Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Shame on MSNBC!’ Sarah Palin blasts ‘despicable yellow journalists’ for mocking Romney grandson?

As Twitchy reported, the repugnant racist progressives of pallor over at MSNBC sunk to a new low and mocked the Romneys’ adopted grandson. A loving family adopting a child? Yuk, yuk, yuk!
As Charles Payne said, this was truly “beyond the pale.”
Sarah Palin gave them the business as only she can.

Sarah Palin         @SarahPalinUSA
Holy unbelievable. The hypocritical leftist lamestream media should be shamed by every caring, child-loving... http://fb.me/6zwzudl6g
@SarahPalinUSA Just because your kid is retarded, doesn't mean every black person is too you bigot!—
Tim Kastelein (@okvomit) December 31, 2013

From her Facebook page:

Holy unbelievable. The hypocritical leftist lamestream media should be shamed by every caring, child-loving American. It has once again reached a new low. See the article linked below. One just can’t win in their petty little games. Good thing most Americans don’t play those little games! It’s a beautiful thing the Romney family has done by embracing “the spirit of adoption.” What on earth is morebeautiful? Shame on MSNBC for mocking this.

The LSM’s pursuit of “shock ratings” is unreal. Governor Mitt Romney ran for higher office with what I believe is a servant’s heart. He was saddled with some sup-par campaign tactics. That does not make him a bad person nor does it open his children or grandchildren to attacks over a year after the fact. This latest attack from the Left is despicable.

Leftist media hounds are not expressing an opinion with this attack; they are expressing a prejudice that would never be accepted if it came from anyone else but the lib media.
You really need a conscience, yellow journalists. May your 2014 New Year’s Resolution be to find one.

Thank you, Romney family, for giving a child a family full of love.

Seek help.
MSNBC and those Twitter users expose the truth: This is the Left. Tolerant and loving? Baloney.


Monday, December 30, 2013

Lying Liberal Liars, Obama’s big health care lie.,Obama’s big health care lie shows why liberals can’t be trusted.

Every morning the media paws through a dictionary looking for the most innocuous ways to describe Obama’s big health care lie.
According to the New York Times, Obama “misspoke” when he said over and over again that if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. But unlike the times that the smartest man to ever put up his feet on the table in the Oval Office thought that Austrian was a language or that the United States had 57 states, he wasn’t misspeaking.

44, as Politico likes to call him, was doing what 1 wouldn’t do after he chopped down a cherry tree. And to call a lie, misspeaking, is itself a lie.
Rob Ford didn’t misspeak when he claimed not to be on crack, despite being on crack. Barack Obama didn’t misspeak when he promised to let you keep your health plan, when he had no intention of letting you do any such thing. And the New York Timesdidn’t misspeak when it tried to pass that lie off as a mere slip of the tongue.
The New York Times, which never hesitated to call George W. Bush a liar, switched up its euphemisms and began calling Obama’s lie an “incorrect promise”. NBC News called it a “promise they couldn’t keep.” The Associated Press called it an “inflated promise.”
A few of their more honestly dishonest colleagues in the media argued that Obama did the right thing  because he could never have pried the health plans of Americans out of their grubby little hands if he hadn’t promised them that his government takeover of healthcare wouldn’t affect them. Some of the pundits making that argument included those on Obama’s regular reading list.
The excuse that Obama lied blatantly about the impact of a law he wanted to pass in order to pass it will no doubt be a great comfort to those gun owners who were willing to trust that his crusade against gun rights would stop where he told them it would and those Republican supporters of amnesty for illegal aliens who believed that he really would secure the borders once he got his millions of newly minted Democratic Party voters.
If Obama lied to pass one law, what sensible argument can any of his supporters make for believing him the next time he promises, “If you like your guns, you can keep your guns” or “If you like your borders, you can keep your borders”?
Obama wasn’t the first politician to lie. He won’t be the last. But most politicians who lie don’t have an army of reporters swarming around them to explain that they didn’t lie, but just inflated their misspeaking. One man did not get up in front of the microphones and cameras and lie over and over again. The entire liberal establishment lied. And it’s still lying.
The media’s lies and excuses, even more than the original Obama lie, reveal why liberals can never be trusted.

If Obama had only lied about being on crack or with an intern, that might be an impeachable act, but an understandable human failing. But he wasn’t lying to cover up something shameful that he did. He lied because he didn’t think Americans deserved to keep their health plans… or the truth.
Obama lied because he is a liberal.
That Obama would lie was an inevitable as the sun rising in the morning and the taxman coming in the spring. The lie was baked into the nature of the progressive movement that he identified with and its social experiments with human lives for the greater good that he participated in.
Lying isn’t incidental to a liberal. Liberal is another word for liar. Someone who believes, as Obama and his media cronies do, that Americans are too stupid and ignorant to be trusted to choose their own health care, isn’t about to trust them with the truth.
Liberals don’t believe that the people they lie to are their equals. If they did, not only wouldn’t they lie to them, but they wouldn’t subscribe to a skewed leftist take on liberalism that compels them to take away choices from people for their own good.
You don’t take away someone’s right to choose unless you think that they are inferior to you.
If you think that the next person over can run his life just as well as you run yours, then there’s no reason to take over his life and to lie to him about it. But if you think that he’s probably a racist moron who worships the flag and clings to his gun and bible and can’t be trusted to buy a car, raise his kids, drink a large soda and see a doctor; then you’re probably a liberal.
And a liar.
That’s the difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives respect people’s choices. Liberals don’t. And if you don’t respect someone’s choices; you don’t respect them.
If you think that the average person is a moron, then the only answer is to set up to a totalitarian system to nudge the marching morons into the death panels for their own greater good while lying to them that the death panelists are really the judges for the next hot talent competition.
If ordinary people don’t deserve the basic decency of being allowed to make decisions about their own health care, then they also don’t deserve the basic decency of not being lied to their faces about those decisions being taken away from them.
If Obama had trusted and respected Americans, he wouldn’t have lied to them about ObamaCare. But if he had really trusted and respected them, he wouldn’t have inflicted ObamaCare on them.
Obama’s crime isn’t the lie. The lie is the cover-up of the crime. The crime is that Obama packaged a tax, a welfare program and a government takeover of health care together and called it reform.
The media has shown that Obama’s lie was no isolated incident by lying about the lie for the same reason that he told the lie. The health plan lie wasn’t the lie of one politician protecting his reputation; it was the big lie of a liberal establishment protecting its agenda.
The liberal media manipulates its readers, listeners and viewers the same way that liberal governments manipulate their citizens. Unlike Clinton’s lie, Obama’s lie was not one man’s mistake, but a movement’s arrogance. And not only hasn’t Obama stopped lying about his lie, but the media and the rest of his movement haven’t stopped lying about his lie.
Obama’s big health care lie shows why liberals can’t be trusted. Any movement that believes its members are superior to ordinary people cannot be trusted to represent them or to tell them the truth.

