A Different Model for Achieving Social Change

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

As many of you are aware, I am “semi retired” from blogging. My name has shown up in the byline quite a bit over the last few days because our contributor, Don, was initially on vacation, and is now feeling under the weather. So, it’s up to me to carry the Conservative Hideout torch, so to speak, until Don is up on his feet again.

 

A few weeks ago, I published a post regarding the idea of ” letting it burn.” In that post, I suggested that there’s another way to achieve change. Today, I’ll lay that out for you.

 

As I look back on my life, I have witnessed enormous change. From something as simple as how we listen to music, to how our families are structured, there has been tremendous change in the last 45 years. As a young child, I was in a world of by vinyl records, Rotary phones, over the air television, and traditional families. Now, digital technology allows 24 hour a day real – time communication.  There are now hundreds of channels, but they’re still filled with things you don’t want a watch. And, families are not so traditional anymore. As a nation, we paid a hard price for the breakdown of our society. As liberals have mounted their “long march through the institutions,” the family has been deemphasized. Morality is seen as outmoded, or “hate.”  We see the results every day; we have children having children. We have children growing up without fathers, and suffering accordingly.  Our schools no longer educate students, but instead indoctrinate them and socialize them to sociopathy.  Drugs are readily available, and almost as readily used.  Sexual activity, once reserved for marriage, is now pushed on children increasingly younger ages. Consequently, sexually transmitted diseases are on the rise, and many of these are now drug-resistant – causing us to see the return of sex being a potential death sentence.  Killing babies are seen as a valid solution to a pregnancy.  Euthanasia is now being advocated, and other forms of violence are also rise.  We have even seen the push to normalize pedophilia. All things considered, is it any wonder that we have this disorder, violence, and flat-out inhumanity that we have been seeing?

 

What is the response to this inhumanity? How do people respond to the disorder? The general tendency has been to call on government to be an external mode of control. We demand more laws, more programs, more jails, and more social workers to provide an external” fix” for the problems that we are experiencing.  From liberals demanding more wealth redistribution, to Conservatives seeking to define marriage, we demand the government solve our perceived problems.  As experience teaches us, calling upon government to solve our problems tends to generate two results. The first result is failure. Government almost never successfully solves a problem. In fact, government tends to make problems worse! For example, we spent over $1 trillion in a “war on poverty,” and got more poor people. The second result is a more powerful government. As history teaches, the more powerful government becomes the more oppressive it gets. Government bureaucrats, empowered by a naïve public, become increasingly corrupt and easily purchased. Jails end up being filled with nonviolent offenders because we try to crack down on an activity rather than dealing with the source of the problem.

 

And that is where I found myself. Of course I’m Conservative. That has not changed. But, I’ve realized that societal change does not come through legislation, legal decisions, or spreading true information. We have already declined to the point where too many of our citizens are programmed to attack reality. As Bezmenov pointed out so well over 30 years ago, access to true information no longer matters. We can show 1,000,005 reasons that global warming is a complete lie, including e-mails from the liars admitting that it’s a lie. However, the programed masses will continue to drink the Kool-Aid and advocate that we live in thatch huts.  You can pass 5 million laws, and people will simply disregard them, or use activist judges to overturn them. In other words I came to one conclusion:

 

You cannot legislate or unlegislate reality.

 

We could sweep the Senate in November. We could gain even more seats in the House. Will that really make a difference? Our decline would be slowed, to be sure. But the decline was still occur. The Republican Party, in its current state, is still a party of control. The only difference between the two parties is that the Republicans drive the country off the cliff and 55 miles an hour, and the Democrats push their foot through the firewall. Elections are not going to change this country. Laws are not going to change this country. There is only one thing that can change this country. And that one thing is us.

 

Physical laws of nature have not changed. God has most certainly not changed. The only thing that’s changed is us! We, at every step of the process, have accepted all the negative social changes that have occurred. I see that we’ve accepted them because we have done nothing to actually change them. Oh yes, we complain, we blog, we organize, and we vote for “good Republicans.” and absolutely nothing changes.  We have done nothing to actually reverse the process of decline – we’ve simply done it at a slower rate.  and what will happen if say, a Jeb Bush gets elected in 2016? Will all the damage that Obama has done be reversed? Will damaging regulations actually be repealed? Or, will we turn on our televisions, only to see a mild, fearful, and cautious tool, who will change nothing, and will only slow the descent? I know, it’s not a pretty picture, but can any of you reading this right now show me an alternative?

 

As some of you are probably already deciphering, my central point is that we don’t have a political problem in the United States of America; we have a morality problem. If we were still  a moral people, would we need to legally define marriage?  if we were still a moral people, would we have the drug problems that we have?  Would we have all the children without intact families? Would we have all the crime? Would we be seeing all the predatory business practices? Would we see all the corruption?  I think you get the idea. The problem is with us.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

 

Our Republic is set up and predicated on us being a moral people. Our system of freedom breaks down, falls apart, and descends into tyranny when we abuse those freedoms. In other words, our system needs of people that are ” good” when no one else is looking. At this point, were not even good when people are looking!  Not only are s0 many of us immoral, but they are PROUDLY immoral.  We know where that pattern leads.  We’ve seen it happen before, and cannot naively think that it cannot happen here.

