering of innocents -- the literal poisoning, burning, crushing, and tearing apart of babies -- and then selling their remains; presidential edicts; one-bathroom-for-all; modifications of the Republican position against abortion; and punitive taxation and regulation for businesses that refuse to obey his orders.

Add to that his longtime funding of and praise for liberals (when Ted Cruz was opposing statists on both sides of the aisle in defense of the Constitution and the American people, Donald Trump was still buying politicians, including candidates opposed to the Tea Party), his use of Eminent Domain for personal gain (and not the public good), his making his products overseas, his support for increases in H1B visas, and his hiring of foreign workers (legal and illegal) instead of Americans, and Donald Trump is the establishment and everything that he claims to oppose.

The only thing that Trump's said that he seems to really believe is that Islam hates us; tragically, he doesn't know why, and he doesn't care to find out. And not only had he modified his "ban" (it was just a "suggestion"; Orlando's attack reinstated it, apparently), but his "concern" about Islam doesn't prevent him from condemning free people's defying Islamic totalitarianism, as he did with Pamela Geller's "Draw Muhammad" contest.

And after numerous blunders, insults, and flip-flops, Trump's offered something new: where his initial proposal of a wall to secure our borders contained no racist elements, Trump has now attacked a judge on racial grounds.

Besides the lying, bluster, and inconstancy, Trump speaks as if "2 Corinthians" is the opening to a bad joke, and he's being sued for child sex slavery, has lusted after his own daughter (publicly, on at least two occasions), defends rapists, and will engage in any character assassination -- no matter how bizarre, absurd, or crass -- in order to destroy an opponent.

But you can trust Donald Trump. Every version of him. Just ask John Miller ... over a Trump steak ... in the dining hall of Trump University.

Abraham Lincoln. Frederick Douglass. Harriet Tubman. Ronald Reagan. Ted Cruz. Donald Trump is a Trojan horse and the embodiment of every absurd lie that liberals tell about Conservatives (a term that Trump can't even define). He is merely the other side of Hillary's two-headed coin, and he will destroy the Republican Party.

America could have had a Reagan, but because of open primaries, the cult of personality, and Fox News's around-the-clock, slavish promotion of every ridiculous lie that Trump utters, we're stuck with Il Duce versus Kim Jong-Hillary.

Monday, June 13, 2016

Patrick Buchanan misunderstands Islam

Pat Buchanan asks the question,
"Will Europe remain Europe if she is repopulated by Arabs, Muslims, Asians and Africans?"
It looks like Pat instinctively understands that the problem is Islam, but it appears also that he's settled for the common misrepresentation of Islam as a "race."

What color is Islam, again?

Islam is a belief system, one that demands the rape, enslavement, and slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert. It has devoured civilizations throughout its nearly one and one-half millennia of bloodlust and terror. And Islam's been trying to conquer Europe since its armies first invaded Spain in the west and the Holy Land in the east, only to be stopped and driven back at Tours, Granada, and Vienna.

Jerusalem, Constantinople, and the rest of eastern Christendom were not so fortunate.
Christians from any land can assimilate, since they share the Common Thread that binds all of Western Civilization, but Islam comes only to destroy.

Sunday, October 04, 2015

The New York Times tries a new way to tackle the Bill of Rights

In response to another attempt by the depraved and subversive New York Times to usurp our Constitution:
The problems with (il)liberal efforts to curtail or eliminate the ability of American citizens to defend themselves are several:

First, the right to self-defense is a God-given and unalienable right, period. Only tyrants and criminals want the innocent defenseless.  If you're a criminal seeking to harm someone, and you have a choice between two homes -- one in which the residents are armed and one which is defenseless -- which would you choose?

Second, we already have multiple laws forbidding homicide; if mass murderers and other criminals refuse to follow a law as basic as that, what makes you think that they'll obey gun laws? They won't; only the naive and the nescient think otherwise.

