Author: Papa Giorgio

The Kiss of Tolerance = “Tolerance” Camps for Dissenters

Published by Papa Giorgio

Gay Patriot has a great short commentary that led to me inserting the above video:

A player for the Miami Dolphins has been fined, suspended, and sentenced to Tolerance Camp for sending an unsupportive tweet upon the occasion of Michael Sam’s drafting and the PDA that followed.

[….]

Also, NBC’s Matt Lauer drives home the point that it doesn’t matter what a player does on the field, but who he goes to bed with at night that the MFM care about by calling for more gay Affirmative Action in the NFL. (Once again citing the tiresome “Right side of history” cliche leftists use because, apparently, being a leftist gives you the power of precognition to know how History is going to work out.)

“The big picture here in terms of the NFL, is this a sea change or is this a one-off? Is this the league moving to the right side of history? Which by the way, they really can’t do unless more players come forward.”

Powerline as well wades into the thick of the topic with this great commentary on the whole matter:

I wrote here about the selection by the St. Louis Rams of Michael Sam, an openly gay football player. The selection brought widespread praise including, predictably enough, from President Obama.

But at least one football player, Don Jones of the Miami Dolphins, reacted negatively — probably not to the selection itself, but rather to the exuberant kisses on the lips that Sam exchanged with his boyfriend while the cameras were rolling.

Jones tweeted “OMG” and “horrible.” For this expression of opinion, Jones has been duly punished. The Dolphins have denounced and fined him, and have barred him from team activities until he attends and completes “educational training.” Jones has issued an abject apology.

The Dolphins, of course, are still trying to overcome the adverse publicity generated by the Richie Incognito-Jonathan Martin “bullying” affair. But I suspect they would have come down hard on Jones regardless. The NFL — a thoroughly authoritarian operation that hardly allows players to celebrate touchdowns — is determined to crush any public expression of disapproval relating to Sam by anyone associated with the league.

Doing so will help the NFL’s image with the PC crowd and the gay community. Whether it will help Sam is another matter.

Jones probably isn’t the only NFL player who considered Sam’s very public wet kiss “horrible.” And more than a few players probably will resent seeing a fellow player silenced and shamed for expressing a sentiment they share or at least understand. That resentment might well manifest itself in resentment of Sam beyond the probably slight amount he would have experienced due to his sexual orientation.

Not much is sacred in a sports locker room or on the field. Attempts by the NFL to make Michael Sam a sacred cow may prove counterproductive.

Sam himself says he wants to be treated like a football player, not a gay football player. Football players are teased constantly for whatever it is they plausibly can be teased about. No speech code protects them. This is especially true of rookies.

[….]

Hot Air wonders what will happen if the Rams cut Michael Sam, not an uncommon fate for a player selected so late in the draft. The question answers itself: the Rams will be lambasted as “homophobic” and the NFL will suffer a black eye.

[….]

…Sterling engaged in a personal conversation that he did not intend to be made public. Were his comments offensive? Sure. Mostly, they were weird. But Sterling never meant to shove them into anyone’s face. Contrast this with the Sam kiss: why were television cameras present to record it in the first place? Did ESPN televise the reactions of any other 7th round draft choices? I don’t think so. The cameras were waiting for Sam to get the call only because he is gay, and the television networks want to promote the cause of homosexual equivalence. Is it unreasonable to infer that the kiss was televised precisely so that some individuals like Jones would take offense, and then be made into a lesson for the rest of us?

…read it all…

ALL Tweets from TWITCHY!

Boko Haram Kidnapped Girls Because of… Yep… Global Warming

Published by Papa Giorgio

From the annuls of “you thought you heard it all till…” — and it has EVERYTHING to do with the lefts inability to fight evil:

Britain’s Guardian newspaper has come up with a novel explanation for the kidnapping of over 200 schoolgirls in Nigeria. (h/t Marc Morano)

Conventional analyses have pinned the blame on the Islamist terrorist group Boko Haram (which means: “Western education is forbidden”). But according to the Guardian’s Nafeez Ahmed, the real culprit is ‘climate change.’

After Breitbart quotes a bit from this article, they continue to point out that the author, Nafeez Ahmed, is a 9/11 truther as well:

The article is by no means Ahmed’s first attempt to exculpate Islamist terrorists’ actions by implying that the West is, in fact, mainly to blame. He is also a 9/11 Truther.

In fact, overwhelming evidence confirms that al-Qaeda networks in the Middle East, Central Asia, the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Asia-Pacific, have been penetrated and manipulated by Western intelligence services. Conspiraloonery? If only it was. As I argue in my 3rd book, The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism (2005), the evidence for this is extremely well-documented, deriving from innumerable, credible intelligence sources. But why? Largely to destabilize regional environments to pave the way for new “security” policies that serve to protect not people, but foreign investors taking over regional markets — especially markets with significant oil and gas deposits.

Ahmed’s work has been praised by luminaries including left-wing journalist John Pilger, who wrote:

“Nafeez Ahmed’s understanding of the post 9/11 power game, its lies, illusions and dangers, is no less than brilliant. Everyone should read this wise and powerfully illuminating book.”

…read it all…

As has been pointed out earlier… climate change causes all sorts of maladies (via The Corner):

Study: Global Warming Will Cause 180,000 More Rapes by 2099

Global warming isn’t just going to melt the Arctic and flood our cities—it’s also going to make Americans more likely to kill each other.

That’s the conclusion of a controversial new study that uses historic crime and temperature data to show that hotter weather leads to more murders, more rapes, more robberies, more assaults, and more property crimes…

…read it all…

These leftist are on the cutting edge of journalism… yuk, yuk. Breitbart provides a “COMPLETE” list of phenominom caused by Global Warming:

In case you haven’t seen his site, it purports to provide “A complete list of all the things that have been caused by global warming.”

