Tuesday, August 20, 2024

Tim Walz as the Biden copycat

 

Tim Walz has taken over as liar in chief regarding one's personal life stories. Biden was notorious for his life experience fabrications, and now Walz is taking up the mantle. 

Walz lied about his DUI issues 30 years ago

Walz lied about his military record and service. He did not retire as a Command Sargent Major. That lie was even repeated at the opening day of a DNC event after being debunked weeks ago. 

Walz still lies about the importance of IVF for him and his wife. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/walz-children-conceived-through-iui-not-ivf-despite-statements-what-to-know/ar-AA1p7Ruv


If he'll lie about his own kids in order to gain power of the American people, then there's nothing he won't do to get that power and keep it. 


As for Biden, he talked so much about how Trump and MAGA are a threat to Democracy, but it's his own party that ditched democracy by staging a coup on Biden. 
Karma is a ....

The Dems have never answered the question of  "If Biden is so competent and consequential, then why did he step aside?"  Was it just to save democracy?

If he's not competent, then why is he still President? 

Saturday, August 17, 2024

WHO GOES NAZI? Dorothy Thompson 1941

 

An interesting exercise today 2024 would be to ask "Who goes Woke/Collectivist-Authoritarian?"

Who goes Nazi – Dorothy Thompson  circa 1941

It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi. By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times—in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis.

It is preposterous to think that they are divided by any racial characteristics. Germans may be more susceptible to Nazism than most people, but I doubt it. Jews are barred out, but it is an arbitrary ruling. I know lots of Jews who are born Nazis and many others who would heil Hitler tomorrow morning if given a chance. There are Jews who have repudiated their own ancestors in order to become “Honorary Aryans and Nazis”; there are full-blooded Jews who have enthusiastically entered Hitler’s secret service. Nazism has nothing to do with race and nationality. It appeals to a certain type of mind.

It is also, to an immense extent, the disease of a generation—the generation which was either young or unborn at the end of the last war. This is as true of Englishmen, Frenchmen, and Americans as of Germans. It is the disease of the so-called “lost generation.”

Sometimes I think there are direct biological factors at work—a type of education, feeding, and physical training which has produced a new kind of human being with an imbalance in his nature. He has been fed vitamins and filled with energies that are beyond the capacity of his intellect to discipline. He has been treated to forms of education which have released him from inhibitions. His body is vigorous. His mind is childish. His soul has been almost completely neglected.

At any rate, let us look round the room.

The gentleman standing beside the fireplace with an almost untouched glass of whiskey beside him on the mantelpiece is Mr. A, a descendant of one of the great American families. There has never been an American Blue Book without several persons of his surname in it. He is poor and earns his living as an editor. He has had a classical education, has a sound and cultivated taste in literature, painting, and music; has not a touch of snobbery in him; is full of humor, courtesy, and wit. He was a lieutenant in the World War, is a Republican in politics, but voted twice for Roosevelt, last time for Willkie. He is modest, not particularly brilliant, a staunch friend, and a man who greatly enjoys the company of pretty and witty women. His wife, whom he adored, is dead, and he will never remarry.

He has never attracted any attention because of outstanding bravery. But I will put my hand in the fire that nothing on earth could ever make him a Nazi. He would greatly dislike fighting them, but they could never convert him. . . . Why not?

Beside him stands Mr. B, a man of his own class, graduate of the same preparatory school and university, rich, a sportsman, owner of a famous racing stable, vice-president of a bank, married to a well-known society belle. He is a good fellow and extremely popular. But if America were going Nazi he would certainly join up, and early. Why? . . . Why the one and not the other?

Mr. A has a life that is established according to a certain form of personal behavior. Although he has no money, his unostentatious distinction and education have always assured him a position. He has never been engaged in sharp competition. He is a free man. I doubt whether ever in his life he has done anything he did not want to do or anything that was against his code. Nazism wouldn’t fit in with his standards and he has never become accustomed to making concessions.

Mr. B has risen beyond his real abilities by virtue of health, good looks, and being a good mixer. He married for money and he has done lots of other things for money. His code is not his own; it is that of his class—no worse, no better, He fits easily into whatever pattern is successful. That is his sole measure of value—success. Nazism as a minority movement would not attract him. As a movement likely to attain power, it would.

The saturnine man over there talking with a lovely French emigree is already a Nazi. Mr. C (Avery Brundage) is a brilliant and embittered intellectual. He was a poor white-trash Southern boy, a scholarship student at two universities where he took all the scholastic honors but was never invited to join a fraternity. His brilliant gifts won for him successively government positions, partnership in a prominent law firm, and eventually a highly paid job as a Wall Street adviser. He has always moved among important people and always been socially on the periphery. His colleagues have admired his brains and exploited them, but they have seldom invited him—or his wife—to dinner.