Liberals Are Control Freaks

Liberals / Progressives / (most) Democrats are control freaks. It’s the one characteristic at the core of everything they do and say. Control over others’ lives is the primordial principle that inexorably drives them in politics and in their personal lives.

They can’t afford to be too obvious about it, because nobody likes a control freak, especially control freaks. They must conceal their ulterior motive at all costs. They disguise and camouflage it with affected nobility, piety, sympathy, compassion, and the selfless desire to help others (whether they want that help or not).

An appurtenance to that ineluctable drive is the superior intelligence that makes their efforts necessary and appropriate. They are simply smarter than everybody else, and therefore it is incumbent upon them to treat others as children who don’t always know what’s best for them and must be taught to obey at all times. If Americans are the world’s police, progressives are the world’s mothers.

One obvious example is Michelle Obama’s determination to dictate what school children eat. She decides on the best menu for school lunches and forces schools to adopt her scheme. When schools lose money because it doesn’t work, or when kids simply throw the food away instead of eating it, it never occurs to Michelle Obama that maybe her approach is not a wise one. She knows best, and that is not up for debate. The problem must be that others are being foolish, or they don’t understand her.

There’s another glaring example. During the Civil War, the North wasn’t fighting for any overriding principle or noble cause. They went to war because the South defied their wishes. Period. It wasn’t about slavery, although the North eventually portrayed it as a compassionate move to free slaves. (Truth is irrelevant to liberals. All that matters is that they win, and that they present themselves in the best possible light, whether that involves deception or not.)

Although Abraham Lincoln was a Republican president (the first, in fact), he was the most thoroughly progressive president in our history (even before we called it progressive). His generals were also thoroughly progressive. To them, such issues as the Constitution or States Rights had absolutely no bearing on their determination to force the South to comply with the North’s tariff policies. That’s what they wanted, and by God, that’s what they were going to get, whatever it took.

What it took was 650,000 American lives. What it took was the demolition of half the country. What it took was shredding the Constitution and proceeding as if it had never been written. Innocent, defenseless Southern women, children, old men, and blacks were burned, starved, robbed, and raped by the tens of thousands. The North wasn’t just trying to win the war, they were out for revenge. To them, secession was a personal insult, and they were obliged to teach those Rebs a lesson. They despised Southerners (regardless of age, gender, or color) with every cell in their Yankee bodies. Northern policy was one of Southern cultural genocide. They wanted Southerners exterminated (much as Hitler wanted Jews exterminated later), so that Yankees could move into the South and make it a proper (meaning Yankee) part of the Union. (This is all well documented in the North’s own official military records.)

I can’t help being nauseated today when I see progressives (or anyone) wringing their hands over the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Assad is the devil incarnate for using chemical weapons in war, while Abraham Lincoln is venerated for killing far more people (fellow Americans) in no less barbaric fashion (burning, starving, slaughtering, etc).

At least Assad is ostensibly trying to preserve his control over his country, forced to fight against people who also want to control Syria. Lincoln didn’t have that sort of problem. The South didn’t want to take over America. They posed no threat to Lincoln. They just wanted to go their separate way. Just as the colonies did in the 18th century. The South had the same right to secede that the Patriots had to separate from England. And nobody understood that better than Abraham Lincoln. He just didn’t care. Because his inner control freak nature was not to be denied. He was a big government guy with big government plans, and once he finagled his way into power he was not about to let those damned rebels spoil his fun.

You might have gotten the impression that liberals are generally opposed to war, while conservatives tend to be the hawks in foreign affairs. But Democrat presidents have been behind most of our modern wars. Wilson in WWI. FDR in WWII. Truman in Korea. JFK and LBJ in Viet Nam. Clinton got in a few military licks, too. So, what is their overriding foreign policy that makes those wars necessary and righteous, while the Iraq war was decidedly unacceptable? I’ve never heard a coherent explanation of liberal foreign policy principles. But it is all consistent with their control freak nature. They aren’t content to control the lives of their fellow Americans. They want to control everybody in the world. And they insist on being the ones who dictate where, when, and how that might involve military action.

One more example. Most liberals aren’t intelligent or clever enough to handle themselves well in open, honest debate. So most of them don’t even try. Those who do typically resort quickly to name-calling and insults, because they don’t have the facts to back up their position, or they are simply incapable of presenting their case coherently and convincingly.

The most glaring case in point is liberal reaction to the Tea Party. Unable to refute intelligently or persuasively the Tea Party goal of less and smaller federal government, liberals immediately resorted to charges of racism, which were absurd. Democrat leaders went so far as to stage an incident which was intended to demonstrate Tea Party (and Republican / conservative in general) racist attitudes. But it was so phony that even liberals weren’t buying it.

But if the racist epithet didn’t work, liberals could always resort to calling Tea Party membersteabaggers. Which was the adult liberal equivalent of a child’s charge of “doo-doo head!”. By the way, it is interesting to note that most Tea Party members didn’t even know what that meant at first. But, of course, liberals didn’t need anyone to draw them a picture. They were the experts on that subject.

But the favorite maneuver for liberals in dealing with anyone they dislike or disagree with is to just make them shut up. They have been trying for years to shut down conservative talk radio and Fox News Channel. Liberals say they are all for free speech, but only if they are the ones speaking freely. Others must be silenced. They tried their own talk radio, but it fizzled. They can’t compete in the marketplace of political ideas and debate, so they do everything in their power to make sure theirs is the only voice heard. (Lincoln did the same thing, shutting down every Northern newspaper that didn’t enthusiastically support him and his policies. The First Amendment? Sure. Just try to enforce it! See how fast your printing press is destroyed!)

