Regarding the US Supreme Court's Decision to Make Same-Sex Marriage the Law of the Land

When a society decides to change something that has been the very heart of what has made whatever goodness it possesses even exist...when a society decides to fundamentally transform the primary building block its culture, a building block that has been at the center of every human culture since the beginning of human life on the planet that society invites destruction. A society that thinks it is a good idea to knock out of place its own foundation is full of pure, unadulterated hubris and childish arrogance, not unlike a teenager telling his elders he doesn't know beans about life. And this won't end as well as most teenagers' rebellions against their parents. 

No society in the history of the world, not even the ancient Greeks, has ever thought same-sex marriage was a good idea. To change a thing like this that is so foundational to the very core of what it means to be a family, a people, and a nation, individually and collectively in relationship with others and with God with so little thought and examination of the consequences is to invite horrendous disaster.

This issue should have been carefully and thoughtfully studied, the examination should have been more strenuous than the process the FDA uses to approve new drugs. This decision has been based on nothing more than the mood of the age, the pressure of certain groups on public opinion and the indoctrination of a people to adopt a mindset based on nothing more than an advertizing campaign. There has been no examination of the potential for destruction. The consequences of getting this wrong will have bad repercussions through generations. Getting this wrong has the potential to shred American society to the point where it collapses. 

That's what happens when you dismantle the building block of a culture.

Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: It Is Starkly, Nakedly False That Sex Change Is Possible

"The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over thirty years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times that of comparable peers," Paul McHugh.

Can't say it any better than he did. Click HERE for the full article.
 

Liberals are Smarter than Conservatives

Satoshi Kanazawa posted an article in The Scientific Fundamentalist which was republished in Psychology Today about why Liberals are smarter than Conservatives. Want to know why? It's because Liberals want the federal government to give needy people money, that's why. If you're scratching your head, you're probably a Conservative

The author argues that altruism is a characteristic of smartness and therefore, since Liberals support the federal government giving people money, they're altruistic. First of all, that's not altruism, that's being on board for someone else (government) taking the responsibility for helping the needy and hoping that rich people get soaked and the individual Liberal voter will escape with little or nothing required of him leaving said average voter to pat himself on the back for being so caring toward his fellow man.

These days definitions of things aren't what they used to be. Bigotry used to mean not allowing other people to have their own point of view. But these days, if you have a point of view Liberals don't agree with, you're not allowed to have it, because you're a bigot. Yes, I'm scratching my head too. You're only a bigot when you have a point of view a Progressive or Liberal doesn't like, when they have points of view you don't like, they're not bigots, you're still the bigot. Scratching my head doesn't help me get around that, so I stopped.

Altruism has been rehabilitated to mean, "The desire for the state or federal government to tax people who have money so that some of it can be given to the needy, no personal involvement or thought involved." In my thinking, that's not altruism. Altruism costs the individual something that matters to him, adding a few dollars to one's tax bill doesn't cost the average voter anything--it doesn't even cost him the time to think about whether his tax dollars are being used wisely. Heck, many average voters don't even pay taxes!

Using phony altruism as the scale to determine intelligence is a pretty flimsy way to set one's self up as the smarty on the block! It's kind of like saying that because a group of five guys have won a few million dollars in a League of Legends Tournament, they're the best athletes in the world.  (League of Legends is an online game you can play for free where you control an avatar that co-operates with other players' avatars. Your team of avatars goes around shooting things with the goal of taking the enemy's base.) Good League of Legends players have teamwork, strategy and fast reflexes. I'm pretty sure those qualities are on the list for best athlete--that is unless you're a weight lifter (I'm assuming that teamwork and fast reflexes might not be weightlifter's strong suit), an individual swimmer or runner (no teamwork required) or any number of other sports that don't require any number of skills which other sports require. It's probably safe to say that people who compete in sports played by physically interacting with some kind of environmental element like water or snow or weights probably won't think a top League of Legend player, who sits on his backside punching computer keys and operating a mouse, is an athlete.

If Satoshi Kanazawa had posted an article reporting how League of Legend players are the best athletes in the world, other athletes would suspect she's an electronic gamer who loves League of Legends--kind of like, how I, a Conservative, suspect that Kanazawa is a Liberal who loves the total disconnect and lack of real effort and thought involved in the process of supporting some of her tax dollars (hopefully most of those tax dollars coming from the so called "rich") be spent to help the needy and wants to believe that makes her and her ilk smarties.

The Liberal back patting never ends.

Satoshi Kanazawa: Why Liberals are More Intelligent than Conservatives

For more analysis on Liberal back patting check out:

Reason Magazine: Are Conservatives Dumber?