The A section alone includes:

AIDS, Afghan poppies destroyed, African holocaust, aged deaths, poppies more potent, Africa devastated,  Africa in conflict, African aid threatened,  aggressive weeds, Air France crash, air pockets, air pressure changes,  airport farewells virtual, airport malaria, Agulhas current, Alaskan towns slowly destroyed, Al Qaeda and Taliban Being Helped, allergy increase, allergy season longer, alligators in the Thames, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end,  amphibians breeding earlier (or not),  anaphylactic reactions to bee stings,  ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, animals shrink,  Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk,   anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic ice melt faster, Arctic lakes disappear,  Arctic tundra lost, Arctic warming (not), a rose by any other name smells of nothing, asteroid strike risk, asthma, Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty,   atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased,

Each entry includes a hyperlink to the article promulgating each particular spurious claim.

But nobody actually believes this stuff, surely?

Unfortunately, yes. The people who do are called liberals.

One of them is a friend of mine and, by way of a greeting, he sent me a link to this article in The Ecologist the other day. It’s headlined Time To Wake Up: the Climate Denial Beast and reports on a speech made by Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, warning on the extent to which evil climate denialists are funded to pump out their vile propaganda by the agents of Big Oil.

Senator Whitehouse invites us to be shocked by the fact that, according to research by some activist or other at a German university, “from 2003 to 2010, 140 foundations made grants totaling $558 million to 91 organizations that actively oppose climate action.”…

…read more…

I A-c-t-u-a-l-l-y Agree: Rich, White Guys ARE Evil!

Published by Papa Giorgio

Who would of thunk? I a-c-t-u-a-l-l-y agree with liberals! I too think rich, white, men are evil and are ruining both our country, and the world!

I apologize… for us — even if I am poor:

….Now take a look at the top executives at eight of the top 10 groups devoted to fighting that “Global Warming” fight:

  • Sierra Club? White male.
  • Nature Conservancy? White male.
  • League of Conservation Voters? White male.
  • World Wildlife Fund? White male.
  • Environmental Defense Fund? White male.
  • Friends of the Earth? White male.
  • National Audubon Society? White male.
  • Nature Conservancy? White male.

Check your privilege, greenies. (http://tinyurl.com/kmm977b)

WOW! These white males ARE ruining the country! (Editors note, two things: 1. I like when a presupposition from within a religious or political premise is applied on itself; 2. I am beginning to agree with the left that white males are evil!)

The below is from Progressives Today:

More Construction Going On At RPT… Patience

Published by Papa Giorgio

I have already outdone my traffic allowance on my new shared host site… I was number one in usage across the board at HUB. So I must switch to a Virtual Private Servers (VPS). I have a good guy working when he has time to switch my site over. Thanks for the support and visits, I truly am jazzed, just my wallet hates you. I may try to add “ads” at some point as well as putting up a “support” ~ BE PREPARED.

Church & State ~ For Ted Levine (Short Conversation Series)

Published by Papa Giorgio

I was at Salt Creek performing my Tuesday ritual: $3 beers — $7.95 burger. After some friends left I bellied up to the bar for one more beer. As I was in the midst of this final beer I noticed a gentleman coming in and sitting two chairs down from me. I noticed him because he had a laptop with him, and this meant that — as per my custom, I would hand him a “business” card [“hobby” card] on the way out. I also noticed people seemed to recognize this computer wielding older gentleman in a way that made me think he was in the movie business.  Which isn’t too far fetched for our valley.

One of the regulars to Salt Creek who was seated between myself and the gentleman the post is about got up to leave. As he did, he informed me of a newer TV series where this “computer guy” was a principle character. (I thought to myself that this explained the reactions when he entered.) So I used the wash room, grabbed my magazines off the bar and handed my card over to the “principle character” while giving a quick introduction to perk the interest of a perspective new reader. I did make the statement that my “seat compatriot” told me he was in TV, I apologized and told him I don’t watch much TV at all (feeling bad that I should have known him/his character), he humorously said he didn’t either.

And to his credit after looking the card over asked a question that out of the hundreds of cards I have given out, no one has thought to ask.

His question may have been genuine. It may have been a test of my knowledge (who would want to visit a site run by a dumb-ass?). It may have been a rebuke of sorts asked for no reason than to challenge me with a wall of understanding about a subject one thinks they already know the answer to. Whatever the motivation was, I was impressed with the thoughtfulness of it as it was based on my card (to the right).

He asked:

  • “What are your thoughts or position on the separation of church and state?”

It was a gift. I love history, especially American history. So I responded (as best as I can recall, minus the fourth beer slur):

“Well, the phrase ‘separation of church and state‘ was only used by Jefferson in a letter[s] to the Danbury Baptists, so to really understand this use of the phrase one should learn about the issue being discussed between Jefferson and these Baptists. Our federal government payed for Bibles to be printed, and used the Bible in public schools. …. So the Founders had a different view of the matter than the general media, pop-culture, and the Supreme Court has since 1946*. The authors of the Constitution, after they wrote and/or ratified the First Amendment, went back to their respective states and started to write the constitutions for the original states. They mentioned in them that you could not serve in the state government without taking an oath of belief in Jesus Christ. Again, the Founders had a very different view of the matter than we do, and they wrote much on the matter that is worth reading, as they were prodigious writers.”