 

History shows us that when people turn to God and are restored in their morality, incredible things happen. All that one has to do is look up the history of the Great Awakening to see how this could happen.

The Great Awakening was a spiritual renewal that swept the American Colonies, particularly New England, during the first half of the 18th Century. Certain Christians began to disassociate themselves with the established approach to worship at the time which had led to a general sense of complacency among believers, and instead they adopted an approach which was characterized by great fervor and emotion in prayer. This new spiritual renewal began with people like the Wesley brothers and George Whitefield in England and crossed over to the American Colonies during the first half of the 18th Century. Unlike the somber, largely Puritan spirituality of the early 1700s, the revivalism ushered in by the Awakening allowed people to express their emotions more overtly in order to feel a greater intimacy with God.

What caused the Great Awakening?

In late 17th Century England, fighting between religious and political groups came to a halt with the Glorious Revolution of 1688, an event which established the Church of England as the reigning church of the country. Other religions, such as Catholicism, Judaism, and Puritanism, were subsequently suppressed.

From a political perspective, this led to stability since everyone now practiced the same religion. But instead of being a positive driving force for religious belief in general, it created complacency and spiritual “dryness” among believers. Religion became something of a pastime in which people would “go through the motions” during religious services without deeply-felt convictions of the heart and soul. It was only after some decades of this kind of complacency in both England and the American colonies that the spiritual “revival” of the Great Awakening came about.

What were the effects of the Great Awakening?

The Awakening’s biggest significance was the way it prepared America for its War of Independence. In the decades before the war, revivalism taught people that they could be bold when confronting religious authority, and that when churches weren’t living up to the believers’ expectations, the people could break off and form new ones.

Through the Awakening, the Colonists realized that religious power resided in their own hands, rather than in the hands of the Church of England, or any other religious authority. After a generation or two passed with this kind of mindset, the Colonists came to realize that political power did not reside in the hands of the English monarch, but in their own will for self-governance (consider the wording of the Declaration of Independence). By 1775, even though the Colonists did not all share the same theological beliefs, they did share a common vision of freedom from British control. Thus, the Great Awakening brought about a climate which made the American Revolution possible. (emphasis added)

Does that look the slightest bit familiar?  How many Christians just sit in the pews while the society around them burns?  How many of us don’t even bother to show up in the pew? How many of us decided to just “go with the flow?”  How many of us decided to join in?  Do we actually live by what we say, or do we give “aid and comfort” to our enemies by being hypocrites?

 

I know. This is a long post – and not a terribly cheerful one. Let me correct that. I belong to a denomination that supports missionaries all over the world. It’s one of the chief objectives of our denomination. I’m struck by the fact that we will send missionaries all over the planet, but not down the street. Consequently.  Many of us have raised this point, and  my congregation is working to change that.  There are just as many lost people here in the US as anywhere else.  And I think that is our biggest problem. To solve this problem, it is my opinion that we need to provoke, with the Lord’s ample  help, another Great Awakening. We don’t need to change laws. We don’t even necessarily need to change judges, politicians, or news channels. We need to change our hearts – as well the hearts as our neighbors, family members, and friends. If we do all these things, we will no longer need laws to define marriage. We won’t have to pass new drug laws. We won’t need as much welfare. Because, if we are truly Godly people, we will do all these things without an agent of control, like government, forcing us to.  People that control themselves don’t need a government to do it for them.

 

And that, my friends, is what I’m working towards. I’m not being critical bloggers. After all I’m discussing this via a blog post. What I am saying is that my retirement from blogging isn’t about giving up, it’s about changing the mission. I intend to use a weapon for which the Liberals have no defense – the Lord Jesus Christ. This really isn’t a political battle anymore. It is a spiritual battle. It is been my experience that using politics in a spiritual battle guarantees defeat. However Jesus Christ has already won this spiritual battle. All we have to do is use that fact.

 

As always, my friends, comments and suggestions are welcome. Have a great day and God bless!

UPDATED:  Fixed some typos.  I used Dragon to dictate it, and even though I proofread it, errors got through.

Share

Of golf and a Christian nation

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

I think some of the looniest arguments or at least the most juvenile come from liberals bent on defending Barack Obama no matter what. For example taking Obama’s perpetual golfing get-a-ways,  I read recently where a liberal wrote that “right wing” presidents (referring to G.W. Bush) played golf just like Obama does. Sigh … “he did  it too!” … like toddlers playing in the back yard. Well, it is a fact that G.W. Bush played golf during his eight years (8) in office.  Twenty four (24) rounds in eight years as opposed to Obama’s nearly 150 rounds in five years. Am I manipulating the facts? No, those are the facts.

Bush to his credit stopped playing out of respect for the men and women in the military. When Americans die of a result of Obama’s negligence, his game gets better.

Personally I’m glad Obama spends a lot of time on the golf course. At least then we know he’s getting a break from this destroy America campaign.