Update: Since the initial publication of this article I have learned that using the term "guys" to refer to a group of human beings, whether that group is all male or not (especially if it's not) is a micro-aggression. I am female and have never felt the use of the male pronoun "he" as the generic pronoun to be a vile or evil practice, but learned in the 80's that it was. I still don't find it offensive. I also like words like "stewardess" and "actress" and so on. These days I insist on using "he" as the generic pronoun and "stewardess" as well as other banned words because it annoys people. Now, my ability to annoy people has been expanded, through no effort on my part, to include words that I regularly use, words like "guys." You guys who are annoyed that I insist on using "he" as the generic pronoun are probably going apoplectic over "guys." Well, that's fine. Knock yourself out. You've never cared about what has annoyed or offended me either, so we're even.

Dr. Lance Wallnau Discusses How You Can Change the World from Your Place in the World, Part 1

In this three part video series Dr. Lance Wallnau discusses why the church isn't making more impact in transforming cities, states and nations and what Christians need to do to change that. One of his primary points is that not everybody can be in ministry. God needs people in every walk and field influencing for the better and taking ground in those areas for His Kingdom.

Dr. Lance Wallnau Discusses How You Can Change the World from Your Place in the World, Part 2

Part two of Lance Wallnau's exposition of how to apply God's calling in your life:

Dr. Lance Wallnau Discusses How You Can Change the World from Your Place in the World, Part 3

Part 3 of Lance Wallnau's exposition on "Understanding Sphere Penetration and Occupation Strategies":

Becoming an Agent for Change by Lance Wallnau

Believers are called to "Go into the world and preach the Gospel to all creation." But, except for missionaries going to distant nations, the church wants to hide in its sanctuary and have creation come to them. In the video below Dr. Lance Wallnau addresses this issue.

Four Big Bangs...

A former atheist was challenged to read some Christian books and disprove their theses...

Fully Functional in Your Divine Purpose...

Not everybody can or should go into ministry, yet ministry seems to be the only option available to people if they love God. In this hour long video Lance Wallnau discusses how to fulfill your God-given destiny...

What Makes Republicans Evil?

Ever wonder how a party that ran Abraham Lincoln for president became the evil, scum of the earth? Your question will be answered in this video by Bill Whittle....

What Do Modern Conservatives Believe

This does not account for all conservative views but it is a good starter. It is important to understand that conservative and liberal are just labels and those label change over time. What was a Conservative or Liberal 200 years ago may be the opposite today and may have changed many times in between. Learn from history but judge based on now.

Phil Robertson's Speech at CPAC

Particularly noteworthy in this speech is Phil Robertson's extensive reading from the writings and speeches of George Washington and John Adams. We need reminding and we need to search out our Founding Fathers' thoughts and become well acquainted with them. Do not take at their word remarks and conclusions made by an American hating media or politician telling us what the Founders' intended, thought or said. Read the Founders' biographies, read their writings. Do not be ignorant citizens. A nation founded as ours is founded, by the people and for the people, cannot afford very many ignorant citizens and survive long with liberty intact.

While arguments can be made to the contrary, these arguments deserve to be seriously addressed by anyone who claims that the universe and life are the result of random chance.

The Dark Ages were not actually dark.
It turns out they were a brilliant era of dramatic cultural and scientific advancement.

Kasparov Provides Excellent Anaylsis

Camille Paglia analyzes our present cultural attitudes toward evil and how those attitudes affect campus life...

Christian Theology: Grace vs. Law

The Law (the Ten Commandments etc.) and Grace (God's unmerited favor which Jesus purchased on the cross) cannot be in the same room with one another.

The Law is lesser than Grace; Grace is greater. If Grace is not greater, then Jesus died for nothing. Jesus, who is Grace Personified, kept the Law and paid for all the infractions against it. He was able to do this because He was Perfect in Everything. He paid for all, not some, all infractions against the Law. Once He did that and if we call Him "Lord," dragging our behavior back into the picture also drags back in the Law. When we focus on our behavior instead of Jesus' Love, we reduce the importance, the glory, the magnificence, the power and the majesty of the Cross to insignificance in the light of our failure according to the Law. We magnify our sin and reduce the Lord Jesus. And, we, in effect, call God a liar. We say to God, "We are not what You say, "the redeemed; joint heirs; children of God; brothers of Christ, " we are still sinners." Any time human beings focus on their behavior, good or bad, it is a guaranteed, automatic FAIL. That is because it becomes all about us and how well we've kept the Law and not about Jesus.