Third, you'll never eliminate firearms; if you make them illegal, only the law-abiding will be weaponless; government and criminals will still be fully-armed.

Germany tried that. Communist and Islamic states, too. How does that work out?

Fourth, the president and other elected tyrants who want to take away our ability to defend ourselves would never, ever, under any circumstances give up their armed security (for which we pay). What makes their lives and the lives of their families more valuable than ours?

If Barack Obama wants the nation disarmed, then him first.

Finally, why would you voluntarily give up your right to defend yourself, those whom you love, and your neighbors? And even if you would, why would you use the coercive power of the state to steal away from the rest of us our ability to do so?

How perverse.

Saturday, July 25, 2015

There will never be peace in the Middle East nor anywhere that men consider Muhammad a prophet of anything but hell

From The Blaze, by way of Patriot Update, here:
"The religion of peace has morphed into the religion of pieces. Actions speak louder than words. The only reason all of Islam is being blamed is that the overwhelming majority of terrorists on the planet are Muslim and the silence from the Ummah is deafening and damning."
Those who blame Islam on the basis of Muslim atrocities alone are wrong; how many people who claim to be Christian steal, rape, or murder?

The reason Islam can, should, and must be blamed for Islamic terrorism is because it's directly responsible for it -- the genocidal pedophile Muhammad preached and practiced the rape, enslavement, and slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert.

Islam has never, ever, under any circumstances been a "religion of peace." No major school of Islamic jurisprudence rejects offensive warfare against non-Muslims; the Ahmadiyya, who do oppose such violence, are persecuted by their more orthodox coreligionists even in modern and moderate Islamic states like Indonesia.

Muslims who rape, enslave, and butcher non-Muslims are not "taking passages out of context"; they're doing exactly what Muhammad preached and practiced:
"the Messenger of Allah [...] would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. [...] When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. [...] Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. [...] If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them [...]'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).
Consider another example of Muhammad's genocidal intolerance, evidence that Islam has never been peaceful and that those who abduct, brutalize, barter, burn, behead, and butcher in Allah's name are doing just what their "religion" commands:
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter [...]" (Qur'an 5:33).
Islam's great exegete Ibn Kathir explains this verse:
"'Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil."
So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief."

(This passage immediately follows one cited often as proof of Islam's tolerance. In fact, Ahmed mentions it: "It says in the Koran killing one person is like killing the whole of humanity.” Tragically, ironically, fiendishly, Qur'an 5:32 is a warning against Jews, whom Muhammad especially hated.)

This is why there will never be peace in the Middle East nor anywhere that men consider Muhammad a prophet of anything but hell.

Friday, July 17, 2015

The "lone wolf" is not alone; he's obeying the "sacred texts" of more than one billion people and a tradition one and one-half millennia old

How many more Americans have to die, how many Yazidi girls have to be gang-raped and sold into slavery, how many more Christians have to have their homes and churches razed and their heads severed before people wake up? Before the nation demands action?

The Muslim "lone wolf" is not alone; he's obeying the "sacred texts" of more than one billion people and a tradition one and one-half millennia old.

Islam kills. It is not a "religion of peace." Except for the Ahmadiyya, who reject offensive warfare against non-Muslims (and are persecuted as heretics by their more orthodox brethren, even in modern and moderate Islamic states like Indonesia), every major school of Islamic jurisprudence endorses the rape, enslavement, and slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert.

What are our "leaders" doing in our defense? Don't look to media; serious news people scold not the president for giving Iran's nuclear genocide program a greenlight while they still hold Americans hostage, but the sole reporter who dared to ask him about his perfidy. The professional pretenders are no better; the world burns, and Hollywood rises to the defense of ... chickens. And academia is now an indoctrination center for the jihad against Israel.

Our politicians are swelling Muslim ranks in the United States; rather than telling the truth about Islam's war against the West (and humanity, in general), and acting accordingly, they're importing the enemy.