He is a snob, loathing his own snobbery. He despises the men about him—he despises, for instance, Mr. B—because he knows that what he has had to achieve by relentless work men like B have won by knowing the right people. But his contempt is inextricably mingled with envy. Even more than he hates the class into which he has insecurely risen, does he hate the people from whom he came. He hates his mother and his father for being his parents. He loathes everything that reminds him of his origins and his humiliations. He is bitterly anti-Semitic because the social insecurity of the Jews reminds him of his own psychological insecurity.

Pity he has utterly erased from his nature, and joy he has never known. He has an ambition, bitter and burning. It is to rise to such an eminence that no one can ever again humiliate him. Not to rule but to be the secret ruler, pulling the strings of puppets created by his brains. Already some of them are talking his language—though they have never met him.

There he sits: he talks awkwardly rather than glibly; he is courteous. He commands a distant and cold respect. But he is a very dangerous man. Were he primitive and brutal he would be a criminal—a murderer. But he is subtle and cruel. He would rise high in a Nazi regime. It would need men just like him—intellectual and ruthless. But Mr. C is not a born Nazi. He is the product of a democracy hypocritically preaching social equality and practicing a carelessly brutal snobbery. He is a sensitive, gifted man who has been humiliated into nihilism. He would laugh to see heads roll.

I think young D over there is the only born Nazi in the room. Young D is the spoiled only son of a doting mother. He has never been crossed in his life. He spends his time at the game of seeing what he can get away with. He is constantly arrested for speeding and his mother pays the fines. He has been ruthless toward two wives and his mother pays the alimony. His life is spent in sensation-seeking and theatricality. He is utterly inconsiderate of everybody. He is very good-looking, in a vacuous, cavalier way, and inordinately vain. He would certainly fancy himself in a uniform that gave him a chance to swagger and lord it over others.

Mrs. E would go Nazi as sure as you are born. That statement surprises you? Mrs. E seems so sweet, so clinging, so cowed. She is. She is a masochist. She is married to a man who never ceases to humiliate her, to lord it over her, to treat her with less consideration than he does his dogs. He is a prominent scientist, and Mrs. E, who married him very young, has persuaded herself that he is a genius, and that there is something of superior womanliness in her utter lack of pride, in her doglike devotion. She speaks disapprovingly of other “masculine” or insufficiently devoted wives. Her husband, however, is bored to death with her. He neglects her completely and she is looking for someone else before whom to pour her ecstatic self-abasement. She will titillate with pleased excitement to the first popular hero who proclaims the basic subordination of women.

On the other hand, Mrs. F would never go Nazi. She is the most popular woman in the room, handsome, gay, witty, and full of the warmest emotion. She was a popular actress ten years ago; married very happily; promptly had four children in a row; has a charming house, is not rich but has no money cares, has never cut herself off from her own happy-go-lucky profession, and is full of sound health and sound common sense. All men try to make love to her; she laughs at them all, and her husband is amused. She has stood on her own feet since she was a child, she has enormously helped her husband’s career (he is a lawyer), she would ornament any drawing-room in any capital, and she is as American as ice cream and cake.

II

How about the butler who is passing the drinks? I look at James with amused eyes. James is safe. James has been butler to the ‘ighest aristocracy, considers all Nazis parvenus and communists, and has a very good sense for “people of quality.” He serves the quiet editor with that friendly air of equality which good servants always show toward those they consider good enough to serve, and he serves the horsy gent stiffly and coldly.

Bill, the grandson of the chauffeur, is helping serve to-night. He is a product of a Bronx public school and high school, and works at night like this to help himself through City College, where he is studying engineering. He is a “proletarian,” though you’d never guess it if you saw him without that white coat. He plays a crack game of tennis—has been a tennis tutor in summer resorts—swims superbly, gets straight A’s in his classes, and thinks America is okay and don’t let anybody say it isn’t. He had a brief period of Youth Congress communism, but it was like the measles. He was not taken in the draft because his eyes are not good enough, but he wants to design airplanes, “like Sikorsky.” He thinks Lindbergh is “just another pilot with a build-up and a rich wife” and that he is “always talking down America, like how we couldn’t lick Hitler if we wanted to.” At this point Bill snorts.

Mr. G is a very intellectual young man who was an infant prodigy. He has been concerned with general ideas since the age of ten and has one of those minds that can scintillatingly rationalize everything. I have known him for ten years and in that time have heard him enthusiastically explain Marx, social credit, technocracy, Keynesian economics, Chestertonian distributism, and everything else one can imagine. Mr. G will never be a Nazi, because he will never be anything. His brain operates quite apart from the rest of his apparatus. He will certainly be able, however, fully to explain and apologize for Nazism if it ever comes along. But Mr. G is always a “deviationist.” When he played with communism he was a Trotskyist; when he talked of Keynes it was to suggest improvement; Chesterton’s economic ideas were all right but he was too bound to Catholic philosophy. So we may be sure that Mr. G would be a Nazi with purse-lipped qualifications. He would certainly be purged.