The Apostle John refers to himself in his Gospel as "the disciple Jesus loved." I'd always thought he did this because he didn't want to call attention to himself. Matthew carefully tells his Gospel account in third person and Mark, in a practical, pragmatic fashion, relates the facts with simplicity in his Gospel. (Luke was not  one of the disciples, but a physician who set about to write the early history of the church, the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, and does so with affection and detail.) But John simultaneously distances and personalizes his account by calling himself "the disciple Jesus loved."

Mark tells us Jesus called John and his brother, "Sons of Thunder," teasing them for wanting Jesus to punish a town that rejected their presence, Mark 3:17. And John's mother approached Jesus asking Him to place her two sons, James and John, one on His left and the other on His right, when He enters His Kingdom, Matthew 20:21-23. However, when Mark tells the story, he sets the responsibility fully on James and John, Mark 10:35-37. John is not the pure driven snow. He's temperamental, vindictive and power hungry. Yet, in his Gospel, John almost always refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved."

We see Peter in action, the bold, impetuous disciple who blurts out the first thing that comes into his head, once declaring the revelation, "Jesus, You ARE Messiah," and another time imploring Jesus not to go to seeking death, for which Jesus said, "Get thee behind me satan," Matthew 16:21-23. During the Last Supper, Jesus explains that soon they'll all scatter and hide because He is going to a very bad death. Peter replies he will never deny Jesus, Mark 14:27-31; Luke 22:31-38; John 13:36-38. In his heart he is firm in his resolve, commitment and love, but when confronted in the courtyard outside the Jesus' first sham trial, he fails. Not only does he prove incapable of laying down his life, he is incapable of even admitting he knows Jesus at all.  Peter boldly declared, "I will follow you. I will lay down my life for you," John 13:37. The Israelites at the foot of Mount Sinai promised, "We will keep the Law," and no sooner had the words escaped their lips than the Israelites built an idol in the shape of a calf and worshiped it, breaking the most important commandment of all. And like them, no sooner had Peter's declaration escaped his lips than he denied even knowing Jesus.

Here's the scene: John was the disciple with the contacts able to gain admittance to the courtyard of the building where the Pharisees' and their soldiers took Jesus for His first illegal trial. He managed to get Peter into the courtyard, but John, with higher credentials, went on into the room where the Pharisees questioned Jesus. Later, we see John standing at the foot of the cross--the only Apostle with the balls to be there; all the others had run away and hidden themselves on the night of Jesus' arrest, one losing his clothing in his mad rush, Mark 14:51 & 52.

What gave John the balls to stick with Jesus all the way? It wasn't his temperamental attitude nor his desire for power. Raging at the Pharisees would have gotten him crucified along with Jesus and there was no power to be gained following the Lord to the foot of the cross--at least not in the temporal and immediately obvious sense. The Man, Jesus, endured three trials during which the accusers each took their turns beating, mocking and humiliating Him. There's no power for John to gain in the midst of that apparent disaster. Yet John was either present or nearby throughout Jesus' entire ordeal. All of Peter's burning desire to follow Jesus to death, his will power to honor Jesus with his whole being, amounted to nothing. He couldn't even remain true to Jesus in the face of a servant girl who insisted Peter had been with Him, Luke 22:54-57.

What's the difference? The difference is the focus. Peter focused on behavior--his behavior. He said things like, "I will follow You to the death," and "I will never deny You." John, whose behavior was clearly bad, focused on Jesus' love for him. Jesus' LOVE gave John the power to follow Jesus from the Garden of Gethsemane, through the courts and to the cross. Peter's "I will" amounted to worse than nothing. John's revelation of Jesus' vast LOVE made it possible for him to do anything, and this was before Pentecost.

When we focus on behavior, we're looking at the wrong thing. As human beings, for us, it's all about behavior. It's about rules and regs. And we put ourselves back under the Law when we do that. And so, like the Israelites and Peter, when we focus on behavior, the Law and our intentions to keep it, our words espousing our will power to do what we promise amount to worse than nothing; our "I will" is a guaranteed, automatic FAIL. But, if like John, we focus on Jesus' LOVE for us, we can do anything. A good place to start, follow the Apostle John's example and think of ourselves as "the one Jesus LOVES," then we can do anything, even keep the Law.

Thoughts on religious liberty....

If you're an American citizen, the present, American, federal government wants to become your god. It wants to watch you and control every aspect of your life. It wants you to have sexual liberty, but it doesn't want you to choose for yourself how you will eat, what car you will drive, what kind of toilet you will own, how much stuff you can put in your garage, what you can do with water that you own or falls as rain on your land or which light bulb you will use.