Not all liberals are control freaks (I suspect). And not all control freaks are liberals (I suspect). But there is a strong and readily apparent correlation. I can think of one bright, shining exception to the rule. He and I disagree on most things in politics and religion, but I find him honest, extremely intelligent, eloquent, definitely worth listening to, and a pleasure to debate with. He is the exception that proves the rule.

Friday, December 27, 2013

'Duck Dynasty' to resume filming with Phil Robertson, A&E announces

he A&E Network announced Friday it would resume filming “Duck Dynasty” with Phil Robertson and the rest of his family next spring.
Robertson had been indefinitely suspended by the network for comments he made about homosexuality in an interview with GQ Magazine.
In a statement released late Friday afternoon, A&E said, “While Phil's comments made in the interview reflect his personal views based on his own beliefs, and his own personal journey, he and his family have publicly stated they regret the "coarse language" he used and the misinterpretation of his core beliefs based only on the article.  He also made it clear he would "never incite or encourage hate." 
The network added that “Duck Dynasty is not a show about one man's views. It resonates with a large audience because it is a show about family, a family that America has come to love. As you might have seen in many episodes, they come together to reflect and pray for unity, tolerance and forgiveness.  These are three values that we at A&E Networks also feel strongly about.
“So after discussions with the Robertson family, as well as consulting with numerous advocacy groups, A&E has decided to resume filming Duck Dynasty later this spring with the entire Robertson family.”

MSNBC's Hayes Derides FNC 'Obsession' with 'Knockout Game' That Targets Whites

On Monday's All In with Chris Hayes, host Hayes for a second time griped over Fox News giving attention to reports of primarily black teens playing a "knockout game" in which they target white victims for violence, suggesting that the game does not really exist.

As he awarded his choice for the "over-covered" and "under-covered" news stories for the year, Hayes began: "Over-covered is the Fox News/Drudge obsession with the so-called 'Knockout Game,' which this is a flavor of what that, and this has been on Fox all the time."

After playing several clips from various FNC shows, the MSNBC host added: "You get a sense of the racial politics and subtext, or not even subtext, text of that."

On Wednesday, November 27, during a pre-Thanksgiving special designed to advise viewers on how to deal with conservative relatives at Thanksgiving Day gatherings, Hayes had first tried to cast doubt on Fox News attention to the "Knockout Game." He teased the segment: "Have you heard of the "Knockout Game"? If your relatives watch Fox News, I guarantee they've heard of it. What it is and why it's not actually a thing, next."

Even while conceding that NBC's Today show had also mentioned the "Knockout Game," Hayes still managed to pick on Fox News. After several clips from FNC shows, the MSNBC host added: "If you don't watch Fox, it's possible you haven't heard of this supposed trend called the 'Knockout Game.' It has appeared on the Today show, so it has been in more mainstream outlets."

After declaring that "teenagers shouldn't beat people up," he recalled:
But I remember this strikes so much. I remember I grew up in New York City in the 90s, and we had very high rates of crime. There was a woman in Central Park who was raped. There were accounts that said teenagers were singing Wild Thing, "wilding." And there were covers of the New York papers about the new trend of "wilding." Teen "Park Marauders call it "wilding." And this was a thing that was going on. And there never was such a thing.
He then tried to discredit the existence of the "Knockout Game":
And I see no evidence. And I want to read this from the NYPD in response to the "Knockout." This is the New York City Police Department saying, "There is particular concern within the department that widespread coverage could create the atmosphere where such a game could take hold in New York."

You basically have Ray Kelly, who is not necessarily like Mr. Bleeding heart liberal, saying, "I don't really see evidence this is a real thing, and I am concerned that the press is going to make it a real thing."
Below are transcripts of relevant portions of the Monday, December 23, and the Wednesday, November 27, All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC:

# From December 23:
CHRIS HAYES: All right, quickly, my over-covered, under-covered. Over-covered is the Fox News/Drudge obsession with the so-called "Knockout Game," which this is a flavor of what that, and this has been on Fox all the time. Take a listen.

BILL O'REILLY, FNC: "Weekdays with Bernie" segment tonight, another example of young black Americans committing senseless crimes.

GRETCHEN CARLSON, FNC: The horrifying and deadly new trend sweeping the country called the "Knockout Game."

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FNC: The game? Well, young teens try to knock out a random victim with one brutal punch.

SEAN HANNITY, FNC: Young men involved reportedly just do it, quote, "for the fun of it." Pretty sick, pretty disturbing.

BO DIETL, FORMER NYPD DETECTIVE, ON FNC: It's being suppressed by the news media. The liberal news media doesn't want to say exactly what it is. It's gangs of black youths attacking whites.

HAYES: You get a sense of the racial politics and subtext, or not even subtext, text of that.

And my under-covered story, this year we passed a landmark, 400 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere. You might think to yourself, 400 parts per million, what the heck does that mean?

Okay, look at this. This is the past 800,000 years, and that's carbon in the atmosphere. And what you see is that it bounces between 200 parts per million and 300 parts per million for 800,000 years. And this year, it crossed 400 parts per million.

A lot of people think the safest level we can have is 350 parts per million, hence the name of the group, 350.org. We are headed towards 450, and after that, Lord knows what, and that got zero, zero coverage. And the other thing that didn't get coverage is this headline from The Guardian about the billion dollars that conservative groups have been spending to combat action on climate change.
# From November 27:
CHRIS HAYES: All right. Have you heard of the "Knockout Game"? If your relatives watch Fox News, I guarantee they've heard of it. What it is and why it's not actually a thing, next.


BILL O'REILLY, FNC: Another example of young black Americans committing senseless crimes.

GRETCHEN CARLSON, FNC: The horrifying and deadly new trend sweeping the country called the "Knockout Game."

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FNC: The game? Well, young teens try to knock out a random victim with one brutal punch.

SEAN HANNITY, FNC: Young men involved reportedly just do it, quote, "For the fun of it."

BO DIETL, FNC CONTRIBUTOR: The liberal news media doesn't want to say exactly what it is. It's gangs of black youths attacking whites.

O'REILLY: It is a troubling situation, and it all goes back to an alienation of young black men in this country for a number of reasons but primarily because they're angry they didn't have a family and their father abandoned them and all of that.