The left always mocks the fact that America was founded by men who feared God. Not all were “Christians” per se, but they honored God as the creator of mankind with unalienable rights …  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And for those who don’t know, ”unalienable rights” are different than “inalienable rights”. I noticed since I posted this liberals already are spouting off things like … some of the Righties go ahead and tell us that religion is absolutely necessary in order there to be a moral and upstanding government of integrity and honesty in its dealings with its citizens. 

Well, I tend to believe George Washington rather than some snot-blowing liberal, and with the following I rest my case.

Regardless of liberal drivel who continually display gross ignorance, religion and morality are essential for political prosperity …

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.  Washington’s Farewell Address 1796. 

Some of the most laughable comments or claims by liberals are that food-stamps, welfare, Pell grants and unemployment benefits for all, are signs of a Christian nation. Sigh (again) … any attempt to even formulate an argument against such nonsense is a complete waste of time. Comments such as the above are the mind-set of people whose god is the government and all good things come from that god.

~~~

One side note. A Texas A & M study found that Barack Obama is the fifth best president in American history …

fifth best president per texas a and m_thumb[6]

Original Post:  Cry and Howl

Share

The Consequences of Atheism

Share

The following is a comment left of on the Christian blog, Cold Case Christianity,  by a self identified atheist.  I believe it shows the end result of Atheism…

“[To] all my Atheist friends. 

Let us stop sugar coating it. I know, it’s hard to come out and be blunt with the friendly Theists who frequent sites like this.  However in your efforts to “play nice” and “be civil” you actually do them a great disservice.  

We are Atheists.  We believe that the Universe is a great uncaused, random accident. All life in the Universe past and future are the results of random chance acting on itself.  While we acknowledge concepts like morality, politeness, civility seem to exist, we know they do not.  Our highly evolved brains imagine that these things have a cause or a use, and they have in the past, they’ve allowed life to continue on this planet for a short blip of time.  But make no mistake: all our dreams, loves, opinions, and desires are figments of our primordial imagination. They are fleeting electrical signals that fire across our synapses for a moment in time. They served some purpose in the past.  They got us here. That’s it.  All human achievement and plans for the future are the result of some ancient, evolved brain and accompanying chemical reactions that once served a survival purpose.  Ex: I’ll marry and nurture children because my genes demand reproduction, I’ll create because creativity served a survival advantage to my ancient ape ancestors, I’ll build cities and laws because this allowed my ape grandfather time and peace to reproduce and protect his genes. My only directive is to obey my genes. Eat, sleep, reproduce, die.  That is our bible.

We deride the Theists for having created myths and holy books.  We imagine ourselves superior.  But we too imagine there are reasons to obey laws, be polite, protect the weak etc.  Rubbish. We are nurturing a new religion, one where we imagine that such conventions have any basis in reality.  Have they allowed life to exist?  Absolutely.  But who cares?  Outside of my greedy little gene’s need to reproduce, there is nothing in my world that stops me from killing you and reproducing with your wife.  Only the fear that I might be incarcerated and thus be deprived of the opportunity to do the same with the next guy’s wife stops me.  Some of my Atheist friends have fooled themselves into acting like the general population.  They live in suburban homes, drive Toyota Camrys, attend school plays.  But underneath they know the truth.  They are a bag of DNA whose only purpose is to make more of themselves. So be nice if you want. Be involved, have polite conversations, be a model citizen.  Just be aware that while technically an Atheist, you are an inferior one.  You’re just a little bit less evolved, that’s all.  When you are ready to join me, let me know, I’ll be reproducing with your wife.

I know it’s not PC to speak so bluntly about the ramifications of our beliefs, but in our discussions with Theists we sometimes tip toe around what we really know to be factual. Maybe it’s time we Atheists were a little more truthful and let the chips fall where they may.  At least that’s what my genes are telling me to say.”

There you have it.  The farther we drift from our Judeo-Christian roots, the more amoral behavior we see.  We’re seeing more abortion, child molestation, murder, corruption, exploitation, and all the rest.  And when it comes time to “off” granny to free up dwindling resources, they’ll be there to pull the plug, or send her to the showers.  Such is the way of Atheism.

H/T:  Wintery Knight

Share

Where do we Draw a Line of Morality?

Share

One argument against same-sex marriage is where is there a moral line drawn? What’s known as ‘traditional’ marriage, ie. the marriage between one man and one woman has been accepted since the beginning of time and in every nation on earth, at least to my knowledge. Incrementally, same-sex marriage has been creeping into the American society and in several states has been declared legal. One argument for same-sex marriage is, why can’t two people of the same-sex who love each other and want a committed relationship get married? The vast majority of Americans don’t accept this as a ‘normal’ relationship though many also won’t oppose a same-sex marriage, being a tolerant people. We get back to where should we draw a line of morality which should never be crossed for a number of reasons. As far as the gay community is concerned I believe around 3 or 4 percent of the U.S. population is gay. I believe a legitimate argument against homosexuality is the fact that something like nearly 60% of all new HIV infections are reported by gays. Let’s see, 4% of the population is responsible for 60% of HIV infections would seem to be a life-style to avoid. Another argument against same-sex marriage is, would it be acceptable for a 48-year-old man to marry his 12-year-old daughter if they feel they are in love and can have a committed relationship?  Perhaps a 50-year-old woman and her best friend’s 15-year-old son are ‘in love’ and want to marry. How about a 37-year-old man in love with his 8 year old son and the boy says he loves him as well. Is this acceptable? If not, why?  Where should the line of morality be drawn? How about if a 30-year-old woman finds herself romantically attracted to her own 10-year-old daughter? Could they marry if the feelings are mutual? We could argue that a child of 8 to 15 aren’t mature enough to know whether or not they are in love … however the feelings are genuinely real to the youngsters.