[*I meant to say 1942, and while this isn’t directly related to the First Amendment, it was a watershed case, Wickard v. Filburn, that the Court “realized,” and over-reaching decisions became the norm using no precedence whatsoever. I would have hit a home-run if I didn’t mess the date up.]

That was it. Short, sweet, he was probably not wanting much attention, I was headed out. He asked a great question, and in the time allotted, I hit a triple. On my way out to meet the wife after her workout I noticed quite a few film trucks were parked outside which previously had not been there. I also referenced Ted — the computer wielding/principle character — via IMDb, and I cannot wait to tell the guys in the shop… as… a quote from a movie he was in is used quite often in our “in-house” banter: “It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.”

So, Ted, if you are reading this, below is my paper on the subject that will back more of what I said, JUST in case you had never heard this before, it is worth reading. Blessings to you and yours.

Here is the PDF PAGE (and download if

you wish) of the below SCRIBD posting:

Separation of Church and State by Papa Giorgio

“Democrats Should Care” About Benghazi and What The FOIA Revealed

Published by Papa Giorgio

Emails through the “Freedom of Information Act” through the behest of reporters from the NYT’s, the Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC…. joking, via Judicial Watch show that the White House/Obama/Hillary (and others) Lied. The honest Democrat should ask him or herself, “At this point, what difference does it make?”

At a press conference on Nov. 14, 2012 President Obama stated that his Administration has provided all information regarding “what happened in Benghazi.”

  • “We have provided every bit of information that we have, and we will continue to provide information…,” the President told reporters, adding, “we will provide all the information that is available about what happened on that day…” and “I will put forward every bit of information that we have.”

…NOT!

Democrat columnist and pundit scolded fellow Democrats today on “Outnumbered” ~ Kirsten Powers says the Democrats’ behavior at the Benghazi hearing were, “Appalling!”

A lot of this is via Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit, I suggest after getting a taste of the consolidation here one follow up there. White House Spokesman Jay Carney told reporters on September 15, 2012 (http://youtu.be/O7VSkdj5IsI), four days after terrorists stormed the consulate in Benghazi and killed US Ambassador Chris Stevens, that the attack was fueled by a video… EVEN THOUGH it has been revealed that every one in the intelligence community knew it was a terrorist attack.

Brigadier General Robert Lovell, U.S. Air Force (Retired) told the House Oversight Committee today, under oath, that the military knew immediately Benghazi was terrorist attack and not a “protest gone awry.” Brigadier General Robert W. Lovell served as Deputy Director for Intelligence and Knowledge Development Directorate, United States Africa Command in the discharge of all Intelligence and Counterintelligence responsibilities as assigned by the Unified Command Plan.

♛ “Nor did we completely understand what we had in front of us, be it kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement, or any or all the above. But, what we did know quite early on was that this was a hostile action. This was not demonstration gone terrible awry. To the point of what happened, the facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack. The Africom J2 was focused on attribution. The attacks became attributable VERY SOON after the event.” 

And House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) blasted the Obama administration Thursday on Benghazi. The Obama administration misled the American people on Benghazi massacre blaming the attack on a YouTube video rather than terrorism. The White House crafted talking points blaming the video despite having knowledge that this was a planned terrorist attack on the US consulate.

“….But it comes in a week in which the American people have learned that you cannot believe what the White House says. You cannot believe what the spokespeople say. You cannot believe what the president says….” (http://youtu.be/kEHVQ0l6cX0)

Remember, the mainstream media (legacy media) has stalled this and swept this under the carpet. Judicial Watch is doing what reporters should be. This is what Sharyl Attkisson said of her former employer of 21-years:

Attkisson added in her interview with CNN’s “Reliable Sources” host Brian Stelter that while she never was discouraged from hard-hitting reports on the George W. Bush administration, when it came to her critical coverage of the Obama White House, CBS regularly balked.

[….]

“There are very sophisticated efforts to manipulate the images and the information that you see every day, in ways that you won’t recognize,” she said. “And I think we can all be a little more savvy about that.”

[….]

As for the differences between how CBS News brass treated and covered the Bush compared to the Obama administration, Attkisson noted that she “didn’t sense any resistance to doing stories that were perceived to be negative to the Bush administration by anybody ever.” But as for the Obama White House, she said “I have done stories that were not received well because people thought they would reflect poorly upon this administration.”

Attkisson went further, noting a “fairly well-discussed” topic inside CBS News “that there are some managers recently who have been so ideologically entrenched that there is a feeling and discussion that some of them, certainly not all of them, have a difficult time viewing a story that may reflect negatively upon government or the administration as a story of value.”

“So you’re saying they are liberal or Democrats?” Stelter asked.

“I don’t know what their registered party is, I just know that the tendency on the part of some of these managers who have key influences has been they never mind the stories that seem to, for example — and I did plenty of them — go against the grain of the Republican Party, but they do often seem to feel defensive about, almost, personally defensive about stories that could make the government look bad. Even if it’s something as simple as a government waste story that doesn’t pinpoint anybody in particularly and it takes on both parties. It seems as though some of them were sensitive about any story that might appear as though it criticizes the government.”

Read more: https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/sharyl-attkisson-and-she-explains-the-media-bias-to-cnn/#ixzz30TWHVg00

John Kerry Is A Symptom Of Democrats Sickness/Double-Standards

Published by Papa Giorgio

The above was the statement made by Kerry, below, Mark Levin quickly goes through the anti-Semitic background and how John Kerry is a symptom of the sickness.