HAYES (LAUGHING): That is all stuff that's been airing on Fox recently. I'm here with Sam Seder, Nancy Giles, Josh Barro and Lizz Winstead. If you don't watch Fox, it's possible you haven't heard of this supposed trend called the "Knockout Game." It has appeared on the Today show, so it has been in more mainstream outlets.


HAYES: Yeah, yes.

NANCY GILES, CBS CONTRIBUTOR: Has the ??? come up with a theme song and a font to go with it.

HAYES: No. No, but it did appear there and it appeared in a few other outlets. And, it is basically a, it is video of teenagers beating people up. Now, teenagers beating people up is horrible. Teenagers shouldn't beat people up. If they do, they should be punished for it. They should be prosecuted.

GILES: Absolutely.

HAYES: But I remember this strikes so much. I remember I grew up in the New York City in the 90s, and we had very high rates of crime. There was a woman in Central Park who was raped. There was accounts that said teenagers were singing "Wild Thing," "wilding." And there were covers of the New York papers about the new trend of wilding. Teen "Park Marauders call it "wilding." And this was a thing that was going on. And there never was such a thing.

And I see no evidence. And I want to read this from the NYPD in response to the "Knockout." This is the New York City Police Department saying, "There is particular concern within the department that widespread coverage could create the atmosphere where such a game could take hold in New York."

You basically have Ray Kelly who is not necessarily like Mr. Bleeding heart liberal saying, "I don't really see evidence this is a real thing, and I am concerned that the press is going to make it a real thing."

WINSTEAD: Just like the Koran burner in Florida, exactly like that.

HAYES: Yes, that's exactly-

WINSTEAD: Exactly that guy.

HAYES: That's exactly, that's a perfect example.

WINSTEAD: You know, that's the, that happens constantly. If you people-

HAYES: If a Koran burns in the forest and there's no one there hear it

GILES: Then nobody is going to react to it.

SEDER: There are two things that are operating here. One is the fact that it's on video.


SAM SEDER, HUFFINGTON POST: If this was not on video, they could be walking around with ice picks and attacking everyone and we would hear nothing out of it.


SEDER: And the other part is it just seems like the war on Christmas is just not getting off the ground.


HAYES: Yes, that's totally a thousand percent true.

SEDER: I am willing to bet that we will see a lot of war on Christmas because congress is not in session, and we're going to see, war on Christmas is going to take off-

MSNBC's Sharpton Slams 'Stinginess' of Republican 'Grinches'

On the Monday, December 23, PoliticsNation on MSNBC, host Al Sharpton led the show by accusing Republicans of "stinginess" and of being "grinches" because of GOP opposition to a further extension of unemployment benefits. With the words "GOP Grinches Steal Christmas" on screen, Sharpton opened the show:
Tonight's lead, Republican's grinches launching fist full of coal. This week, as families gather at dinner tables around the country, many are facing extreme economic anxiety that could have been prevented, is due to Republicans' stinginess on key economic issues. More than one million Americans face losing their unemployment benefits in just five days.
He added:
For them, these are urgent times, and it shouldn't be happening. Republicans in Congress are blocking an extension of benefits, even though they don't even have support from Republican voters. New polling shows voters in five GOP congressional districts support extending jobless benefits despite what Republican leaders say. That includes voters in Speaker John Boehner's own district in Ohio. Voters know this isn't a partisan issue. They know the wellbeing of real families is at stake.
A bit later, in continued:
Real people are hurting and the pain goes beyond extending jobless benefits. Americans overwhelmingly support raising the minimum wage. Ninety-one percent of Democrats, 76 percent of independents, and even 58 percent of Republicans. It's hard to get 58 percent of Republicans to agree on anything with this President. But they back him on this issue. And yet congressional Republicans won't take action. This is why the President is fighting to reclaim the American dream, a dream of economic fairness.

Sarah Palin Mocked on MSNBC for Having a Christmas Tree - on Christmas!?

MSNBC took time out of its busy schedule of airing fluff about the president to castigate the rabid left’s favorite chewtoy. The craven network blasted Sarah Palin for the gall of going on Fox & Friends, and specifically, if her Christmas tree was over-the-line.

True, it is Christmas, and the subject of whether or not Christmas trees are wooden idols is a subject hot on the lips of the news anchors at MSNBC. When the daily meeting on the next way they were going to ‘get’ Sarah Palin turned back to the inevitable question about Christmas trees – whether or not Jeremiah 2-4 calls them idols – a veritable meeting of the minds exploded into a brainstorm.

‘Hey, why don’t we somehow tie this atheist-contrived controversy about Christmas trees to Sarah Palin. Let’s see her talk her way out of that one to the Bible-thumping rubes in the Rethuglican base!’ Tingles must have chortled.

‘Oh yes, as a Harvard-educated Biblical scholar on both the book of Jeremiah and Christmas trees, that surely will make her look like a petty and foolish fraud!’ one can imagine Rachel Maddow chiming in.

Joy Reid was summoned by MSNBC to make the attack happen on air, and the rest is history. Unfortunately, it’s just not Biblical history. As Newsbusters points out about the cherry-picked Jeremiah verses, BillyGraham.org says:

These verses, however, do not apply to Christmas trees, but they do condemn the idolatry practiced in Jeremiah’s day. God’s people were following the customs of the heathen who cut down trees, shaped the wood into idols, decorated them with silver and gold ornaments, and worshiped them as gods.

That’s too bad. But you’d think the folks at MSNBC would be more careful. The last time someone attempted to make a phony historical analogy about Sarah Palin, it led to him leaving the network.

Thursday, December 26, 2013

MSNBC: Loving Jesus Is “Interestingly Homoerotic”

Throughout its protracted ratings nosedive, cable news network MSNBC has increasingly pandered to the tiny audience of far-left radicals it has retained. Whether by mocking Christianity, labeling all whites as inherent racists, or championing the homosexual lobby’s cause, this sham of a news organization has a limited bag of ideological tricks.

in a desperate ploy to keep the “Duck Dynasty” controversy alive, political analyst Michael Eric Dyson was able to combine each of these disingenuous tactics to skewer the right.

Appearing with host Joy Reid, the fringe pundit expressed some outrageous views of Christian faith that only prove he has no idea what type of love millions of Americans have for their Savior. Responding to Reid’s leading question regarding the brouhaha over reality star Phil Robertson’s biblical comments on homosexuality, Dyson suggested a man expressing his love for Christ seems gay.