H is an historian and biographer. He is American of Dutch ancestry born and reared in the Middle West. He has been in love with America all his life. He can recite whole chapters of Thoreau and volumes of American poetry, from Emerson to Steve Benet. He knows Jefferson’s letters, Hamilton’s papers, Lincoln’s speeches. He is a collector of early American furniture, lives in New England, runs a farm for a hobby and doesn’t lose much money on it, and loathes parties like this one. He has a ribald and manly sense of humor, is unconventional and lost a college professorship because of a love affair. Afterward he married the lady and has lived happily ever afterward as the wages of sin.

H has never doubted his own authentic Americanism for one instant. This is his country, and he knows it from Acadia to Zenith. His ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War and in all the wars since. He is certainly an intellectual, but an intellectual smelling slightly of cow barns and damp tweeds. He is the most good-natured and genial man alive, but if anyone ever tries to make this country over into an imitation of Hitler’s, Mussolini’s, or Petain’s systems H will grab a gun and fight. Though H’s liberalism will not permit him to say it, it is his secret conviction that nobody whose ancestors have not been in this country since before the Civil War really understands America or would really fight for it against Nazism or any other foreign ism in a showdown.

But H is wrong. There is one other person in the room who would fight alongside H and he is not even an American citizen. He is a young German emigre, whom I brought along to the party. The people in the room look at him rather askance because he is so Germanic, so very blond-haired, so very blue-eyed, so tanned that somehow you expect him to be wearing shorts. He looks like the model of a Nazi. His English is flawed—he learned it only five years ago. He comes from an old East Prussian family; he was a member of the post-war Youth Movement and afterward of the Republican “Reichsbanner.” All his German friends went Nazi—without exception. He hiked to Switzerland penniless, there pursued his studies in New Testament Greek, sat under the great Protestant theologian, Karl Barth, came to America through the assistance of an American friend whom he had met in a university, got a job teaching the classics in a fashionable private school; quit, and is working now in an airplane factory—working on the night shift to make planes to send to Britain to defeat Germany. He has devoured volumes of American history, knows Whitman by heart, wonders why so few Americans have ever really read the Federalist papers, believes in the United States of Europe, the Union of the English-speaking world, and the coming democratic revolution all over the earth. He believes that America is the country of Creative Evolution once it shakes off its middle-class complacency, its bureaucratized industry, its tentacle-like and spreading government, and sets itself innerly free.

The people in the room think he is not an American, but he is more American than almost any of them. He has discovered America and his spirit is the spirit of the pioneers. He is furious with America because it does not realize its strength and beauty and power. He talks about the workmen in the factory where he is employed. . . . He took the job “in order to understand the real America.” He thinks the men are wonderful. “Why don’t you American intellectuals ever get to them; talk to them?”

I grin bitterly to myself, thinking that if we ever got into war with the Nazis he would probably be interned, while Mr. B and Mr. G and Mrs. E would be spreading defeatism at all such parties as this one. “Of course I don’t like Hitler but . . .”

Mr. J over there is a Jew. Mr. J is a very important man. He is immensely rich—he has made a fortune through a dozen directorates in various companies, through a fabulous marriage, through a speculative flair, and through a native gift for money and a native love of power. He is intelligent and arrogant. He seldom associates with Jews. He deplores any mention of the “Jewish question.” He believes that Hitler “should not be judged from the standpoint of anti-Semitism.” He thinks that “the Jews should be reserved on all political questions.” He considers Roosevelt “an enemy of business.” He thinks “It was a serious blow to the Jews that Frankfurter should have been appointed to the Supreme Court.”

The saturnine Mr. C—the real Nazi in the room—engages him in a flatteringly attentive conversation. Mr. J agrees with Mr. C wholly. Mr. J is definitely attracted by Mr. C. He goes out of his way to ask his name—they have never met before. “A very intelligent man.”

Mr. K contemplates the scene with a sad humor in his expressive eyes. Mr. K is also a Jew. Mr. K is a Jew from the South. He speaks with a Southern drawl. He tells inimitable stories. Ten years ago he owned a very successful business that he had built up from scratch. He sold it for a handsome price, settled his indigent relatives in business, and now enjoys an income for himself of about fifty dollars a week. At forty he began to write articles about odd and out-of-the-way places in American life. A bachelor, and a sad man who makes everybody laugh, he travels continually, knows America from a thousand different facets, and loves it in a quiet, deep, unostentatious way. He is a great friend of H, the biographer. Like H, his ancestors have been in this country since long before the Civil War. He is attracted to the young German. By and by they are together in the drawing-room. The impeccable gentleman of New England, the country-man—intellectual of the Middle West, the happy woman whom the gods love, the young German, the quiet, poised Jew from the South. And over on the other side are the others.