(Gay Patriot: http://tinyurl.com/maq9sle)

How precious, this Democrat Congressman was speaking about “racism” on the Nation of Islam Radio. Guys who think that blacks are genetically superior to other races/ethnicity’s… THEEE definition of racist:

Webster’s says this:

♚ a. belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

So we see that Webster’s main definition are based on a belief in a genetic superiority of one ethnicity (falsely called race) over another. A more in-depth definition comes from “Safire’s Political Dictionary,” and reads (in-part):

♚ racism Originally, an assumption that an individual’s abilities and potential were determined by his biological race, and that some races were inherently superior to others; now, a political-diplomatic accusation of harboring or practicing such theories. “This word [racism],” wrote Harvard Professor J. Anton De Haas in November 1938, “has come into use the last six months, both in Europe and this country… Since so much has been said about conflicting isms, it is only natural that a form was chosen which suggested some kind of undesirable character.” In fact, racism came into use two years earlier, in his 1936 book The Coming American Fascism, Lawrence Dennis wrote, “If … it be assumed that one of our values should be a type of racism which excludes certain races from citizenship, then the plan of execution should provide for the annihilation, deportation, or sterilization of the excluded races.” Racism, a shortening of racialism, was at first directed against Jews. In the nineteenth century, anti-Semites who foresaw a secular age in which religion might not be such a popular rallying force against Jews put forward the idea of Jewishness being less a religion than a race. Adolf Hitler, with his “master race” ideology, turned theory into savage practice….

(Taken from my letter to my youngest son’s high school: http://www.scribd.com/doc/115644033/A-Note-From-a-Concerned-Parent-Racism-Invoked-in-the-Classroom)

LET ME BE CLEAR, as you read the following. I do not think Obama is a Muslim. What I do think is that Obama joining a church that is so far off the historical Christian position of just about everything taints his views of other religions. In other words, his wrongly held views of salvation and Christianity affect greatly how he views — for instance, a cult breakaway from Islam. A worldview that says Jesus is just like the Buddha, Muhammad, Moses, etc, causes him [Obama] to be wildly inconsistent with the historical ethos of the Christian faith, and our [America’s] founding principles.

From an older post:

 

Some history: The NOI was created by Wallace D. Fard, also known as Wallace Fard Muhammad. Fard claimed to come from the Islamic city of Mecca. He began a mosque in Detroit in 1930. He taught that Christianity should be rejected since it was the “slave-master’s religion.” In 1934 Fard disappeared and was neither seen nor heard from again. Fard was succeeded by Elijah Muhammad (Elijah Poole). Elijah Poole was born in Sandersville, Ga. on October 7, 1898. He changed his name to Elijah Muhammad after joining the NOI. After Fard disappeared, Elijah took over the leadership of NOI…..

The Nation of Islam claims that God is a man. “God is a man and we just cannot make Him other than man” (Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman in America, [Chicago: Muhammad’s Temple No. 2], p. 6). The NOI teaches that Fard was Allah in physical form (Elijah Muhammad, The Fall of America, p. 236, as reprinted in “The Mother Plane,” The Final Call 15, no. 25 [July 16, 1996]: 19). According to Elijah Muhammad, Fard told him, “My name is Mahdi; I am God” (Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman, p. 17). The NOI continues to teach that Fard is Allah. The current NOI statement is published in every issue of their weekly newspaper, The Final Call, in an article titled “What the Muslims Believe.” It states, “12. WE BELIEVE that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited ‘Messiah’ of the Christians and the ‘Mahdi’ of the Muslims.” The NOI denies that God is spirit. The NOI claims that Christians worship an “invisible spook somewhere in space”(Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman, p. 5). According to Elijah Muhammad, “God is in person, and stop looking for a dead Jesus for help, but pray to Him whom Jesus prophesied would come after Him. He who is alive and not a spook” (Ibid., p. 3).

  • Obama’s father was a Muslim and not an atheist;
  • Obama attended a Muslim school before he attended a catholic one;
  • Obama was excused once a week from the catholic school for Muslim religious studies;
  • Every Friday Obama prayed at a mosque;
  • Obama did not convert to Christianity — he converted to a twisted/aberrant Christian faith;
  • Obama’s church gave a racist Muslim — who thinks the white man was created by a mad scientist on the Island of Cyprus 6,000 years ago, and who believes was taken up to a UFO where he was told by Jesus and the founder of the Nation of Islam, the “honorable” Elijah Muhammad, that he was the “little Messiah” — a “Lifetime Achievement Award.”
  • Obama’s picture was put on the church’s magazine cover along with the “honorable” Elijah Muhammad, Louise Farrakhan;
  • Obama’s church’s magazine, “Trumpet,” also had Farrakhan full shots on the magazine cover;
  • Obama’s pastor was a “former” Muslim and black nationalist;
  • Obama’s church also published Hamas’ “terror manifesto” and compared Hamas’ charter that calls for murder of Jews to Declaration of Independence.

From another post:

Obama’s pastor not only was a minister in The Nation of Islam, an anti-Semitic/racist group, but the church’s book store sells sermons by Louise Farrakhan, who teaches that the white man was created on the Island of Cyprus by a mad scientist, Yakub. (Mr. Farrakhan also believes he was taken up on a UFO to meet God, and was told he was a little messiah, take note also that he was directly involved in the deaths of police officers as well.) Louise Farrakhan was featured twice on the church’s magazine which reach 20,000[plus] homes in the Chicago area. Even placing on the cover with Louise Farrakhan a third time the founder of the Nation of Islam, Elijah Muhammad. Elijah Muhammad likewise taught that the white man was created by Yakub 6,600 years ago. Walter, Louise Farrakhan teaches that the Jews in Israel do not belong there, and that the true Jews are the black people. Louise Farrakhan was invited into Obama’s church, to the pulpit and given a “lifetime achievement award.” In fact, the New Black Panthers and members of the Nation of Islam often times sat in the pews for sermons by Rev. Wright, whom Obama called a mentor.