As these "lone wolf" examples show -- how many "lone wolves" does it take before they become a pack? -- the problem is neither ISIS/ISIL/IS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, nor the imam down the street "radicalizing" the impressionable -- they're merely foot soldiers working from the genocidal pedophile Muhammad's playbook.

The problem is Islam.

We need a mass movement, a public revolt, a popular uprising against this treason; our politicians are not just ignoring the problem, they're making it worse. Bush 43 was bad enough: in the most teachable moment in modern history, he called Islam a "great world religion of peace. And Barack Hussein Obama, the (allegedly) former Muslim, has done everything in his power to facilitate the rise of Islamic states throughout the Middle East and Africa, including a nuclear Iran.

There is no negotiation, no "live and let live" with "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Pervasive (il)liberal bias hides the tilt, or When the world's crooked, the straight look biased

I recall speaking with a friend (quite a few years ago) about media bias. He thought that Fox News was slanted to the Right. I shared that Fox News is pretty center of the road; it just looks biased in view of the rest of Media's overwhelming (il)liberal tilt.

Since when is patriotism a partisan issue? How can opposing the burning, crushing, and tearing to pieces of the innocent in the womb by their own mothers be "extreme"? Liberals lock their doors; shouldn't our borders be secure? They arm their security; what makes them and their children more deserving of protection than our own? And how is the self-evident truth that the human body was created for male-female unions suddenly "hate"?

The Left thinks that jihadists merit understanding, inclusion, negotiations, and access to nuclear weapons, but when a member the leftist media asks about American citizens' essential, God-given, unalienable rights?

You should know better.

And the Republicans are useless (or worse), giving the Tyrant-in-Chief everything he wants.

Some good observations on the Left's divine right of kings, from here:
The most maddening aspect of the polarization debate is the hidden presumption of liberalism’s right to rule. Authors such as Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann attribute most of the polarization in Washington to the Republican Party, which they and other observers argue has become too extreme. This will come as news to grassroots conservatives, who overwhelmingly believe that Republicans in the capital haven’t been nearly extreme enough in opposing President Obama’s governmental gigantism. It’s an implausible case, as there is little in conservative ideology today that you can’t find in Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative or in Ronald Reagan’s famous “Time for Choosing” speech of 50 years ago. The difference today is that Republicans have won some landslide elections and lately a majority in Congress, and this galls liberals, whose real answer to polarization is conservatism’s unconditional surrender.

A defense of Liberty in Wisconsin

Democrats will do anything to take, maintain, and increase power. Just ask Barack Obama.

A defense of Americans' rights, from here:
“It is utterly clear that the special prosecutor has employed theories of law that do not exist in order to investigate citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing. In other words, the special prosecutor was the instigator of a ‘perfect storm’ of wrongs that was visited upon the innocent Unnamed Movants and those who dared to associate with them. It is fortunate, indeed, for every other citizen of this great State who is interested in the protection of fundamental liberties that the special prosecutor chose as his targets innocent citizens who had both the will and the means to fight the unlimited resources of an unjust prosecution. Further, these brave individuals played a crucial role in presenting this court with an opportunity to re-endorse its commitment to upholding the fundamental right of each and every citizen to engage in lawful political activity and to do so free from the fear of the tyrannical retribution of arbitrary or capricious governmental prosecution. Let one point be clear: our conclusion today ends this unconstitutional John Doe investigation.”

Thursday, July 09, 2015

Parallel cases: Abraham Lincoln and Ted Cruz on judicial supremacy

Another reason to like Ted Cruz: No other presidential candidate has articulated the same basic truth about the Supreme Court's recent dictum in favor of the paraphilia du jour.

When the Supreme Court decides a case, the parties of that case are bound to that decision, as are those in parallel circumstances. But the Court cannot establish law by extending beyond that strict limit whatever "principle" they've suddenly created.