More than anything, the American federal government wants to control how you think and for whom you vote. Voter fraud is rampant and the idea of "one man (or woman) and one vote" is a joke, but nobody who has any power does anything about it. And those who try are persecuted by the IRS, the new enforcement arm of the American king and his minions.

Unfortunately, the American media largely is in agreement with these objectives and the Republican party too often appear hapless and inarticulate. Truly, only someone with the talent of Ronald Reagan, which most of us do not possess, can talk over the media's heads directly to the people and make thoughts clear. However, too many Republicans get to Washington and become infected with the same disease that rots the Democrat party--the notion that begins with the idea that government can help.

The truth is, ninety-nine percent of the time, government cannot help, it can only make things worse. The "War on Poverty" has destroyed black families and has made poverty and living on government charity a way of life for many. The federal minimum wage law has ensured that no person who lacks basic skills and a high school education can get a job an employer can afford to give him while he trains him in a trade. Federal laws controlling student school attendance and integration of students no matter their academic ability or mental capacity ensures that neither our brightest students nor our dullest will receive what they need. Government student aid has driven up the cost of a college education to the point where only the wealthiest citizen can pay for a full load of course hours per semester by himself and the rules make sure that the middle class is hammered because they are neither wealthy enough to pay for everything themselves nor poor enough to obtain a free ride. And now the federal government is busy making sure that nobody can afford healthcare either.

Unless we're talking public roads, national defense and international diplomacy the federal government can't do anything useful. Government is like a zombie, except it is blind and though it is controlled by regulation, there is no mercy or true charity. That can only come with the sight and intelligence of personal contact and liberty to do some things and not others as best benefits the needy individual.

Where power can be concentrated, those who desire power will also concentrate. The ultimate objective of a person who desires power, as opposed to someone who desires to serve, is the ability to control, to rule, to dominate--to become a god.

"Religious freedom is the freedom to practice your faith, not just in the church, but outside the church. And, unfortunately, increasingly, the progressives in this country and the president see freedom of worship as just the ability to do whatever you want to do within the church, at least for now. But once you are outside the church, then you have to do what the government tells you to do and think the way the government tells you to think. That's not what the first amendment says, that's not what the court, thankfully, said....Freedom of conscious is the most important freedom because none of the others matter if you can't say and act according to what you actually believe," Rick Santorum.

Americans have been endowed with vast liberties which are being whittled away little by little through time. Compared to the days when a teenager could leave an abusive home and strike out on his own to build his own business or take a viable job learning a trade, he now has no such liberty. A teenager who leaves home soon becomes a slave in the sex trade or a homeless derelict. Ask any farmer how much liberty he has when federal law for chemical use damns him if he does and damns him if he doesn't--the only thing that prevents him from suffering a huge fine, a lawsuit or arrest is the fact that the authorities haven't decided to punish him yet. In labor law, the employer is guilty, now what is the question? How much liberty do we have when the government can confiscate our money and do things with it which we abhor? And, when a government becomes a "charitable" organization, doling out aid to the needy, its blindness and its regulations automatically make it an organ to be massaged for free cash.

The (Not) Affordable (No) Care (subject to un-constitional revision by the executive branch) Act seeks to further whittle away Americans' liberty.

 "The prevailing view in Democratic circles is that Americans enjoy constitutional and legal rights when acting alone but not when acting jointly — i.e., not when it matters most to public affairs. Under this model, the owners of Hobby Lobby enjoy First Amendment religious protections, and RFRA protections, when they are kneeling in prayer by their bedsides, and perhaps, with certain limitations and IRS oversight, when they are in their church pews. But if they make a decision together, as a group of business owners with a particular vision of the good life and their own duties as people of conscience, then the Democrats believe that their legal and constitutional rights should be set aside, as though human beings and American citizens acting in concert with one another were less than human beings or less than American citizens because of that act of coordination," National Review editors

 Americans need to do more screaming, they need to do more pounding on politicians' doors and more pelting them with letters. We the people need to rise up and demand bureaucracies funds be curtailed, that our borders be secured and agencies be whittled down to the barest minimum. We need to run for office and we need to write letters to the editor. We need to cry out to God for help. He will answer.

The truth about the Middle East...

The Roman emperor, Hadrian, hated the Jews and wanted to obliterate them from the face of the earth. From the Roman point of view the Jews had been a thorn in the Roman side for generations. He renamed the land of Israel, "Palestine," with the idea that renaming it would mean that Israel had never existed. The ancestors of the "Palestinians" lived there alongside Jews back then and still live there now, only now, they want to claim Israel has no right to exist. This video is short, succinct and to the point covering many of the key points pertaining to conflict in the Middle East.

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Full Movie)