Is there a legitimate line of morality for any of the above situations? What would make any of the situations wrong? At one time actually very recently it was a federal law that same-sex marriages were not recognized. The federal government was to follow a definition of the word marriage that means “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” Likewise, the word spouse is defined as a “person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” It was called the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.

Let’s not think those scenarios above are too far out to ever gain acceptance. It took only one perverted liberal in a position of power to refuse to enforce DOMA and we see where we are now.

Well, as we continue to “tolerate” deviant behavior things are slowly going the way I just suggested. Maybe not here in the U.S. yet but it’s happening.

Here is a story of interest:

Via: Breitbart

Italy court overturns paedophile conviction as 11-year-old ‘in love’

Italy’s highest court has overturned the conviction of a 60-year-old man for having sex with an 11-year-old girl, because the verdict failed to take into account their “amorous relationship”.

Pietro Lamberti, a social services worker in Catanzaro in southern Italy, was convicted in February 2011 and sentenced to five years in prison for sexual acts with a minor.

The verdict was later upheld by an appeals court.

But Italy’s supreme court ruled that the verdict did not sufficiently consider “the ‘consensus’, the existence of an amorous relationship, the absence of physical force, the girl’s feelings of love”.

The court’s October 15 decision to order a retrial was made public this month by Il Quotidiano della Calabria and slowly spread to social media networks, where it sparked heated reactions against the Italian justice system.

According to Il Quotidiano, the girl came from a poor family who had known and trusted the social worker.

Lamberti was caught naked in bed with the girl after an investigation by police based largely on wire-tap evidence, it said.

Original Post: Cry and Howl

Share

What’s With All of the Pedophilia?

Share

We’ve been covering the ever expanding list of cases where adults are victimizing kids, and are left scratching our heads and wondering why? Has pedophilia always been this frequent, or is all of these stories a manifestation of something new?  For example, here are some recent cases covered at The Other McCain.

‘Hundreds of Videos Depicting Underage Boys … in Sexually Explicit Conduct’

Cravers of Boy-Flesh: Yet Another Sad Example of a Disturbing Trend

Michigan Union: Teachers Still Have a Right to Benefits After Boning Teenagers

‘Teacher of the Year’ Learns a Tough Lesson: Always Take the Plea Bargain

And those are only the posts over the last several days.  Even more disturbing is the fact that so many from the political and cultural left are all too willing to defend, explain away, or justify these crimes against children. For example, we saw professional colleagues defending Neil Erickson, a teacher convicted of having sexual contact with a 14-year-old male student. And, of course, regular readers will know that there are quite a few supporters of Kaitlyn Hunt; an adult who recently plead guilty to having sexual contact with a 14-year-old high school freshman. Her family and supporters not only want to make this legal, but they have led a campaign of lies, threats, intimidation, and general harassment against anyone who opposes them. In the Ericsson case, the garage owned by the family of the victim was burned to the ground, and threats were painted on the side of the family home. Going back to the case of Kaitlyn Hunt, the family of her victim were subjected to harassment, death threats, and Hunt supporters even try to “dig up dirt” on the victim’s mother.

Here is a sampling of posts from the Conservative Hideout regarding the stories.

@JanaEschbach Interviews Smith Family Regarding #FreeKate Revelations, Supporters Still Trying Silence Truth Tellers

#FreeKate Supporters Continue to Lie in Order to Ban Those That Expose Them, Display Anti-Christian Hatred

#FreeKate Update: Supporters Lie to Censor Those That Quote Them-Shutuppery in Action!

#FreeKate Update: Some Supporters Think Nine Year Olds Ready for Sex?

#FreeKate and Normalizing Pedophilia

#FreeKate Update: Hunt Family and Supporters Escalate Threats Against Truth Tellers

#FreeKate Update: Steven Hunt Makes Death Threats, Kelley Hunt Smith Threatens to ‘Ruin” People

#FreeKate Update: Increasing Threats, False Accusations, and Rabbit Mentality

Bullying and #FreeKate: Playing the Victim

For me, I see this as a lack of morality. For decades now, we have been pushing moral and religious teachings out of our public conversation. We systematically banned prayer, and mentions of Christmas, with some schools even banning the colors red and green Christmas time – all to marginalize Christianity, and more importantly, God. The results seem obvious; without moral teaching, our people lack morals. without a moral center, people justify all sorts of behavior. And at this point, the next frontier of ” progress,” is the legalization of sex with children. As the Bible has predicted, we are living in a world where what is good is evil, and what is evil is good.

And, it’s only going to get worse from here.

Note: The American Psychiatric Association has historically stated that there needs to be a five-year difference in age between perpetrator and victim to be a case of pedophilia.  Kaitlyn Hunt was 18, and her victim was 14 at the time her crimes took place. She’s included in the story because her family and supporters have openly stated the objective of legalizing sex between adults and minors. I believe this to be an incremental step towards the normalization and legalization of pedophilia.