Shame, The Holy, and Pornography ~ Men, Listen Up

Published by Papa Giorgio

Ravi Zacharias does a great job in explaining what pornography does to shame, the Holy, and the insatiable fire of not being able to satisfy men’s archetype they build in their minds eye. (Posted by: Religio-Political Talk) One of the best, relatable parts of this larger video that will help explain to men who struggle with the Holy what they are doing, and that is, they are desensitizing themselves to detect shame. Which our society needs a good dose of.

It’s OK to Leave the Plantation ~ Bundy & Black Conservatives

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler’s Book, “Inside The White House“

 

When I first heard Cliven Bundy’s remarks about the “ghetto” and how he thought “Negroes” picken’ cotton was better than what they have… I was saddened. I had already come to the conclusion that Cliven was not entirely correct with his view of Federalism, but that the Federal government was wrongly pressing an issue of importance for those who wish to shrink government. And remember, Bundy is the last of over 50 ranchers/farmers in his area whom were effectively chased out of business by Federal regulations.

I still think a vested interest in what went on (and is going on in a state where the Federal government is in control of 81% of the land in that state) in the larger sense on the Bundy Ranch deserves our attention. An earlier post explains why we should care: Confused About the Ongoing Bundy Ranch Debacle? Read On…

There are some good (macro) signs coming from this, and that is that the states are eyeballing Federalism in the classical sense. And directly related to the “Bundy Standoff” our side of the country is looking at curtailing Federal control of soooo much property:

Lawmakers from Western states said Friday that the time has come for them to take control of federal lands within their borders and suggested the standoff this month between a Nevada rancher and the federal government was a problem waiting to happen.

“What’s happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem,” Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart, a Republican, told The Salt Lake Tribune.

The lawmakers — more than 50 of them from nine Western states — made their proclamations at the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands, in Utah, which was scheduled before this month’s standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management….

(Fox)

ALL THAT ASIDE, the statements I heard from Bundy were hard to hear. BUT, I remembered an older article (2009) by Walter Williams called “Race Talk” in which he explains that over the years what “African-Americans” have been politely called has changed:

  • What to call black people has to be confusing to white people. Having been around for 73 years, I have been through a number of names. Among the polite ones are: colored, Negro, Afro-American, black, and now African-American. Among those names, African-American is probably the most unintelligent.

So even though Cliven Bundy was calling a segment of our body-politic, “Negro,” that wasn’t the issue that worried me. But before drawing a final conclusion on the matter I chose to wait a few days to see what would flesh out.

I am glad I did, because the legacy media pushed a narrative (see three good critiques of this narrative: here, here, and here) different from the larger body of evidence. Gateway Pundit, Alfonzo Rachel, Kira Davis, and Larry Elder helped trigger in my mind what Paul Harvey said was “the rest of the story.” So lets start the journey of what Cliven was saying that is no different in its substance (just not delivery) from what Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, C. Mason Weaver, Jesse Lee Peterson, Star Parker, Carol Swain, Allen West, Deneen Borelli, and others have been saying for a long time. In fact, here are some of the covers I wish to show:

its-ok-leave-plantation-new-underground-railroad

All of the above books and names are people of color saying in a more erudite manner what this po-dunk farmer said. However, many of the above authors call Big-Government what it is to the black community: plantation.

Dr. Sowell made this thinking clear with his debate about the dynamics of welfare with then Pennsylvania Secretary of Welfare, Helen O’Banion (1980). The black family was more intact during the hardest times of our nations history for them, but now 70% of black kids are born to single mothers because the father abandons them because the state will cover his ass. Sowell makes the point that the black family was better during even slavery.

But lets assume the worse fears about Cliven Bundy. Let us posit that he really is racist. What affect does that have on either the issue at hand a) government overreach, or b), your personal life. Government overreach has more possibility of affecting me (all of us), and the guys that can come to your door are carrying AR-15’s. Cliven has no affect on me and will never interfere with my personal well-being.

But I do not think Mr. Bundy is racist like Donald Sterling, if you take all he said IN CONTEXT. Something the left leaning, race-card throwing media does not. So, let us start this journey first with Kira Davis, in all her glory (sorry Kira, looked like a long night with the kids):

Kira makes the point well, that even if Mr. Bundy was a racist… so what. That is a micro issue, the macro issue is whether the law in question that allowed heavily weaponized federal agents to start killing cattle in mass graves is just. This is the point made well by Zo Nation (Alfonzo Rachel) in what I still regard as MachoSauce:

Okay, we have seen that in the BIG picture, even if Cliven Bundy WAS racist, it has no affect on your personal life, and government overreach is much more damaging to the individual. But lets get back to the issue Bundy was making. Larry Elder, in a rather long segment I edited (video included in Larry’s audio), shows that in context, and rather against the New York Times truncating the quote to make Mr. Bundy out as a villain:

You see, in context, we find the narrative to be a bit different than what our handlers want us to see.

Gateway Pundit was stellar in their posting on this matter — NY Times EDITED Cliven Bundy’s Controversial Remarks:

Liberals constant attempts to silence debate and free speech with the caterwauling cries of “racism” were best summed up by this Gateway video posted on George Will.