Mr. L has just come in. Mr. L is a lion these days. My hostess was all of a dither when she told me on the telephone, “ . . . and L is coming. You know it’s dreadfully hard to get him.” L is a very powerful labor leader. “My dear, he is a man of the people, but really fascinating.“ L is a man of the people and just exactly as fascinating as my horsy, bank vice-president, on-the-make acquaintance over there, and for the same reasons and in the same way. L makes speeches about the “third of the nation,” and L has made a darned good thing for himself out of championing the oppressed. He has the best car of anyone in this room; salary means nothing to him because he lives on an expense account. He agrees with the very largest and most powerful industrialists in the country that it is the business of the strong to boss the weak, and he has made collective bargaining into a legal compulsion to appoint him or his henchmen as “labor’s” agents, with the power to tax pay envelopes and do what they please with the money. L is the strongest natural-born Nazi in this room. Mr. B regards him with contempt tempered by hatred. Mr. B will use him. L is already parroting B’s speeches. He has the brains of Neanderthal man, but he has an infallible instinct for power. In private conversation he denounces the Jews as “parasites.” No one has ever asked him what are the creative functions of a highly paid agent, who takes a percentage off the labor of millions of men, and distributes it where and as it may add to his own political power.

III

It’s fun—a macabre sort of fun—this parlor game of “Who Goes Nazi?” And it simplifies things—asking the question in regard to specific personalities.

Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never go Nazi. They may be the gentle philosopher whose name is in the Blue Book, or Bill from City College to whom democracy gave a chance to design airplanes—you’ll never make Nazis out of them. But the frustrated and humiliated intellectual, the rich and scared speculator, the spoiled son, the labor tyrant, the fellow who has achieved success by smelling out the wind of success—they would all go Nazi in a crisis.

Believe me, nice people don’t go Nazi. Their race, color, creed, or social condition is not the criterion. It is something in them.

Those who haven’t anything in them to tell them what they like and what they don’t—whether it is breeding, or happiness, or wisdom, or a code, however old-fashioned or however modern, go Nazi. It’s an amusing game. Try it at the next big party you go to.


 


Wednesday, April 24, 2024

Self-identity claims vs Evidence

 


People question the Christian faith of Donald Trump or other politicians because they say that they see no evidence of their faith. 
That is a valid argument. 
Faith should have evidence that the Bible calls fruit. Even so, that fruit may be 'in season or out of season'. We have spiritual ups and downs, yet there should be evidence that remains.
The Bible tells us that one's claim to be a Christian is not enough if there is no fruit. Faith without works is dead. Even Satan believes and trembles, but he has no true fruit of the Spirit. 

Yet the same people will NOT question when a man claims he's a woman. His claim of a female identity is enough (and vice -versa).
 Where are the questions about proof? Are their allies not looking for evidence? Are they simply denying evidence such as DNA and clear biological indicators of male or female? 
It is certainly easier to find evidence about male/female than it is to find or deny proof that someone is a Christian. 
They make up a category called "gender" to avoid an evidence based approach to the topic. 

Unlike spiritual fruit which can ripen or diminish at times, the biological evidence of male and female does not change with someone's self-perception. 

 In a twisted sort of way they say "Well this little boy gives 'evidence' of being a girl because he likes to play with dolls and wear pink and dress up etc" They are stereotyping male and female far worse than the 'hetero-patriarchy' ever did. And they hate the 'hetero-patriarchy.'

For years the feminists et al complained about 'gender stereotypes' yet when it comes to proving that a child is 'trans', they resort to the lowest level of stereotypes available. The hypocrisy is so clear yet ignored. 

Friday, November 03, 2023

Israel, Hamas, Jewish Homeland - Questions

 

The recent issues in Israel (Oct 7, 2023) and the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas (and others), who want to destroy Israel totally, raise moral and theological questions. 

The Heidelcast website has some good articles about the 'reformed' view of Israel and the Church relationship. It is complicated. I'm not fully settled on the issue. 

https://heidelblog.net/2013/08/covenant-theology-is-not-replacement-theology/


I started reading Hosea and the issues in that book made me think of the current issues. It is easy to point out that the current Israel is not really a religious believing nation. It is grounded in a lot of secular thinking but has a 'culturally 'Jewish' identity. 

THAT WAS TRUE OF ISRAEL at the time of Hosea and other prophets. OT Israel was hardly a solid believing faithful godly nation YET God preserved them for the Sake of His Name. He was faithful when the people weren't. 

It makes me wonder about God's dealings with "the Jews" today. 

I'm no as sure as some are that He is finished with them. Nor am I as sure as some are that events today are fulfilling prophecy. 

Tuesday, September 05, 2023

VoV Christlikeness - not loitering

 

This is one of the most interesting phrases in VoV...


"May loiterers be quickened to greater diligence by my example!"


I'm struck by the word 'loiterers'. 

I guess some would call them backsliders, some would call them 'carnal' Christians (that's another topic). 

It makes me think of the signs in public places that read "No Loitering". 

What if churches posted those signs i.e. "No Spiritual Loitering." 

It wouldn't be 'welcoming', but it might make a point - we can't follow Christ by loitering. 

This would really apply to professed believers who just hang around but don't intend to really engage i.e. they are loitering. This seems to be what Jesus is saying in Rev about being lukewarm. 

The non-Christian who hangs around the church is fine and welcome, but it is no place for loitering. 