The current struggle between the friends of the Constitution and those who despise it and them will end in one of two places: either the reasonable and the decent will assert themselves and reestablish the rule of law, common sense, and basic decency, or there will be no barriers to any deviant impulse's being enshrined as "law."

From here:
Clearly anyone seeking a same-sex marriage license in a state who was not party to the Obergefell suit falls under what Lincoln would call a “parallel case.” But what about someone who runs to federal court or a state marriage license bureau, and holds up Obergefell’s doctrine of “dignity” on behalf of, say, polygamy? Must the court or marriage license bureau shrug their shoulders and say, “Well—I guess so”?

When Lincoln arrived in the White House in 1861, he found two executive branch decisions to which he objected. A free black man in Boston had applied to the State Department for a passport to travel to France, which the State Department had denied on the ground that the Supreme Court, in Dred Scott, had declared that blacks could not be citizens because blacks “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” And in Philadelphia, a free black man had applied to the Patent Office for an invention, and been denied on the same ground. Lincoln ordered both decisions reversed.

I often tell this story to my students in classes on the Constitution, with the question appended: “Was Lincoln defying the Supreme Court? Did he act unconstitutionally?” It is amazing—and depressing—that the overwhelming majority of my students get the answer wrong. Such is an example of how deep the idea of judicial supremacy—“the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is,” as the Court self-congratulated in Cooper v. Aaron—has crept into the public mind today.

Look again at Lincoln’s careful language in that passage above. He is saying that the reasoning of Dred Scott must be respected as to the parties of that particular case and in parallel cases (i.e., a slave owner who brings his slave into a free state, as Dred Scott’s owner had done). But in his decision to reverse the executive branch decisions supposedly based on Dred Scott in circumstances that were not parallel—both were free blacks in free states, with no one asserting ownership claims to them—Lincoln was asserting that the executive branch was not obligated to extend the principle of the Dred Scott case more broadly. The Constitution belongs to all three branches of government, each of which may assert its constitutional prerogatives in its own sphere—pending a legal challenge in the courts that concludes otherwise.

Saturday, June 27, 2015

Antonin Scalia obliterates the perverse Left's black-robed tyranny

The obliteration of Marriage, the death of the Constitution, and the Abolition of Man.

You can sit in a garage and call yourself a car, but that doesn't mean that you're a car.

Marriage is and can be only one man and one woman; one man's urge to insert himself into another man's digestive system is not "love," and it can never be marriage.

Sodomy-as-marriage is a delusion, a fantasy, a violation of Nature, and a (temporarily) successful attempt to use the force of law to coerce the endorsement of perversion. (Or at least, intimidate its critics.)

This is the abolition of Marriage, for there is no legally, logically, practically, nor morally consistent way to endorse homosexual unions and still deny "the right to love," "due process," and "equality" to practitioners of the other paraphilias.

And just wait; Islam is licking its lips in anticipation of its chance to argue in favor of Muhammad-endorsed and Allah-ordained polygyny and child sex slavery.

Justice Antonin Scalia obliterates the perverse Left's judicial tyranny, from Power Line:
The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.

Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.


[W]hat really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not.

They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.

Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.” (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.)

Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.” (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) And we are told that, “[i]n any particular case,” either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause “may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,” than the other, “even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.” (What say? What possible “essence” does substantive due process “capture” in an “accurate and comprehensive way”? It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements that this Court really likes. And the Equal Protection Clause, as employed today, identifies nothing except a difference in treatment that this Court really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence. If the opinion is correct that the two clauses “converge in the identification and definition of [a] right,” that is only because the majority’s likes and dislikes are predictably compatible.)

I could go on. The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop-philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.
Scott Johnson notes Justice Scalia’s footnote 22:
If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
The Republic is dead.

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Turning fiends into friends: The bad medicine of Barack Obama

One might assume it took quite a presidential beer summit to turn those demoniacal health insurance companies into allies of the Demagogue-in-Chief. But make no mistake, it was greenbacks, not six packs, that turned fiends into friends.