The same men who will stand up in a church of all men [and say] ‘I put my God Jesus above all women, I love him more than I love her,’” he responded in his disjointed, staccato style. “Hmmm, do you really? That sounds interestingly homoerotic to people who are outside your religious traditions.”

While he throws in a catch-all disclaimer that he is “not suggesting it is” homoerotic, Dyson cited what he called “interesting subtle narrative tensions within the Bible itself.”

Of course, his gross mischaracterization of Christian love would be seen as patently absurd by the vast majority of Americans. These rational individuals, however, are not in MSNBC’s target demographic.

In the same interview, Dyson suggested Christians such as Robertson are often guilty of “using Jesus and making Jesus cosign all of this bigotry here.”

While there are unquestionably bigots on either side of the political aisle, Dyson’s vicious attack on Christianity is far more hateful than anything Robertson has ever publicly stated.  Once again, the ‘tolerant’ left is less concerned about including minorities than it is about excluding any conservative view.

Dyson, no amateur when it comes to making outrageously ill-informed generalizations, further lambasted “many of the Christians” as anti-Semitic despite the fact that “Jesus was a Jew around whom a religion was made.”
To cap off an already absurd rant, he tossed in an allegation of racism for good measure. No MSNBC interview is complete without it.
He said conservatives “use Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks and any other black person you can think” as “test cases for their own bigotry.”
Dyson and many other kneejerk leftists expect the majority to simply absorb their endless stream of ad hominem invective. When a principled individual such as Robertson stands up to defend himself, he is roundly pilloried for it.
Luckily, millions of Americans see through the ruse. Watch the exchange below:

Journalist Glenn Greenwald jabbed at MSNBC on their turf Thursday, accusing the network of shilling for President Barack Obama and the Democrats nearly “24 hours a day.”

Greenwald, who broke the story about the National Security Agency’s levels of surveillance earlier this year with leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, was addressing the claim that he’s “become more of a spokesman” for Snowden.
Greenwald called the claim “ludicrous.”
“Every journalist has an agenda,” Greenwald told MSNBC anchor Kristen Welker. “We’re on MSNBC now, where close to 24 hours a day the agenda of President Obama and the Democratic Party are promoted, defended, glorified, the agenda of the Republican Party is undermined. That doesn’t mean that the people who appear on MSNBC aren’t journalists, they are.”
Greenwald said “every journalist has a viewpoint” and he is “very clear” that he believes Snowden’s actions to be “admirable and heroic.”
He said the “ultimate test” of a journalist is whether what they publish is reliable and accurate.
Welker, defending her network, said the point is “not so much about MSNBC and what happens here” but that “sometimes when you talk about Edward Snowden, you do defend him, and some people wonder if that crosses a line.”
“Sure, I do defend him, just like people on MSNBC defend President Obama and his officials and Democratic Party leaders 24 hours a day,” Greenwald said.
Welker protested that “not everyone on MSNBC does that 24 hours a day,” to which Greenwald amended that it’s “not everybody, but a lot, a lot of people on MSNBC do.”
“I don’t make any bones about the fact that I consider what Edward Snowden did to be quite heroic, just like I consider what Chelsea Manning did to be quite heroic and Daniel Ellsberg,” Greenwald said. “I as a journalist am very grateful when people sacrifice their own interests to come forward and bring transparency to the United States government, that to me is what journalism is about and we need a lot of that in the United States. So I absolutely do defend what Edward Snowden does and I don’t pretend otherwise.”
(H/T: Mediaite)

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Five Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge

Evolutionists are masters at covering the flaws and weaknesses of their theory. Here's how you can clean house.

Most evolutionists give the impression that evolution is a settled fact of science, on the order of the Earth being round or revolving around the Sun. Evolution, we are assured, has been overwhelmingly confirmed. Only rubes and ignoramuses debate evolution. Any resistance to it is futile and indicates bad faith or worse. For instance, Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins accuses those who refuse to accept evolution with being “ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” To this he recently added: “I don’t withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under ‘insane’ but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormentedbullied, or brainwashed.”

Despite such bluster, evolutionary theory is in sad shape. Cambridge paleontologist Simon Conway Morris, writing for the premier biology journal Cell, recently remarked: “When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: ‘It happened.’ Thereafter, there is little consensus....”
To the public, the evolutionary establishment presents a united front. But this illusion of consensus quickly evaporates once you know where to look and what questions to ask.
What follows are five key questions you can use to lay bare the inflated claims of evolutionists. Evolutionary theory is not a slamdunk. It is an exercise in storytelling that masquerades as a scientific theory.

1. The Fossil Record
According to Darwin, the absence of intermediate fossil forms “is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” What new fossil finds, if any, have occurred since Darwin wrote these words nearly 150 years ago? Do they overturn Darwin’s bleak assessment of evolutionary theory? If the absence of intermediate fossil forms holds as much today as it did back then, why should anyone accept evolution?

Dodge: Evolutionists have gotten quite good at sidestepping this question with what looks like an answer but really isn’t. Typically they’ll lay out a bunch of organisms or biological structures and say, “Look at how similar these are.They’ve obviously descended from a common evolutionary ancestor.” Evolutionists will then ply you with a mass of details about supposedly wellconfirmed evolutionary transitions (like those supposedly describing the evolution
of horses, whales, or reptiles into mammals).

Comeback: Don’t get lost in the details. Yes, the fossil record contains organisms that can be placed in a progression suggesting gradual change. But most of these progressions result from arbitrary picking and choosing among the totality of fossils. With millions of fossils to choose from, it is likely that some gradual progressions will be found.

Also, such progressions invariably come from organisms with the same basic body plan. In the “evolution” of the horse, we are always dealing with horse-like organisms. And even with the “evolution” of reptiles into mammals, we aredealing with land-dwelling vertebrates sharing many common structures. What we don’t see in the fossil record is animals with fundamentally different body plans evolving from a common ancestor. For instance, there is no fossil evidence

whatsoever that insects and vertebrates share a common evolutionary ancestor.
The challenge that here confronts evolution is not isolated but pervasive, and comes up most flagrantly in what’s called the Cambrian Explosion. In a very brief window of time during the geological period known as the Cambrian, virtually all

the basic animal types appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no trace of evolutionary ancestors. The Cambrian Explosion so flies in the face of evolution that paleontologist Peter Ward wrote, “If ever there was evidence suggesting Divine Creation, surely the Precambrian and Cambrian transition, known from numerous localities across the face of the earth, is it.”
Note that Ward is not a creationist.