If tickets for loitering were to be given out by some special agent angels in every church next Sunday, how many folks would be getting a ticket? Probably more per capita in the States than in most other countries of the world. 

The VoV phrase itself helps give the opposite of loitering....diligence. 

GRACE IS NOT OPPOSED TO DILIGENCE. In fact, it leads to it - Titus 2:11 ff

Thursday, December 09, 2021

New Terms for our age

So many new terms have been added to our vocabulary recently, especially as they relate to the topic of gender and the sexual revolution. 

Here are terms that should be in the latest dictionary: 

"gaytriarchy" - 

noun

  1. A social system in which gays are the head of the family.
  2. A family, community, or society governed by gays, who have an elevated status of privilege
  3. Dominance of a society by gays or the values that uphold such dominance, especially as evidenced by special social or political protected status in laws, media, and academia. 

  4. "gaypartheid" 
  5. noun

    1. An official policy of social bias  practiced in many "progressive" countries involving political, legal, and economic privilege given to a small minority of the population.  A system where a small minority can control and determine the accepted public discourse. 

    2. "transpartheid"
    3. noun

    4. The same basic meaning as "gaypartheid" but where control is exercised by the trans community or its allies. 

 

Friday, April 09, 2021

Masks or no masks - A mom's presentation

 

This link will get you the entire presentation, 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tvk2u5wyi1zr51/mask%20presentation%20updated.docx?dl=0

but here are a couple of ideas that I've not heard anywhere else...

As I have tried to lay out, one reason could be that the theory behind the call for universal mask-wearing has been disproven time and time again. But, one could still say, maybe they do help even a tiny bit ---surely we must wear them if they help even in the slightest. But the other side of that argument works as well ---what if they do even a tiny bit of harm? There is more actual evidence compiled over the past decades that support the latter, not the former.

 

If the weaker brother is the person who feels very anxious about possibly contracting the virus, then I do have compassion for those who struggle with inordinate fears. I have known debilitating, prolonged fear. I know what it is to experience dark, intrusive thoughts that persist despite all attempts at using logic and rational thinking. I also know that it would not have been loving or beneficial for me if everyone around me had indulged my fears; "played along" with them, as it were. At some point, irrational thinking turns into delusional living. A person made in the image of God is not meant to live in a state of irrational thinking.

 

Furthermore, who determines who qualifies as the weaker brother in this context? One person struggles with fear and anxiety when surrounded by people who are not covering their faces. The other person struggles with fear and anxiety when surrounded by people who are covering their faces. Maybe for everyone in this room, wearing a mask and worshipping in a room with masked people is not a problem. I would implore you, though, to consider the fact that you might not know the extent of the mental, emotional, and psychological struggles that some in your congregation might be experiencing when exposed to a room full of masked church members.

 

For those who have experienced abuse, particularly sexual abuse, there is a real tendency to be so overcome with a sense of shame that it becomes, to use an appropriate metaphor, the very air that they breathe. (I submit this not simply as a theoretical statement, but as a personal one, as I have experienced a type of sexual abuse in my past.) There is a desperate desire to hide one's face, to not be seen, because the thought of being seen and being known is far too painful. That negative desire extends outward and makes the person also more prone to avoid seeing others, to avoid looking into others' faces. This is a result of the Fall. And yet there is also the desperate desire to lift one's face, to look into the face of another without fear, without shame, and to be fully seen and fully known. This is the result of the Imago Dei.

 This ambivalence can also be true for people who have experienced other forms of abuse, including spiritual abuse in the context of a church. But I would argue that all of us, including non-believers, are subject to this broken reality. We experience shame, and so we cover our faces and we avoid the faces of others. And yet we long to be seen. Masking our faces perpetuates a sense of insecurity, as it is not clear what consists of acceptable human interaction anymore, even on Sunday mornings. This confusion and awkwardness has its roots in shame and can contribute to anxiety and depression. The argument that "it doesn't do any harm, it's not a big deal, it's an easy thing to do," is not only false from an actual scientific point of view, but it is harmful on a spiritual level. In my opinion, it shows a lack of imagination and compassion, for it reduces the person, including children, down to a biological entity, a potential spreader of viruses, while ignoring the complex Biblical reality that tells us that we are more than just our corporal forms; that health and wellness and Shalom aren't confined to just the physical realm.


Saturday, April 03, 2021

COKE AND DELTA hypocrisy and "racism"

 Both companies, COKE and DELTA, recently opposed the new GA Voter Integrity law that requires a valid ID to vote via mail in ballot. 

They agreed with the Democrat race baiters who said it was unacceptable. The implication is that such laws are 'racist and Jim Crow era' statutes. 