And it's not unusual. Donor helps politician get elected. Politician makes law favorable to donor. Donor helps politician get reelected, and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. It's a never-ending cycle of corruption, like Poe's tragedy:
That motley drama—oh, be sure
It shall not be forgot!
With its Phantom chased for evermore
By a crowd that seize it not,
Through a circle that ever returneth in
To the self-same spot,
And much of Madness, and more of Sin,
And Horror the soul of the plot.
It's a perverse thing, studying something in order to learn how to undo it. Like the serial killer who studies anatomy, or the pyromaniacal fire-fighter, or the liberal educator. Many of our elected officials are experts in the law (not the least of whom is the "smartest president ever," the Constitutional professor in the White House). All of them swear to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Yet they use their knowledge of law, government, politics, and human nature to serve not We the People, but themselves.

Barack Obama is to the Constitution as Jack the Ripper was to the ladies of Whitechapel. Which makes the president Barack ... the Ripper.

And the electorate wonders what happened.

Posted here:
"The administration waived conflict-of-interest laws ...."
Of course they do.
Despite his best efforts to disarm and bankrupt the Republic, the president has provided one valuable service to the nation: He has dispelled forever (except to the most deluded) the notion that liberals are noble public servants who care only about helping the "common man." They are as corrupt and cruel and greedy for wealth, power, and status as the most demonic Conservative of leftist fantasy.
Democrats today (and a lot of Republicans) are nothing more than professional campaigners who care only about maintaining their power and position no matter the cost to the rest of us. They live like kings off our backs while promising to the dull and greedy crumbs for which we all have to pay.
And so will our children.
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -Thomas Jefferson

Sunday, December 21, 2014

An answer for The Morning Answer

Good afternoon, Brian, Ben, and Elisha,

Recently you considered the question of whether or not Muslim terrorists represent Islam. In light of the many incitements to anti-Semitism, genocide, rape, and slavery found throughout Islam's foundational texts -- Qur'an, ahadith, and sira -- and the centuries of obedience to those mandates, it is clear that though there may be moderate Muslims, Islam itself is not moderate.

Islam's great exegete Ibn Kathir explains in his authoritative tafsir that even "disbelief" is considered "waging war" against Allah, a crime punishable by dismemberment and crucifixion (Qur'an 5:33).

Of course, there are those who self-identify as Muslim who do not support the harming of non-Muslims, but the vast majority of the faithful -- even in the West -- support the goals of the jihadists, even if they are unwilling to engage in violence themselves.

All major schools of Islamic jurisprudence, both Sunni and Shiite (nearly all of official Islam), uphold the commands to war against all who refuse the "invitation" to convert. In fact, Ahmadiyya Muslims -- who reject offensive warfare against non-Muslims -- are persecuted as apostates by their coreligionists, even in "modern" and "moderate" Islamic states like Indonesia.

This is because Islam's "Ideal Man" Muhammad -- its "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please Allah -- preached and practiced offensive warfare to make the world Islam. He commanded:
"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world)" (Qur'an 8:38-39).
Muhammad's command and example have inspired his followers to war against the non-Muslim world -- as knowledge, zeal, and resources have allowed -- for nearly one and one-half millennia.

This is why Islam conquered pagan Arabia. This is why it exploded (pun intended) out of Arabia after Muhammad's too-late demise and swept through the Holy Land, North Africa, western and eastern Europe, Persia, greater India, western China, and southeast Asia. This is why the Rome of the East, Constantinople, and the greatest church in Christendom, the Hagia Sofia, were conquered, desecrated, and Islamized.

This is why Maimonides observed that no one was as much a scourge to Jews as were Muslims (so much for the "Golden Age of Islam"). This is why Queen Isabella warred to complete the liberation of her nation from eight hundred years of Islamic rule (a feat accomplished very early in the same year she funded a little trip by an Italian navigator named Columbus. Not coincidentally, Islam's hatred of Christians is one reason she was willing to pay for the opening of a western ocean route to the rest of Asia.)