“Liberalism has a kind of Tourette’s syndrome these days. It’s just constantly saying the word racism and racist. There’s an old saying in the law: If you have the law on your side, argue the law; if you have the facts on your side, argue the facts; if you have neither, pound the table. This is pounding the table. There’s a kind of intellectual poverty now. Liberalism hasn’t had a new idea since the 1960′s except Obamacare and the country doesn’t like it. […] So what do you do? You say anyone who criticizes us is a ‘racist’. It’s become a joke…”

Cliven Bundy scares the Left because the Left has failed at scaring Bundy—who doesn’t scare easily and stands up for what is constitutionally protected. The released EDITED video is more pounding of the table to avoid arguing the facts.

Liberal Media Matters and NY Times brought down Cliven Bundy with the release of this EDITED VIDEO HERE on his controversial comments. Below is the context of the FULL video in which he mentions the Government is the master of enslavement. He explains at the beginning and emphasizes again at the end of the video (which was edited out by the Left because they don’t blame government).

Many conservatives like Sean Hannity were quick to jump in and condemn Bundy’s racist statements, rightfully so.  But maybe Hannity missed the discussions on many of the same ideas, admittedly expressed differently than Bundy, shared by great minds such as Walter E. Williams, Ben Carson, Rush Limbaugh, Allen West, and other great conservative minds.

Does the media find Walter E. Williams, Ben Carson, and Allen West ”repugnant” and “beyond despicable” for making similar points as Cliven Bundy? The fact remains this fight is still about GOVERNMENT OVERREACH—not about Bundy.

Here’s a sample of what Walter Williams has said on the subject [I edited the longer video to the relevant remarks]:

And what about Ben Carson who ranted about the massive welfare program known as Obamacare in the video below. Is Ben Carson repugnant, too? No doubt a racist in the eyes of the NY Times.

Read all of Gateways post — well worth it.

So, the conclusion I can come to with all the relevant information is a) Bundy is most likely not racist, but only God can see his heart; b) Mr. Bundy is right about calling a “spade-a-spade,” big government entitlement programs has created what progressive hero said it would do:

How is this a “vote pump”? ~ paying for those to stay unemployed or not worry about their family and continue to vote for the party that pays them:

(CNS News) The top 40 percent of households by before-tax income actually paid 106.2 percent of the nation’s net income taxes in 2010, according to a new study by the Congressional Budget Office.

At the same time, households in the bottom 40 percent took in an average of $18,950 in what the CBO called “government transfers” in 2010.

Taxpayers in the top 40 percent of households were able to pay more than 100 percent of net federal income taxes in 2010 because Americans in the bottom 40 percent actually paid negative income taxes, according to the CBO study entitled, “The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2010.”

(CNS News) Buried deep on the website of the U.S. Census Bureau is a number every American citizen, and especially those entrusted with public office, should know. It is 86,429,000.

That is the number of Americans who in 2012 got up every morning and went to work — in the private sector — and did it week after week after week.

[….]

All told, including both the welfare recipients and the non-welfare beneficiaries, there were 151,014,000 who “received benefits from one or more programs” in the fourth quarter of 2011. Subtract the 3,212,000 veterans, who served their country in the most profound way possible, and that leaves 147,802,000 non-veteran benefit takers.

The 147,802,000 non-veteran benefit takers outnumbered the 86,429,000 full-time private sector workers 1.7 to 1.

How much more can the 86,429,000 endure?

Paying for failure, and a new type of slavery… Western style.

Nature of Apologetics, Douglas Groothuis (S.S. Part 1)

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is a three-parter that is quite long, and technical. (It is the first part of a previous set [second, third].) You may also want a dictionary ready, this is a seminary level presentation. If you taken with this presentation[s] — knowledge of how we should better interact with our world and our culture comes through for those In His Service — ΙΗΣ.

Introduction

Part 1

“Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect. Next make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is. Worthy of reverence because it really understands human nature. Attractive because it promises true good.” — Blaise Pascal, Pensées, #12/187.

I. The Definition of Apologetics

A. The rational defense of the Christian worldview as objectively true and existentially or subjectively engaging. More generally, to commendation of Christianity in the face of unbelief or doubt.
B. Concerns defining Christian truth-claims that one must believe in order to be a Christian

1. Essentials of orthodoxy: Trinity, Incarnation, biblical authority, justification by faith, etc.
2. Truth-claim: propositions affirming the existence or nonexistence of certain states of affairs

a. Different than a sentence; many sentences affirm of declare the same proposition (More on this in D. Groothuis, Truth Decay, chapter four)
b. Truth-claims are different than questions, emotive utterances, commands, etc.

II. Relation of Apologetics to Theology

A. Apologetics is dependent on theology for its content (essential doctrines), which are defended as true
B. Theology’s ideal is to systematically and coherently articulate what Scripture teaches
C. We need a theology of apologetics’

~ Theological truths (such as human depravity, general revelation, divine transcendence and immanence) guide one’s understanding and application of apologetics

III. Relation of Apologetics to Philosophy

A. Comes under one category of philosophy—philosophy of religion: the rational investigation of religious truth-claims

~ But not all philosophy of religion is Christian apologetics; may be done in service of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism, etc.

B. Attempts to rationally justify theological statements through philosophical means (theistic arguments, defending the coherence of doctrines, such as the Trinity or Incarnation, etc.)

~ Need not be propaganda or proselytizing, but may be

C. Resurgence of Christians in philosophy in the last two-three decades. See James Kelly Clark, ed., Philosophers Who Believe (InterVarsity Press, 1993); Thomas Morris, God and the Philosophers, ed. (Oxford, 1995). Academic journals: Faith and Philosophy; Philosophia Christi

IV. Relation of Apologetics to Evangelism

A. Apologetics used when necessary to remove obstacles to evangelism: doubts, misunderstandings (Matthew 28:18 — 20)
B. Evangelism declares Christian truth and invites unbelievers to embrace it; apologetics defends Christian truth and clarifies its meaning
C. Apologetics as pre-evangelism (Francis A. Schaeffer)

Part 2

V. Two Types of Apologetics

A. Negative apologetics (two senses)

1. Find intellectual weaknesses in non-Christian world-views—naturalism, pantheism, deism, etc.
2. Respond to anti-Christian intellectual assaults on Christian truth made by Muslims, Freudians, pagan feminists, postmodernists, pantheists, etc.