Share

#FreeKate Update: Announcement from Lawyer and Statements of Supporters Give Insight Into #FreeKate Mindset

Share

Alleged Sex Offender Kaitlyn Hunt in Court

It’s been an interesting day on the #FreeKate front.   The Hunt’s Lawyer, Julia Graves, released a statement.  Here it is…


STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF KAITLYN HUNT

The actions in filing a detailed Notice of Violation of Pretrial Conditions such as the one filed in this case is almost a crime in and of itself. Of course this is my opinion as her counsel and as a parent. I fully understand what the law is. I do not know who is managing the case at this point as I receive a plea offer from Mr. Workman on Friday August 9th after 3:00 pm with no deadline to accept and a request to respond in writing for post conviction purposes one way or another. We quietly kept this to ourselves and were in the process of discussing the plea that takes time to answer all questions and fully understand the consequences. The last thing any attorney wants is a client entering a plea quickly without being fully informed. We have had motions scheduled on August 14th since June and we attended to take care of the closure of the courtroom motion by the State and a few deposition and address issues regarding witnesses. There was nothing out of the ordinary, other than it was made known a copy of the plea offer had been given to the media. Obviously until a case is settled and pled to it is imperative to still continue to prepare as though you are going to trial.

The next morning while I was in a motion hearing with another judge and client, the Notice of Violation of Pretrial Conditions is filed. The State did not get that much information that day as I received a copy to my office at 9:43 am. I only had seen it ten minutes before it was published on TCPalm. Prosecutors do have ethical obligations.

I practice Family Law as well as Criminal. One important aspect to always remember and stress to the client is “this is a public record”. What you file in a motion or petition is out there for the world to view or your children to look at later. Always be mindful of “airing your dirty laundry in public”.

I have made every effort to keep the alleged victim out of the public eye. I have not taken her depositions and do not plan to until the very last. While I feel what has happened in the past few months is an abomination to the alleged victim, I advocate for Kaitlyn. In advocating for her, that sometimes calls for taking measures that are not pleasant in asking questions.

If this matter had been considered properly in the beginning for what it truly is, we would not be where we are today — and that is with two devastated lives and two devastated families.

lt looks as though we have an alleged victim who doesn’t agree with how things are being handled by the State, her parents or their attorney. She has felt compelled to do what she thought was the only thing to save Kaitlyn from the State and her parents and that was to reach out and let Kaitlyn know this was not her idea or what she wants. I am totally cognizant that she is a minor.

For Chris Taylor to file a notice with those kinds of details in it, I just cannot begin to fathom why that was necessary. The same Notice with general language could have been accomplished and reached the same objective, to revoke her bond. What happened to a statement like “numerous texts and inappropriate language” without details? With today being the first day of school in Indian River County, I can only imagine the chatter at the school. Even if not said directly to the alleged victim, it is going to be discussed behind her back. You can’t stop it.

Nonetheless it comes down to we still have a situation of two teenagers who were in school together and involved in a consensual relationship. Yes one that under the current law is a crime, but still consensual. It was brought to an abrupt end and the older “adult” teen faces up to thirty years in prison. The younger teen cannot comprehend the seriousness of the matter because it was something she consented to. Her opinion is ignored by the State, interrogated by the Sheriff’s Department, taken to a church that labels being gay a sin, has the Bible thrown at her, all of her things in her room boxed up and taken from her, is apparently hit by her parents, and clearly yelled at for lying by her father in the presence of Detective Shepherd at the school in a subsequent interview. How could she not be confused, scared and feel as though this is all her fault and no one is listening? She already tried to speak to Kaitlyn’s mother, Kelley, who shut her down. So she turns to the only person who could possible understand in her eyes and a person she clearly does not want to see hurt and that is Kaitlyn. She wants to try to save her and in doing so she just causes the walls to continue to tumble down.

And here we are. Now there are new charges that set us all back even further. The defense of Kaitlyn Hunt will continue until the matter is either resolved or determined in a court of law, not public opinion.

LAW OFFICE OF A. JULIA GRAVES, P.A.

Attorney for Kaitlyn Hunt

First off, if you want to see a perfect dissection of this, head on over to The Other McCain.  I do have some comments that R.S. McCain did not address…

Nonetheless it comes down to we still have a situation of two teenagers who were in school together and involved in a consensual relationship. Yes one that under the current law is a crime, but still consensual.

Yes, as a lawyer, you must know that a 14 year old in the state of Florida cannot consent.  That’s why, among other things, your client is in jail!   Perhaps you missed that?

I have made every effort to keep the alleged victim out of the public eye.

You didn’t have to, your client’s mother and supporters named the alleged victim, their parents, their personal information, and engaged in a campaign of harassment against them.

The younger teen cannot comprehend the seriousness of the matter because it was something she consented to.