Yet for their own needs and purposes both COKE AND DELTA require a valid ID. 

https://georgiastarnews.com/2021/04/02/delta-airlines-coca-cola-require-government-id-for-their-own-needs-but-still-condemn-georgias-new-voter-integrity-law/

https://rumble.com/vfav57-title-ep.-1491-the-most-honest-thing-ever-said-on-cnn-the-dan-bongino-show.html    at the 28:22 mark


They demand a valid ID for their business but oppose them for the responsibility of voting. 
They overlook the reality of the maxim, "The ballot is a bullet." The ballot is voting for those who will have the option of legalized force, so by voting you are putting the bullet into the hands of elected leaders. You must have an ID to buy a firearm, so why not an ID to put the firearm into the hands of public officials? 


Biden et al are pushing vaccines and a possible vaccine passport, yet to get a vaccine, or often even a doctor's visit, you must present an ID. So, is it racist to promote vaccines or a vaccine passport? 

Thursday, March 25, 2021

CRT is a thief of the Gospel

 


David Platt shows how white woke Christians are talking about more diversity and integration of churches while the 'anti-racist' black movement is calling for more cultural segregation - college graduations (Columbia Univ), dorms, clubs, etc. 

The CRT leaders are constantly moving the goalposts. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HX2VOHrAyQ

Thursday, March 18, 2021

Covidian Hymns

 from Steve Deace Show

https://rumble.com/ver4xt-where-will-this-cold-civil-war-go-guest-daniel-horowitz-31721.html

1:11:24 mark

Corona Doxology
Praise Centers for disease control
Praise it you vectors for disease
Praise it above vitamin D
Praise Fauci, masks, and Wallensky

Covid Prayer

Our vaccine which art in viles
hallowed be thy name
two shots were good, three shots better
in my arm and they are in yours
give us this day our face diapers,
and forgive us our breathing 
as we forgive those who breath around us,
and lead us not into masklessness and 
deliver us from Florida, 
for thine is the lockdown and the power forever. 

Amazing Mask: 
Amazing Mask, how sweet the cloth, 
that saved a wretch like you.
I once could breath, but now you're safe 
from asymptomatic spread

How Great thou Art
How Great thou Art O Moderna
When i am navel gazing, consider how fast thou hast made vaccines.
I see the vile, I feel the needle piercing, 
MRNA flows freely through my veins. 
Then sings my soul Moderna, 
laud to thee
How great thou art, how great thou art. 

Sunday, October 25, 2020

Thoughts on Piper's article about People and Policies

 https://www.facebook.com/stevedeace

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/policies-persons-and-paths-to-ruin?utm_campaign=Daily&fbclid=IwAR1vvW4CNQwtlOx2-eXWPz5iIkbHciynE_KKOD29VXgv4_VVgxL0P1e9xJc

From Steve Deace FB page

Several of you have asked me to respond to this piece from John Piper, whose work has been a blessing to me in my own spiritual growth.
Four years ago, I would've shared this view pretty much syllable for syllable. So why don't I four years later?
Four years ago Trump wasn't president, and didn't have a political record whatsoever. John is writing an article like it's still 2016. It's not.
We've actually seen what Trump has done as president. He has accomplished things. Now, you may argue he hasn't accomplished enough to justify the obvious character concerns. And I won't begrudge you one bit if that is your view. I have friends that hold that position, and respect it and think it's worthy of consideration by serious people. I just don't share it. Similar to how I don't share some of your views on infant baptism, but having studied your view I understand why you do and where you're coming from. I respect that, I just don't agree.
But in this piece Piper never considers Trump's actual record, which would seem to be a key component in determining whether to retain someone for a job. Now that he's president the calculus changes -- is that record good enough to justify the character concerns?
Because we/they all have character concerns. McCain was an adulterer and a slanderer. Romney a serial liar and an adherent to a religious view I'm guessing Piper considers at least somewhat heterodoxic. Did John feel compelled to write such pieces then? And if not, why not? What is so unique about Trump's sins that he prompts this response when the sinfulness of the other guys didn't? And when should a politician's actual record in office become part of the process by which to assess them? John never addresses that, either.

Furthermore, has he written anything like this specifically about Democrat candidates for president in the past? For example, Joe Biden paints himself as a faithful Christian, so how come Piper doesn't take it upon himself to write a polemic about any perceived threat supporting Biden is specifically to the integrity of the faith?
Thus, at best Piper's piece here is insufficient. Like judging a mechanic without actually looking at his record of repair. At worst, it comes across as a preening attempting to excuse himself for not making a choice. To appear above it all, while the spiritual cretins sully their reputations like lemmings for Orange Man Bad.
We all have character flaws, that's why we need a savior. The issue isn't Trump's (or anyone else's) character as a stand alone. None of us is worthy of such power based on our character alone. It's whether those flaws prevent them from doing effectively the job of running the country. Without question we have seen Trump's character flaws cost him politically, but we've also seen him do things Christians are right to support.
That makes the answer more complicated than the simplistic approach of making boastfulness on par with state sanctioned murder, as Piper seems to imply here. Presidential boastfulness, while personally sinful, doesn't strike at the heart of a people collectively as state-sanctioned murder does. And frankly, I can't even believe Piper attempted to make that connection. After having listened to years worth of his podcasts, I know he's more thoughtful than that.