This is why the first Crusade was called in defense of eastern Christianity, under attack for centuries by the spiritual ancestors of ISIL, Al Qaeda, the rest of the Islamic alphabet.

(And from where do you think that at least nominally Christian rulers got the idea to use the force of government in matters of conscience? How might centuries of "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57) and "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5) have warped those languishing under Islamic oppression?)

This is why Vlad Dracula -- yes, Dracula ("Dracul" meaning "Dragon"; Vlad's father was a member of the Order of the Dragon, a group founded to defend Christianity from Islam) -- fought to repel the Ottoman Empire's invasion of the Balkans. This is why John Smith -- yes, Pocahontas' John Smith -- warred for Europe against Islam before arriving in the New World; his successes there earning him a family crest depicting the heads of the three Muslims he defeated in one-on-one combat.

This is why Thomas Jefferson and John Adams reported to Congress the Libyan ambassador's admission that the reason the Barbary States warred against nascent America was not because of imperialism, racism, or George W. Bush but because we were unbelievers who refused to submit to Muhammad and so all that we had and were belonged to Islam. This is why John Quincy Adams forcefully and eloquently contrasted Christianity and Islam as the difference between Heaven and hell. And this is why Winston Churchill observed that the world would never experience the end of slavery as long as anyone held Muhammad to be the prophet of a deity.

This is the reason for the Armenian Genocide. This is why it was not Hitler's pope but Hitler's mufti -- the grand mufti of Jerusalem -- who raised volunteers for a special Muslim SS division in the Balkans, advised Hitler on his handling of the Jews, and exhorted Nazis manning the concentration camps to do their "work" there diligently.

This is why 9/11, 7/7, and 3/11 were carried out by Muslims in Islam's name. This is why Christian schoolgirls are kidnapped, raped, enslaved, and beheaded in places as divergent as Indonesia, Nigeria, Egypt, and the UK.  This is why modern Israel was attacked repeatedly by its Muslim neighbors as soon as it was founded and why it  -- and Jews in general -- will never experience peace with the Islamic world.

No one can defeat an enemy they're afraid to name. The non-Muslim world needs the truth to be told about its ancient and existential enemy.


Sunday, October 05, 2014

The racist party hates Reagan

Yes, there is little to distinguish many of the two parties' leaders, but the principles those politicians are supposed to represent couldn't be more diametric.

A response to this with credit to this:
A greater percentage of Congressional Republicans than Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act.

You ought to ask the reasons for Reagan's positions, but you won't, since facts are anathema to you.

Blacks benefited from Reagan's economic policies more than Whites (color-based identifiers are revolting, but since you define people by the melanin-content of their skin cells, so be it).

Pat Buchanan (who's got his own issues with jihad and Israel) invented the term "Southern strategy"; what did he say about the "change" in Republicanism?
"We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense, and leave it to the ‘party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.”
If Southerners wanted to stay with the racist party, they'd have stayed Democrat. They went to the Republican Party because of the freedom issues Buchanan noted.

And right after Reagan's "states rights" speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi -- where Democrat Michael Dukakis spoke eight years later -- he went to New York to speak before the Urban League.

Reagan opposed "affirmative action" -- racial quotas -- just like JFK, Bayard Rustin, and the Urban League board of directors. He hired Clarence Thomas and Colin Powell. And Reagan signed Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday into a national holiday and approved a 25-year extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Why do you hate "states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense"? Why do you hate America and its citizens of every hue?

Democrats depend on the obedience -- and ignorance -- of "minority" voters in fastening their chains on them.

You're either too gullible to realize it or too complicit to admit it.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Anything else is self-deception and a denial of the Word of God

God is holy and punishes sin, but He is not some vengeful judge standing far above us eager to condemn and destroy.