Do you realize that you just proved our point?  The alleged victim cannot comprehend the seriousness of it.  That’s why teens can’t consent!  Given the potential consequences of sexual activity, adults create laws to protect children from predatory adults.  That’s why two year-olds can’t vote, and three year-olds can’t drive.  They can’t deal with the implications, decision making, and the consequences!

…taken to a church that labels being gay a sin

Which makes Christianity, and the Bible, a sin?  Oh, and sexual orientation has nothing to do with the offense.  If gays want equal protection under the law, then the law should be applied the same way here, right?  In fact, prominent Gay rights groups has said as much, and do not support your client.   Are you also saying that Christians have no right to protect their children, or that  adult lesbians have a legal right to have sex with minors?  Do you understand that your argument is asinine?

…all of her things in her room boxed up and taken from her,

Well, she did run away from home to have sexual relations with your client.  Some parents place limits on children, and have consequences when they act out.   I know, it might be an alien concept to you, but that’s how parents raise kids that aren’t sitting in jail cells for having sex with minors and violating release agreements.

She already tried to speak to Kaitlyn’s mother, Kelley, who shut her down. So she turns to the only person who could possible understand in her eyes and a person she clearly does not want to see hurt and that is Kaitlyn.

On the contrary, there was communication between the alleged victim and Kelly Hunt.  The elder Hunt told her to “delete everything!” You know, destroy the evidence that your client violated the court order?  Kaitlyn Hunt instructed the victim to “lie,”  cursed at her, and warned her that she (Kaitlyn Hunt)  would go to jail if the victim admitted the truth.  The truth is the the victim was being manipulated by Kaitlyn Hunt and her mother.  They wanted the victim to lie to the court, and cover up Kaitlyn Hunt’s alleged crimes.

And here we are. Now there are new charges that set us all back even further. The defense of Kaitlyn Hunt will continue until the matter is either resolved or determined in a court of law, not public opinion.

There are new charges because your client sent pornographic images to a minor!

In the “court of public opinion?”  Your client and family appeared on the Today Show and MSNBC!  They are selling “Free Kate” merchandise!  They have put up petitions, Facebook pages, and Twitter accounts.  The Hunts made this a national story.  They Hunts decided that Kaitlyn’s “get out of jail free card” was to make this as public as possible, and make it legal for adults to have sex with kids.  You can’t put the Genie back in the bottle, it’s too late for that.  The Hunts made this public, and it will stay that way until it’s over.

Was she thinking when she wrote this?

Now, here is a comment from a supporter…

Kaitlyn_Hunt_Heather_Wirth_DalagerTeachers, doctors, therapists, nurses, and the like are what are called “Mandated Reporters.”  They are required by law to report abuse.  State laws may vary a bit, and I don’t know Florida’s statute, but in my state, the teacher might be in trouble for not calling the police immediately.  She should have told the parents and the principal, but have also called the police.

If folks recall, not doing this got Joe Paterno fired, and Penn State sued out the wazoo.

Of course, Heather Wirth-Dalager thinks that as long as a lesbian is abusing the children, they somehow have a right to privacy.

I do have some notes on the whole situation, and particularly the #FreeKate crowd.

This is all a reflection of the common liberal tactic of “blame someone else.”  These people are incapable of accepting responsibility for their actions.  According to the #FreeKate crowd, the victim, and/or the parents are to blame, and the lawyer blames the prosecutor.  But, the only person not to blame is Kaitlyn Hunt.  After all, she had the legal “right” to have sex with that minor.

By my estimation, these are extremely deceived people.  They believe its OK for adults to have sex with minors.  They attack anything that resembles morality, because they have none themselves.  They do situational ethics, which means that their sense or morality, such as it is, changes based on how they are feeling moment to moment.  Having no  system of belief to guide them, they don’t understand that laws protect the innocent.  It simply doesn’t compute to them.   They don’t get that there is a wide gulf of maturity between 14 and 18.  They don’t get that the rules apply to them, or someone they love.  When they encounter a rule they don’t like, it’s “unjust,” and they don’t follow it.  And, if someone disagrees, the opposition are “haters.”  They respond to “haters” by engaging in actual hate themselves, but they don’t seem to get the irony there.

In other words, they are lost.  Christians would say that they are deceived. Bezmemov would say that they are “demoralized,” or “useful idiots.”   Satan would call them, “my busy little bees.” There is little use in engaging them, they cannot or will not see the truth.  They are incapable of it.

Updated to add picture and correct two misspelled words.  Also updated for a typo, thanks to a reader for catching that!

Share

Taking America Back One Bit At A Time Part 1: Introduction

Share

On November 26, 2012, I wrote a post titled Is It Time For Conservatives to Start Thinking Long Term? Support from my readers was less than I had hoped it would be. As part of that post, an article by Andrew Klavan was linked and I asked that readers review and share their opinions  on Klavan’s long view plan for taking back America. Klavan addressed three areas of gradual attack: bringing balance back to news media, bringing balance back to the entertainment industry, and bringing our Judeo-Christian God back into our culture. All lofty goals to be sure. For my part, I wrote about the process of creating short-term, mid-term, and long-term plans.

One commenter to the post was by a dear friend and long time supporter of this blog. She wasn’t buying what I was selling. She said her opinion was we would never get our country back in bits and pieces. She believed that our only chance was to rebuild after a total collapse. That opinion is shared by many. I am less than optimistic about that possibility and so, in part, I am embarking on this series of post to try to do a better job of convincing my friend and as many others that I can, that the long-term approach I am talking about is the most likely path to an American Renaissance some day.