B. Positive apologetics

1. Give constructive reasons and evidences for defining Christian truth-claims

~ Arguments for objective truth and morality, the existence of God, reliability of the Bible, supremacy of Jesus, etc.

2. Give a cumulative case of various rational arguments for Christian truth

C. Whether something is deemed positive or negative apologetics may depend on the angle at which you look at it
D. A full-orbed Christian apologetic combines positive and negative apologetics

VI. Reasons or Justifications for Christian Apologetics

A. The glory of the one true God (Exodus 20:1 — 7; Matthew 22:37 — 40; 1 Corinthians 10:31; Colossians 3:17)
B. The defense of the Christian faith in order to reach the lost for Christ

1. Give a reason for our hope in the gospel (1 Peter 3:15 — 17)
2. Contend for the once-for-all revealed truth of God (Jude 3)
3. Refute false philosophies (Colossians 2:8 — 9; 2 Corinthians 10:3 — 5; 1 John 4:1 — 4)
4. Build up believers who doubt (Matthew 11:1 — 11; Jude 22 — 23). See Douglas Groothuis “Growing Through Doubt” sermon available though Hope for Today (www.hopefortoday.com)
5. Encourage holiness in knowing and defending God’s truth (Matthews 22:37 — 40)
6. Apologetic example: Paul at Athens (Acts 17:16 — 33)

a. On this see, D. A. Carson, “Athens Revisited,” in D. A. Carson, ed. Telling the Truth: Evangelizing Postmoderns (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 384-398.
b. Douglas Groothuis, “Christianity in the Marketplace” (Acts 17:16 — 34) parts I and II, sermons available from Hope for Today: (www.hopefortoday.org)

7. Apologetic example, exemplar: Jesus (throughout the Gospels)

a. On this see Douglas Groothuis, On Jesus (Wadsworth/Thompson Learning, 2003), chapters one and three, especially
b. Douglas Groothuis, “Jesus and the Life of the Mind” sermon available from: (www.homefortoday.org)

VII. The Spirituality of the Apologist: Truthful Humility

A. Humility (see D. Groothuis, “Apologetics, Truth, and Humility” in syllabus hot link)

1. Humility by creation: total dependence (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1 — 3)

~ See Andrew Murray, Humility: The Heart of Righteousness. Devotional classic.

2. Humility by redemption: you are not your own, you were bought with a price (1 Corinthians 6:20)
3. Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Jesus (Luke 9:23)
4. Hold the truth firmly and humbly (1 Timothy 2:24 — 26)
5. We know in part and are in process (1 Corinthians 13:12)
6. Be courageous, but meek; don’t offend unnecessarily (Matthew 5:5; 2 Corinthians 4:7)

B. Have a spirit of committed dialogue (Paul throughout Acts)
C. Glory in the gospel, not apologetic prowess; win people to Christ, not just win arguments (Matthew 28:18 — 20)
D. Passionate, but patient, yearning for the salvation of others (Romans 9:1 — 3; 10:1)
E. Importance of moral/spiritual character in ministry: watch your life and doctrine (1 Timothy 4:16)
F. Reliance on the power of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth (Acts 1:4 — 5; John 16:13)G. Importance of individual and corporate prayer for apologetic integrity (Ephesians 6:10 — 18; Colossians 4:2 — 4)
H. Openness to God’s supernatural work in opening the eyes of unbelievers (Acts 26:17 — 18; Acts 13:1 — 12)

Developing an Apologetic Mind, Douglas Groothuis (S.S. Part 2)

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is a two-parter that is quite long, and technical. (It is the second part of a previous set [first, third].) You may also want a dictionary ready, this is a seminary level presentation. If you taken with this presentation[s] — knowledge of how we should better interact with our world and our culture comes through for those In His Service — ΙΗΣ.

Part 1

I. Six Enemies of Apologetic Engagement

A. If apologetics is biblical and logical, why does it flounder? Why so ignored in the church?
B. “Six enemies of apologetic engagement” (D. Groothuis article on syllabus hot link)

1. Indifference
2. Irrationalism
3. Ignorance
4. Cowardice
5. Arrogance and intellectual vanity
6. Superficial techniques or schlock apologetics

II. Jesus as a Philosopher and Apologist (D. Groothuis, On Jesus, Chapters 1, 3)

A. What is a philosopher?
B. Was Jesus a philosopher?
C. Did Jesus disparage rationality (Michael Martin)?
D. Jesus’ use of argument: our model intellectually

1. Escaping horns of dilemma (Matthew 22:15 — 22)
2. A fortiori arguments (John 7:14 — 24)
3. Jesus’ use of evidence (Matthew 11:1 — 11)
4. Reductio ad absurdum arguments (Matthew 22:41 — 46)
5. Jesus defended truth rationally; lived it out existentially

~ Had a well integrated worldview; didn’t duck rational arguments

III. Worldviews and Christian Faith

A. Three kinds of (or aspects of) faith (W. Corduan, No Doubt; see also J.P. Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind)