Evolutionists sometimes argue that the necessary transitional fossils are there but haven’t been found or that they’ve all been destroyed. But this is wishful thinking. The challenge of the fossil record that Darwin identified 150 years ago has not gone away. To his credit, the late evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould conceded this point: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”
The point you need to press is whether this inference is reasonable at all.

2. Natural Selection
According to evolutionist Richard Dawkins, the “evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design.” Yet he also states, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” How does Dawkins know that living things only appear to be designed but are not actually designed?

Dodge: Evolutionists pretend that the design of living things is a dead issue. Accordingly, they tell us that before Darwin, scientists mistakenly viewed the living world as the product of design but that afterward they came to their senses

and rightly rejected it. For Dawkins and most evolutionists, Darwin’s idea of natural selection, in which nature weeds out the less fit and allows the more fit to survive and reproduce, is supposed to be all that’s needed to explain theappearance of design in biology.

Comeback: The great fallacy of evolution is that it claims all the benefits of design without the need for actual design. In particular, evolution attributes intelligence, the power of choice, to a fundamentally irrational process, namely, natural selection. But nature has no power to choose. Real choices involve deliberation, that is, some consideration of future possibilities and consequences. But natural selection is incapable of looking to the future. Instead, it acts on the spur of the moment, based solely on what the environment right now deems fit. It cannot plan for the future. It is incapable of deferring success or gratification. And yet, so limited a process is supposed to produce marvels of biological complexity and diversity that far exceed the capacities of the best human designers. There’s no evidence that natural selection is up to the task. Natural selection is fine for explaining certain small-scale changes in organisms, like the beaks of birds adapting to environmental changes. It can take existing structures and hone them. But it can’t explain how you get complex structures in the first place. That’s why cell biologist Franklin Harold writes, “there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

Remember the phrase “wishful speculations” whenever anyone starts touting the wonder-working power of natural selection.

3. Detecting Design
The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a scientific research program that looks for signs of intelligence from distant space. Should biologists likewise be looking for signs of intelligence in biological systems? Why or why not? Could actual intelligent design in biological systems be scientifically detectable?

Dodge: Evolutionists admit that intelligent design is scientifically detectable in many areas of science, such as archeology, forensics, and cryptography. They even admit that nonhuman intelligence could be scientifically detectable, as with SETI. But they reject out of hand the possibility of detecting design in biological systems. Any intelligence responsible for biological complexity would have to be an unevolved intelligence, and for evolutionists there is no such thing as anunevolved intelligence. For them, intelligence is always the product of evolution.

Comeback: The double-standard here is obvious. There are reliable methods for identifying the effects of intelligence. These methods apply in many areas of science already. They even apply to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, in
which the intelligence detected would be nonhuman. It is therefore completely arbitrary to say that such methods of design detection apply only to evolved intelligences but not to unevolved intelligences.

Usually evolutionists attempt to get around this double-standard by saying that we have experience of human intelligence but no experience with the sort of intelligence that would be involved in the formation of life. That’s why SETI is
such a powerful response to the evolutionists’ double-standard. If an extraterrestrial intelligence communicated with Earth via radio signals, we would have no more experience of the extraterrestrial intelligence than we do of any
intelligence responsible for the formation of life. In each case, we would know nothing about the actual workings, motivations, and purposes of the intelligence. But we would still recognize the intelligence from its effects.

Recall the movie Contact, based on a novel by Carl Sagan. In that movie, SETI astronomers discovered a radio signal consisting of a long sequence of prime numbers (these are numbers divisible only by themselves and one). Because theequence was long, it was complex and thus hard to reproduce by chance. Also, the prime numbers are mathematically significant and thus represent an objective, independently given pattern, or what is called a specification.

There is now an increasing scientific literature that takes the joint occurrence of complexity and specification as a reliable marker for detecting design. My books The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press) and No Free Lunch (Rowman & Littlefield) lay out such methods. These methods are very widely employed in science as well as in ordinary life. There is nothing to prevent their legitimate use in biology.

4. Molecular Machines
Do any structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans? Evolutionists claim that these structures evolved. But if so, how? Could such machines have features that place them beyond the reach of evolution?

Dodge: Evolution is a divide-and-conquer strategy. It tries to explain the complex in terms of the simpler. Thus, when confronted with a molecular machine or any other complex structure in biology, evolutionists merely point out that the
structure has components that are simpler and thus could be the target of natural selection. Hard to believe, but from this unremarkable observation, evolutionists blithely conclude that natural selection is able to build all complex biological

Comeback: You really need to hold the evolutionists feet to the fire here. The important thing is not to let them retreat into generalities. There are structures in the cell that don’t just resemble humanly built machines—they actually are
machines in every sense of the word. Don’t focus on how such machines might have originated in the abstract. Focus on a specific machine and force the evolutionist to try to explain in detail how it might have evolved.

Take, for instance, the bacterial flagellum, which is now referred to as the “Icon of Intelligent Design” by some evolutionists because it has been so effectively used to criticize evolution. The bacterial flagellum is a marvel of nanoengineering. Biologist Howard Berg at Harvard refers to it as “the most efficient machine in the universe.” The flagellum is a little bi-directional motor-driven propeller that sits on the backs of certain bacteria and drives them through their watery environment. It spins at 20,000 rpm and can change direction in a quarter turn. It requires approximately 40 protein parts for its construction. If any of the parts are missing or not available in the right proportions, no functional flagellum will form. So, how did it evolve?
Despite thousands of research articles that have been written about the structure and function of the flagellum, biologists don’t have a clue how it could have evolved. Evolutionists have only one straw at which they continually grasp when

trying to explain how the flagellum might have evolved, namely, that the flagellum contains within it a structure similar to a microsyringe found in some bacteria. Having found this sub-structure, evolutionists merrily conclude that the

microsyringe must have evolved into the flagellum. Such pathetic lapses in logic are everywhere in the evolutionary literature. The challenge for evolutionary theory is not to find components of such systems that could be grist of natural selection’s mill. Rather, it is to provide detailed, testable, step-by-step scenarios whereby such components could reasonably have come together to bring about the marvels of nano-engineering that we find in systems

like the flagellum. What exactly had to happen to that microsyringe to transform it into a flagellum?
To see what’s at stake, consider what exactly has to happen to a motor to transform it into a motorcycle. Sure, there are a number of steps that can transform a motor into a motorcycle. And there probably are a number of steps that can transform a microsyringe into a flagellum. But what are those steps? How gradual is the progression? And is it reasonable to think that those steps could be taken apart from design? Not having a clue about how these systems did or might
have evolved, evolutionists never answer such questions.