Another long time friend showed his frustration with Klavan’s ideas. Paraphrasing, he said something like this: “Jim, do you seriously think we are going to change the way people think? What is Klavan thinking? That is crazy talk.” But why is it crazy talk? Isn’t that the way America was taken from us; by a small  group of people who believed over time they could change the way Americans think? Isn’t that how they changed our culture? They were dedicated to an idea and committed to their long-term mission. Are we any less intelligent than they?Can we not be just as dedicated to a mission that some future generation will know once again the beauty of the idea that is or was America? Some argue that part of our problem is our belief in individualism and because of our individualistic nature we have problems working together for a common goal.  Can conservatives be so blind and dull that we can not see that the only way for future generations to have the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of individualism is by working collectively with as much commitment to the mission of taking America back over time.

So, with that in mind, I have an initial outline of what I want to do with this series of articles.  I will start Part 2 with a review of the Making of America and the Taking of America. That may turn out to be two parts. I don’t yet know. Then there will be a part on what the concept of Taking Back America A Buit At A Time might look like. I will bring back Andrew Klavan’s article and talk about it in more detail. There may be a post where you and I can speculate what the period of chaos might be like after the debt addiction bubble breaks and before order is restored. Lastly, I’m thinking about a discussion of “leadership” and “salesmanship”. Two qualities in short supply that will be critical to the process of retaking America.

I can’t make any promises, but I intend to try to keep each post under a thousand words. I’ve not been very successful at doing that of late, but I am going to try. Maybe that way I can keep the reader’s interest.

Well,now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Share

Is The American Culture Gone Forever?

Share

For me to write about American culture, requires that I leave my comfort zone. The soft sciences were never my strong suit.

Trying to define the American culture, in which  most of us grew up, in a few words, is no easy task. To be honest, America has always been a patch quilt of many different cultures. And yet, there does seem to be a few common threads that occur to me: the rule of law, a common ethical and moral bond, and religion/church. At least to this humble observer, those are the pillars upon which the American culture was formed. To me, those three components of our culture are interdependent. The democratic principles laid out in our constitution can not long endure without the rule of law. The rule of law can only hold as long as a common respect for the rule of law and that respect is the product of a common set of ethics and morals. Society, in general, learned their ethics and moral values from their churches and synagogues.

America has changed dramatically since the sixties. We all know the reasons. Today or president and many other elected officials show disdain for the rule of law and, thereby, set the bad example for all of our citizens. Our common bond of ethical and moral behavior is disappearing more and more every day. Our churches are less and less relevent in our lives and to some extent our churches have become part of the problem. Many of them today promote socialism. And, many more are afraid to speak out politically. Maggie, at Maggie’s Notebook, wrote a powerful piece on this subject that I highly recommend.

The America I grew up in after WWII was a much different America than the one today’s children are growing up in. For the last two months, I have been receiving e-mails from GOPUSA. I never opened any of them because I don’t need any pep talks to convince me that we need to change the course this country is on. But, yesterday for some reason I did open one. It was an article written by Star Parker. In her article, she develops an analogy between the financial bubbles that we have seen come and then burst with the bubble of support for Obama that still has not burst. She builds a case that the Obama support bubble is still strong due to the changing demographics in America. She presents some data and statistic to back up her argument and then recomends wht Republicans and conservatives can do to influence these demographic groups and, thereby, help to burst the Obama support bubble. That is not what caught my eye. It is the data and statistic which describe in part what has happened to our culture that I find alarming. For example:

Shouldn’t today’s economic facts on the ground be sufficient to puncture the Obama bubble? One part of the answer to this puzzle is the changing demographics of the country. The United States today is a nation that is much less white, much less married, and less traditional than it once was. Each of these trends reflects a rise in constituencies with values supportive of Obama’s worldview — activist government and/or moral relativism.

Less white, less married, and less traditional. She is right, isn’t she?

What was once the exception to the rule in America — not being white, not being married, not having traditional views on family, sex and abortion — is now becoming the rule. And these constituencies are becoming sufficiently large to elect a president.

Reading those words is like a punch in the solar plexus. But,  she is right! And, this is how these changes are affecting politics in America:

National Journal released a poll right before the debate showing Obama and Romney dead even nationwide — 47 percent each — among likely voters. The poll shows Obama’s white support at just 38 percent. Obama was elected in 2008 with 43 percent of the white vote. He could be re-elected with even less. In Gallup’s polling of last week, Obama’s approval among white voters stood at 39 percent. He gets 38 percent approval among those who attend church weekly, compared with 55 percent among those who attend church seldom or never. And his approval among married voters is 40 percent, compared with 57 percent among those not married.