1. Saving faith: justification—either/or (Ephesians 2:8 — 9)
2. Growing faith: moral sanctification—incremental (Ephesians 2:10)
3. Knowing faith: epistemological sanctification (Colossians 2:2 — 3)

a. Relationship of faith and reason: not antithetical (Isaiah 1:18)
b. Reasoning in Scripture (Romans 12:1 — 2; Matthew 22:37 — 40)
c. Some texts used against reasoning: (1 Corinthians 1 — 2; Colossians 2:8; Isaiah 55:9)
d. Biblical value placed on knowledge outside Scripture (Amos 1 — 2; Daniel; Romans 1 — 2; Acts 17:16 — 34)

B. The nature of genuine Christian faith, subjective believing

1. Assent (fides): belief that “P” (essential gospel truths) is true (Romans 10:9 — 10)
2. Trust (fiducia): belief in “P” as true and trustworthy (Romans 10:11; John 1:12)
3. Disposition, orientation (action-producing): believe “P” is true and trustworthy, therefore act in a faithful way (Ephesians 2:10; James 2:14 — 26)

C. The unity of truth (Corduan) and a well-integrated worldview

1. “All truth is God’s truth”—general and special revelation (Psalm 19:1 — 11)
2. Know “P” through authority (but must identify a qualified authority)
3. Know “P” through argumentation, reasoning, evidence
4. No dichotomy of religious and secular truth: a unified, integrated, worldview
5. Developing a well-integrated worldview

a. What is a worldview and why is it important? (James Sire, chapter 1)
b. What is a Christian worldview? Touchstone proposition (William Halverson, A Concise Introduction to Philosophy)

~ The universe (originally good, now fallen, and awaiting its divine judgment and restoration) is created and sustained by the Triune God, who has revealed himself in nature, humanity, conscience, Scripture, and supremely through the Incarnation.

Part 2

IV. Truth Decay: Understanding the Problem (D. Groothuis Truth Decay, introduction, chapter one)

A. The importance of truth

1. Truth: desired and feared by mortals east of Eden
2. Truth and integrity
3. People of truth; truth in jeopardy
4. Screwtape’s ploy: remove the very category of truth from the mind

B. The seven acids of truth decay

1. The end of the enlightenment vision/project
2. A unified world view is impossible today because of our cosmopolitan, media-saturated environment
3. A unified world-view is impossible today because of the great diversity of religious viewpoints available
4. Postmodernity does not allow for a fixed sense of personal identity
5. Language is contingent on human beings and cannot communicate objective truth
6. Written texts have no objective, determinative meaning or truth value (deconstruction)
7. “Truth” is a function of power relationships, not an objective reality

V. The Eighth Acid of Truth Decay: Television (See D. Groothuis, Truth Decay, appendix)

A. Understanding the nature of television and how it contributes to truth decay “The medium is the message” (Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media)

1. Moving image trumps or humiliates the written and spoken word (Exodus 20:1 — 4; John 1:1)

a. Images are limited in their power to communicate truth: second commandment (Exodus 20). Jesus’ appearance is never described in the Gospels
b. Power of deception through image manipulation: my TV interview about channeling. Malcolm Muggerridge: “The camera always lies.” See his Christ and the Media
c. Prefabricated presentations: shrink events into sound bites and memorable images that may be false or misleading
d. Cannot watch the Bible on video. You must learn to master the written texts. Church librarian in Denver laments that parents check out “Christian videos” instead of books for children

2. Discontinuity, fragmentation: “a peek-a-boo world” (Neil Postman) (Luke 1:1 — 4)

a. No continuity, coherence, development of ideas: “And now this…”
b. Leads to intellectual impatience, recklessness, distraction
c. ADD/ADHD: a national problem. Medical warnings about TV and infants. Pediatrics, Vol. 113 No. 4 (April 2004)

~ Conclusions: Early television exposure is associated with attentional problem at age 7. Efforts to limit television viewing in early childhood may be warranted…”

d. Biblically, the primacy of a coherent, orderly view of reality (Luke 1:1 — 4)

3. Hypervelocities: video equivalent of caffeine (Psalm 46:10)—jump cuts, scene changes, special effects

a. Out of sync with God-given natures: pathology of velocity, plague of rapidity
b. Stimulation, agitation—not edification instruction (usually). Ken Burns programs are somewhat different, though
c. Decrease in attention spans: sermons, classes, conversations; but this may be challenged—through good preaching
d. Biblical importance of pacing, stillness. “Be still and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10)

4. Entertainment orientation—amusement dominates all other values (2 Timothy 3:4)

a. The demand of all areas of life: religion, politics, news, education; amuse means “no thought.” “Laugh track is always running” (Jean Baudrillard, America)
b. Amusement is not appropriate for many things; loss of gravity, sobriety, rectitude; orienting our subjective response to the objective nature of what we experience
c. Biblically: don’t be a lover of pleasure rather than a lover of God (2 Timothy 3:4). Get serious.

B. Conclusion (more on this in “Christian Ethics and Modern Culture” class)

1. Engage in television fasting
2. Decrease drastically television watching
3. Replace with thoughtful reading

Resources for growth and discernment

1. Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay (InterVarsity, 2000). The appendix addresses the nature and effects television in the context of postmodernism.
2. Os Guinness, Fit Bodies, Fat Minds (Baker Books, 1994). Excellent Christian critique of anti-intellectualism in the church, which addresses television and other truth-decaying agents.
3. Arthur Hunt, III, The Vanishing Word: The Veneration of Imagery in the Postmodern World (Crossway, 2003). Christian perspective on a pervasive but often ignored problem.
4. Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death (Penguin, 1985). The best secular critique of the nature and effects of television; it is more insightful than most Christian books.
5. Douglas and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis web page: www.ivpress.com/groothuis/doug