5. Testability
What evidence would convince you that evolution is false? If no such evidence exists, or indeed could exist, how can evolution be a testable scientific theory?

Dodge: In the theory of evolution, organisms gradually transform as the result of purely material factors such as natural selection and random genetic changes.
What would it take, therefore, to refute such a theory? Darwin sidestepped the question as follows: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.” Although Darwin here seems to be opening evolution up to criticism, in fact he is doing the opposite. Indeed, he is protecting evolution from all
effective challenges and rendering it untestable.

Comeback: To see this, consider the following reply to Darwin by University of Texas philosopher Robert Koons: “How could it be proved that something could not possibly have been formed by a process specified no more fully than as a process of ‘numerous, successive, slight modifications’? And why should the critic [of evolution] have to prove any such thing? The burden is on Darwin and his defenders to demonstrate that at least some complex organs we find in nature really can possibly be formed in this way, that is, by some specific, fully articulated series of slight modifications.”

It’s important here to see the big picture. The evolutionist J. B. S. Haldane, when asked what would convince him that evolution was false, replied that finding a rabbit fossil in pre-Cambrian rocks would do quite nicely. Such a fossil would, by standard geological dating, be out of sequence by several hundreds of millions of years. Certainly such a finding, if rigorously confirmed, would overturn the current understanding of the history of life. But it would not overturn evolution.

Haldane’s rabbit is easily enough explained as an evolutionary convergence, in which essentially the same structure or life form evolves twice. In place of a common underlying intelligent design, evolutionists invoke evolutionary convergence whenever confronted with similar biological structures that cannot reasonably be traced back to a common evolutionary ancestor. So long as some unknown or unexplored evolutionary pathway might have led to the formation of some biological structure or organism, evolutionists prefer it over alternative explanations such as intelligent design. And since the unknown and unexplored allow for an infinity of loopholes, the committed evolutionist regards Darwinian and other materialist explanations of life’s origin and subsequent development as always trumping alternative explanations, regardless of the evidence.
Note that intelligent design does not stack the deck in this way. Unlike evolution, intelligent design is refutable. To refute intelligent design, it is enough to display specific, fully articulated Darwinian pathways for the complex systems that,

according to intelligent design, lie beyond the reach of the Darwinian mechanism (systems like the bacterial flagellum in question four). Though evolutionists mistakenly charge intelligent design with being untestable, it’s their theory that in
fact is untestable.

Shooting Down Phil Robertson, or--The Day of the Locusts, on Crack

When Phil Robertson, patriarch of the Duck Dynasty Empire, opined to Gentleman’s Quarterly magazine that homosexuality was a sin, his goose was cooked. The powers that be, the elites, the croaking mandarins and the enforcers of cultural homogeneity demanded his sacrifice to the gods of the age.

Our society is now inflamed, engulfed in the midst of a colossal Kulturkampf—a battle over who defines morals and mores—church, state or other entities. In Nathaniel West’s novel The Day of the Locust, Hollywood, empty dreamers and their depraved morality is examined. Yet today, added to LA’s unlettered leftism, the media and higher education join politicians in the corrupt sleaze-fest of our politically correct societal cesspool.

As the societal blitzkrieg builds, increasing numbers realize the PC elites take no prisoners, ignoring the victims while defending America’s almighty sex cult. Hubert Kennedy, in Homosexuality and Male Bonding in Pre-Nazi Germany: the youth movement, the gay movement, and male bonding before Hitler’s rise, claims the seeds of the modern gay liberation movement were planted in Germany just before 1900. But has Western gay liberation now trumped every other form of human bonding? If so, at what cost?

Does modern liberalism promote a death culture? Are the tenets of socialism, communism, and other forms of Marxism compatible with the growth of a healthy and vibrant society? All attendant studies of history would suggest no. In a society where religion is increasingly dismissed, the claim that the elites seek a deicide, or the killing of God and His things, may not be too far off the mark, as described by Eric Voegelin in Science, Politics and Gnosticism. After all, that is the shortcut to eliminating the problem of “sin”!

In the pagan world, human sacrifice was known, and religious prostitutes were common. In the modern world, partakers of the sex cult fall victim to disease, mental dysfunction, disorientation, alienation from family, anomalies of anatomy and diminished standards of living. But how much longer can our culture sustain this bitter and schizophrenic disagreement over who defines virtue—before it cracks, breaks and sinks below the surface of history?

I. Phil Robertson: King Duck & High-Flying Christian Apologist

Phil Robertson is the patriarch of the clan comprising the top-ranked cable production in history, a reality show named Duck Dynasty. The response was deafening when Phil recently shared an orthodox opinion on marriage, albeit in somewhat colorfully graphic terms, arguing against homosexuality. The typical outrage against those who dare breach the PC Ten Commandments was expressed, and exile from civilized human community granted. This should not be seen as fundamentally different from the death sentence levied against his twin Remus, by Rome’s founder Romulus, when the former jumped the foundation of the city wall of Rome, marking himself forever a barbarian.

Robertson’s remarks are here:

Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free. He’s got lots of thoughts on modern immorality, and there’s no stopping them from rushing out. Like this one:
“It seems like, to me, a vagina‚—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.”
What, in your mind, is sinful?
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

II. The Gay Utopian Vision: Militant Pseudo-Puritan Antinomianism?

One of the mysteries of Western political evolution is how liberal progressives became self-identified libertines. Searching back into the medieval period, we can trace this development to the Brethren of Free Spirit movement, according to Norman Cohn in The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages. Here we find a religious group who believed themselves to be beyond law. Further, they felt compelled to express themselves as sexual free-agents as a way of underscoring their status as “above the law.” It is crucial we understand the same spirit lives on today in the gay movement, with the identical and furious belief that expressing even the most unbridled type of sexuality are a higher spirituality than any Believer could muster. This is both an act of rank self-expression and also a bombastic undermining of the traditional political and social structure.