That is the end of Steve's comments on Piper. This youtube link is worth a visit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St38G8oJk3k&t=3392s
Go to the 53:08 mark to hear an email from Nadine about the "suburban housewife vote". Very interesting

My thoughts...
Those who know me are aware of the appreciation I have for Dr. Piper over the years, but here I think he is muddled. First I will say that I agree with the ending of Piper's article as he points us to the eternal kingdom. Folks on the left and right can turn politics into a form of religion. Been there done that on both sides.

I agree with Deace's point about not conflating personal character sins with public policy sin. By Piper's logic, what politician is worthy of our vote? They all have character flaws and egos.
As voters, we are electing someone to enact policies on a national basis. Yes, character does matter, but as Deace points out, Piper seems to be rather selective in his comments. He's been silent on this for years. No candidate in my lifetime has been above reproach. In Biblical history we see over and over how God used flawed leaders, even pagans, to accomplish His purpose. Flawed men and women are all God has to work with.
Drawing a moral equivalence between personal character flaws and the murder of the unborn via national abortion policies is so off base. Without being specific Piper seems to be aiming his words at Trump, as if Joe Biden were free from boasting, pride, lying, and immorality, etc. The man has been in politics for 40+ years. I dare say he's got some skeletons in the closet. Some are coming out now. Once Piper goes down that road of critique, then he needs to be consistent.

If we are playing a friendly backyard game we might have the luxury of being picky about the character of our team members, but if we're in a fox hole fighting those who want to get rid of us do we have the luxury of worrying about the moral values of the person next to you?
We make a mistake if we assume that the left just wants things to go back to normal where both sides are willing to accept each other and the election results. They've shown they won't do that since 2000. They don't want to share the country with any opposing viewpoints. Collectivist, socialists, and statists require control to enforce their vision of "equity and fairness."
Piper is right that God is in control in the affairs of men and nations.

Tuesday, October 06, 2020

A Colloquy on Rejoicing

 In this VoV prayer we read...

"Thou hast nothing of thine own but sin, 

nothing to move God to be gracious

or to continue His grace toward thee.

If thou forget this thou wilt lose thy joy."

This raises the question, "Why will we lose our joy if we forget this?"

Answer: If we think that we bring something to the table to move God to be gracious to us, then we put ourselves on a treadmill of performance. We must continually be doing what is required to move God to be gracious. 

The treadmill of performance is deadly to joy. If we think we are performing well, then it leads to pride. If we think we are failing, then it leads to despair. Performance doesn't lead to joy.

The only sure ground of joy is the free grace of God. 

Thursday, September 24, 2020

Prayer and Providence

 Valley of Vision - Living By Prayer

"Teach me to live by prayer

as well as by providence."

That is a good way to live - prayer and providence. It's not either/or, but both/and. 

The two go together in the Christian life. We pray as we trust the providence of God. 

Leftists, Jihadists, and herd immunity

 

Some short thoughts on our cultural moment: 9/24/20

The Jihadists have succeeded in one unexpected area - they taught the leftist BLM, Antifa crowd how to get their way by using violence as a form of extortion. 
The leftists policy now is that of the jihad - "Support, do what we say, and say what we tell you, or we'll use violence."
 It is the rioters veto approach. Shut down, tear down or cancel what we tell you or we'll riot
Just like the media can't mention Mohammed, the name George Soros, who funds leftists causes, is also taboo.  

The left which poo-poos herd immunity is actually showing how it works with their constant scandal stories on Trump. I think the American people are getting "scandal herd immunity."
Folks are just tired of it and are tuning it out now. So herd immunity does work. 

Thanks Dems, Media, BLM etc. 

Saturday, July 11, 2020

Response to FB post from MLK, Jr daughter

I no longer have the post and only read it once, but here are my thoughts:

I did only read it once, so I may have not fully understood all that was written.  What struck me was how the post was devoid of any biblical perspective, even though the author seemed to be leaning on the name of her father, The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I was expecting something with a bit of gospel flavor.
I saw nothing of a redeeming gospel nature in the post. It was, in the true sense of the word, ‘God-less’.
The authors of the PCA paper on racial reconciliation were very strong on the need for a biblically grounded perspective. I recently read over that paper and found that it offered some very helpful insights and Biblical guidance that are needed in the current conversations. The authors offer the following Affirmations and Denials:
-We affirm the image of God reflected in all people –
(Would that also apply to President Trump or any president, or politician, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc? That post did not give me that impression. To ‘”refuse to speak his name” is a way of dehumanizing someone. It is a way of denying the image of God in someone. Seeking to “not speak his name, but associate all Republicans with him” is a way of dehumanizing –denying the Imago Dei – of a sizeable percentage of our population. Slavery, the Nazis and abortion have shown us what happens when we dehumanize a person or a group of people. As believers, we don’t have that option, even of those with whom we disagree.)