Instead, He is the One Who became flesh, died for the sins of the world, rose again, and stands alongside us now in our sufferings, struggles, burdens, temptations, and fears. He is not the "friend" that so many imagine Him to be -- as if He's some kind of semi-divine coffee buddy. The Son of God is our gracious Lord (and Brother) Who bears our weaknesses in Himself.

Christians often misinterpret God's Law and Gospel to their own great harm, denying themselves the comfort for which Christ paid with own blood. Following are some of those recent misunderstandings.

I. Who's the buyer?

In the parables of the Treasure in the Field and the Pearl of Great Price, who is the actor? Christ or man?
"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it" (Matthew 13:44-46 ESV).
It is tempting to think that we are the one who finds, sells, and buys. (So much of what passes for modern "evangelicalism" comes down to this error.) But that would require us sinful, selfish, sick souls to be a whole lot stronger, mature, and holy than we really are. Than Scripture shows us to be. We're dead in our trespasses and sins, and "every intention of the thoughts of [our] heart[s are] only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5 ESV).

Christ Himself tells us over and over again that it is God Who seeks and saves the lost. What a comfort it is to know that even though we've earned His wrath, God seeks desperately for us wretched sinners not to destroy us, but to save us!

II. Choosing life?

What about Moses' command to "Choose life"? Christians turn this into a slogan, as if they somehow actually do it. Here's what Moses wrote (emphases added):
If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you today, by loving the LORD your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish. You shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the LORD your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them" (Deuteronomy 30:16-20 ESV).
Did Israel keep God's commands and thereby "choose life"? No, they violated them and so chose death. And what was God's answer to His people's wickedness? He became flesh and died for the sins of the world.

III. Fear whom?

When Christ commanded His people, "do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28 ESV), to whom was He referring?

Not the devil, for where does God ever say to fear the enemy? But He does say over and over and over again to fear Him:
"Fear not, you worm Jacob, you men of Israel! I am the one who helps you, declares the LORD; your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel" (Isaiah 41:14 ESV).
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight" (Proverbs 9:10 ESV).
(Besides that, the devil does not rule in hell. He and his fellow fallen are "cast [...] into hell and committed [...] to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment" (2 Peter 2:4 ESV). They're on short leashes until their final, eternal punishment where they "will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night [...]" (Revelation 14:10-11 ESV).

Don't fear that.

IV. Our utmost?

What about the popular book, "My Utmost for His Highness"? The idea is not a Christian, since God calls our good deeds "filthy rags" (and that term is itself a heavy-duty euphemism).

We have nothing to offer God. Our "utmost" is worthless. We're beggars. Christ Himself told His Apostles -- the Apostles -- that, "So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty'" (Luke 17:10 ESV).

And I've never yet met anyone who's done "everything."

V. A final note

In judging a sermon -- or any other "Christian" message -- ask yourself: Who is the actor, God or man? On whom is the focus, us or Him? Is the speaker's interpretation consistent with what Scripture actually says? It is Gospel?

In other words, is the message essentially, "Christ for us," or is it something else? When the "greatest man born of women," John the Baptizer called the people of God to repentance, to whom did he point? Did he cry out, "Behold yourselves, contributors to your own salvation! Do your utmost!" or was his message, "Behold! The Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world!"?

And did the Apostle Paul proclaim, "you have been saved through faith; you're on your own for the rest"?

It is human nature to want to play a part in our own salvation, even when we say we don't. Man either turns Gospel into Law, waters-down the Law, or denies his sin, all of which rob the believer of the comfort for which the Son of God paid so great a price.

Christ is Life, and He showed us the way:
"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted" (Luke 18:10-14 ESV).
The only time we should focus on ourselves is when we use the Law to evaluate our own thoughts, words, and deeds, an exercise which shows us only our sin and our need for the Savior. 

Anything else is self-deception and a denial of the Word of God.