Cohn quotes a member of the Free Spirit movement:

When a man has truly reached the great and high knowledge, he is no longer bound to observe any law or command, for he has become one with God. God created all things to serve such a person, and all that God ever created is the property of such a person… He shall take from all creatures as much as his nature desires and craves, for all created things are his property… A man whom all heaven serves, all people and all creatures are indeed obliged to serve and obey; and if any disobeys, it alone is guilty.

This certainly begs the question as to how the modern socialists and Marxists, who so virulently deny the efficacy of God or any religion, were influenced by Christianity? Voegelin, in The New Science of Politics, explains that the entire structure of modern leftism was lifted from a debased explanation of the Book of Revelations, delivered by 12th century Joachim of Flora, a rogue Catholic priest.

In any event, in the combining of denatured biblical theology with the writings of such groundbreaking socialists as Robert Owen, we find an intoxicating mixture of self-righteousness and debauchery. Consider a description of the Free Spirit believers:

Later followers of the Free Spirit took the same principles even further, saying that for all those who realized their identity with God, any action whatsoever was permitted, including theft, rape, incest and murder. As with Tantric Buddhism, the sex act was regarded as the delight of Paradise and the ascent to mystical ecstasy. The followers of the Free Spirit were the hippies of the day.

The notion of sex, which has evolved into gender, is now a political artifact in which science, religion or psychology has no say. Whatever gender one decides to name themselves, is then reified in the law. In this sense the mentality is indistinguishable from the ideas behind Modern Art. Here, “Art” is indistinguishable from philosophy in that it’s all in the mind of the artist, which in itself is based upon clear Marxist theory, according to Christopher Butler in Modernism, A Very Short Introduction.

III. War of Authority: Bible, Humanism or Thelema?

A. The West’s Biblical Foundations

The current kulturkampf, or culture war, may seem fixated on the issues of rights of homosexuals and the definition of marriage, but it is actually much bigger. There is a colossal battle over the soul of the culture which will result in either the Bible, or humanistic Marxism, winning the day. This battle encompasses a myriad of topics, including feminism versus tradition, socialism versus capitalism, free speech, property rights versus redistribution, scientific integrity, honesty in journalism, ideology versus factual orientation, freedom of religion, and even notions about justice, love, truth and God.

The history of the West is contingent upon Bible followers putting their ideas into practice for two millennia, according to Hugh Trevor-Roper in The Rise of Christian Europe. Trevor-Roper explains how the outline and history of Western Europe, and therefore the modern world, would be inconceivable without the Bible, church, and various followers. Other authors have richly illustrated this in such volumes as Stark’s The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success, Kelly’s The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern World, Kennedy’s What if Jesus Had Never Been Born, and Schmidt’s How Christianity Changed the World, etc.

B. Humanism’s Disasters

The West’s 2,000 year commitment to Biblical standards, which while imperfectly applied, at least gave a north star to guide the culture, is now in desperate peril. Poised to take its place, already secured in many quadrants, are the standards of socialism, which totally defer to humanistic models. In other words, the Bible and its Ten Commandments which represent God’s law, are set aside and the standards of humanism takes its place. The trouble is that no humanistic, or pagan, or philosophical replacement for the Ten Commandments has ever been accepted. Therefore, within socialism and Marxism, any actions are acceptable, depending upon the situation as confirmed by P. H. Vigour’s A Guide to Marxism.

The problem with Marxism is that it is an inherently unstable theory. This is partly because Karl Marx was much better at decrying capitalism than building his own system. And it also has to do with the fact that the ideas behind Marxism are simply illogical, contra-factual and childish.

No society has ever achieved success using a socialism or communism. This is despite Lenin, Stalin and Mao all sacrificing their economies and populations trying to prove the theory true. After 150-200 million residents were murdered by their government in the name of communism, it was proved that Marxism, in any form, was entirely unworkable. And yet today, all Europe is infiltrated and corrupted by Marxism. And western democracy teeters on the brink of collapse as socialism makes its play. Yet given the unfortunate track record of Marxist attempts to run societies, it is certain that this will not last.

C. Thelema of Satan

Given the unstable nature of socialism, and the lawless, antinomian quality of its legal, political and governmental theory, sheer anarchy is destined. Here is Alistair Crowley’s famed law: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” This is known as the Thelema, a doctrine which represents a kind of anti-biblical law which makes a person’s will synonymous with law.

So, one can see that rejecting the biblical idea of mankind and society seems to lead to an inevitable progression towards the godless and satanic worship of the self. Within this paradigm we can find the ethos of homosexuality. And will we throw out all standards in the name of “equality” when the net effect will be destruction for the opportunity of success of everyone?

For example, when researcher Mark Regnerus showed that children of gay parents typically suffer diminished outcomes, it’s unfortunate PC academics sent over 200 hundred letters to the University of Texas demanding his paper be withdrawn! This, without any evidence of academic shortcomings! In fact, if science itself—like every other academic discipline, is filtered through the screen of Political Correctness then we cannot expect science to protect us any longer. (see Politics, Environmentalism Beating Out Science In Regulating Risk Say Experts, or Scientific Groupthink and GayParenting)

Overall, it homosexuals suffer from a much higher risk of mental health problems, substance abuse, disease, self-harm, institutionalization, romantic upheaval, criminal behavior, and shortened lifespans. Should we not be concerned that brother and sister Americans are suffering, with no one even taking their plight seriously?

IV. Costs of the Kulturkampf

Can even God be sacrificed to hide the Truth? This was the insane Nietzsche’s dream. The battle currently raging between the Robertson family and A&E cable is merely the latest, and perhaps most unhinged example of the kulturkampf which threatens to tear America asunder. Is it possible that the costs of the present war to define America’s authority and morals will be too great to bear? And, if the gay posse destroys America in their march for full equality, would they even care? Perhaps the only question that matters is the outcome of this war will decide what source book will inform America—the Bible, The Communist Manifesto, or Alistair Crowley’s Satanic Book of Lies.