-We affirm that for the Christian, all human identities must be subordinate to identity in Christ.
(The current spirit of the age is all about identity politics that puts us at the center rather than God. It encourages an autonomy of self where we define who we are based on our likes, dislikes, desires, or inclinations. That violates the Creator/Creature distinction discussed early on in the Position Paper.)

-We affirm that biblical righteousness has dimensions of both piety and justice.
(A pursuit of ‘justice’ is not an excuse for ignoring basic biblical piety of love for God and our neighbor, even a Samaritan i.e. Republicans in today’s culture.)
-We reject Marxism and Socialism, and all ideologies based on either one or both.
(I don’t know what the author of the post has in mind for the future, but if it is BLM related then it has Marxism at its core. Their website is clear).

-We reject as inadequate any analysis of racism that does not recognize sin and the fall of mankind as its root.

          (If there’s no biblical diagnosis of the problem – “all have sinned…”, then there won’t be a biblically redemptive reconciliation. The church and the world need biblical voices that understand the root of the problem and the spiritual solution that is needed. That is one of the strongest elements of the Position Paper. 

Tuesday, June 23, 2020

from podcast on Jim Jones




From Martry Made podcast God’s Socialist pt 5   1:30:01
Totalitarian systems work to break up any relationship not mediated by the system, so they undermine connections outside and independent from the system. The goal is to get their subjects to say and do things to compromise themselves and create a system that Marshal Mcluhan described as a whispering gallery. Everyone is engaged in keeping everyone else under surveillance. We’re compromised everytime we nod our heads to something we don’t believe to be true. Every time it happens we lose the strength to refuse the next time.

Theodore Dalrymple -
“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity (having strong moral principles). To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”

A totalitarian system builds up a weak social imaginary that can’t survive contact with the outside world.

Thursday, May 28, 2020

Hold them accountable






Steve Deace lays out the case for holding these elected and appointed officials accountable for a majority of Covid 19 deaths.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gzcak5SbSg


Friday, May 22, 2020

Comey "By the book"



https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/19/michael-flynn-full-susan-rice-email-sent-on-trumps-inauguration-day-267998

https://nypost.com/2020/05/20/susan-rices-e-mail-exposes-team-obamas-treachery-goodwin/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/04/30/comey_i_sent_fbi_agents_into_the_white_house.html

The links above show the dishonesty of Jim Comey, Mr. Higher Loyalty (the name of his book). One wonders what loyalty he was referring to.
He was in the Jan 5th meeting with POTUS, Biden, Yates, Rice, etc when President Obama told them to do everything "by the book."

By his own admission to Nicole Wallace Mr. Comey knew what the proper protocols were for speaking with or interviewing a White House official, yet he "sent them in" to talk with Flynn to take advantage of the new White House.
Comey made judgments about the "unusual' number of calls between Flynn and the Russian Ambassador. Had he compared that number with previous incoming officials in the past?

Comey disregarded "the book" and proper protocols to try to catch Flynn in some way. If he were truly concerned about Flynn then why no to to Trump and tell him?
If he were truly loyal to the country then why not go an offer help to the new administration regarding proper protocols?

Jim Comey knew the protocols yet he disregarded them. In doing so he violated the demand of Pres. Obama, thus putting him at risk of suspicion. He set an example within the FBI of violating protocols. He had a chance to do the honorable thing, but he didn't, and he's bragging about it with Nicole Wallace.
The man should have been fired after the July 5, 2016 press conference regarding the Hilary email scandal.

Thursday, April 23, 2020

Covid-19 insanity



For years we've heard some say quite loudly that, "If you're not a woman, then you can't talk about abortion or sexual harassment."

So in line with that how about, "If you still have a job that is deemed essential and not shut down or can work from home, then you can't talk about when others can go back to work."

Or this, "If you are pro-abortion then you can't talk about how the lock-down is worth it if it saves just one life." Would you agree to shut down abortion clinics to save one life?

When your pro-lock down argument is "You just want people to die", then we know that you really don't have much of an argument. That's not an argument; that's just Covid-19 insanity. It is a virus that is worse than Covid-19.

Wednesday, April 15, 2020

Gary Yagel has written a booklet "Forging Bonds of Brotherhood" which offers some very good insights into men's ministry. He also offers some practical formats for small groups for men.


Here is an adapted version of his Forging the Foundation format:


Questions for Brothers in the Battle

1. Encouragement for the battle
How has your week gone?
What has been encouraging?
What has been frustrating?

2. Staying Sharp
Have you arranged to have some quality time with God this week?
If so, share something you learned from scripture.
If not, what got in the way?

(Optional question)
What do you need to do to make time with God a priority?

3. Fighting for our Families
What has been the most difficult part of being the spiritual leader lately?
What do you think you need to focus on most at home right now?

(Optional question)
Are there any unresolved conflicts in your family that you need to address by leading with repentance?

4. Fight spiritual battles
What spiritual battles can I help you fight by praying for you?

(Optional questions)
Which fruit of the Spirit have you been needing the most lately?
What is it that you don’t want to tell anyone? Find a safe friend that you can talk to about it.