I think the following statistics on marriage in 1960 compared to 2010 is very telling about how drastically our culture has changed.

According to data compiled by the Tax Foundation, the large majority of those now filing tax returns in the U.S. are single. In 1960, 65 percent of all tax filers were married and 35 percent single. In 2010, it’s reversed — 61 percent of filers were single and 39 percent married.

This is not the America I grew up in and I doubt it ever can be again. We may be able to slow the trend through elections; but we as a people are not who we use to be. Over the history of mankind, in spite of the fact that more people have died in the name of religion than nearly any other cause, religion has been fundamental to the ethical and moral glue that has held civilizations together  andmaking the rule of law possible. As religion or churches  continue to become less relevent in people’s lives, what will be the glue that holds future civilizations together?

Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Share

NY Times Laments the “Downside of Liberty”

Share

It seems that dedicated leftists have a weakness-they cannot resist bashing the entire country, as well as it’s underpinnings, on Independence Day.  The NY Times had to join the fray by publishing the following, via GateWay Pundit…

On Independence Day the New York Times published “the Downside of Liberty” today. If only we were a socialist state.
The New York Times reported:

THIS spring I was on a panel at the Woodstock Writers Festival. An audience member asked a question: Why had the revolution dreamed up in the late 1960s mostly been won on the social and cultural fronts — women’s rights, gay rights, black president, ecology, sex, drugs, rock ’n’ roll — but lost in the economic realm, with old-school free-market ideas gaining traction all the time?

There was a long pause. People shrugged and sighed. I had an epiphany, which I offered, bumming out everybody in the room.

What has happened politically, economically, culturally and socially since the sea change of the late ’60s isn’t contradictory or incongruous. It’s all of a piece. For hippies and bohemians as for businesspeople and investors, extreme individualism has been triumphant. Selfishness won.

From the beginning, the American idea embodied a tension between radical individualism and the demands of the commonwealth. The document we’re celebrating today says in its second line that axiomatic human rights include “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” — individualism in a nutshell. But the Declaration’s author was not a greed-is-good guy: “Self-love,” Jefferson wrote to a friend 38 years after the Declaration, “is no part of morality. Indeed it is exactly its counterpart. It is the sole antagonist of virtue leading us constantly by our propensities to self-gratification in violation of our moral duties to others.”

(…)

“Do your own thing” is not so different than “every man for himself.” If it feels good, do it, whether that means smoking weed and watching porn and never wearing a necktie, retiring at 50 with a six-figure public pension and refusing modest gun regulation, or moving your factories overseas and letting commercial banks become financial speculators. The self-absorbed “Me” Decade, having expanded during the ’80s and ’90s from personal life to encompass the political economy, will soon be the “Me” Half-Century.

People on the political right have blamed the late ’60s for what they loathe about contemporary life — anything-goes sexuality, cultural coarseness, multiculturalism. And people on the left buy into that, seeing only the ’60s legacies of freedom that they define as progress. But what the left and right respectively love and hate are mostly flip sides of the same libertarian coin minted around 1967. Thanks to the ’60s,we are all shamelessly selfish.

In that letter from 1814, Jefferson wrote that our tendencies toward selfishness where liberty and our pursuit of happiness lead us require “correctives which are supplied by education” and by “the moralist, the preacher, and legislator.”

On this Independence Day, I’m doing my small preacherly bit.

I think, for the most part, that this is typical socialist propaganda. But, there is an error in his logic, and a greivous one at that. He quotes Jefferson regarding selfishness, yet he missed that the cultural victory of the 60’s neutered the very forces that Jefferson cited.  The moralist and the preacher have no place in the socialist society.  They have been muzzled, neutered, attacked, and discounted.  What we on the right decry about the 60’s is the same as what he decries.  However, he misses the mark.  The preacher and moralist that is concerned with immorality is the same one that is concerned with the poor, being generous, and looking out for one’s fellow man.  When you tear morality out of the equation, you remove it completely.  When the Time’s author opines about morality, he fails to see that the left is the force that removed it from the equation.

Our system of government, as Adams noted, was made for a moral people.  A moral people are good, even when no one else is watching.  When the left took steps to censor morality, and replace it with licence, they set the stage for what they are decrying now.  If it is true that many are selfish, are they not doing so because the left removed the moderating influence of morality?

Additionally, when he talks about selfishness, shouldn’t he refer to the large segment of the population that demands that the government steal from others, and give to them?  Isn’t it selfish to demand the fruits of someone else’s labor, rather than engaging in some sort of work?  Or, is that too much reality?

Share

Great Moments in Civil Discourse: Best not Believe in the Bible, Ya Hear?

Share

Do you believe in the Bible?   Do you think that it is the literal word of God?  If so, you are likely a hateful monster that fervently desires the death of others.  At least that’s what our leftist friends would tell us.  After all, that’s what happened to Kirk Cameron, who was recently interviewed on CNN.  Here is an excerpt.

Needless to say, Cameron, in his calm discussion of sin, created a crapstorm of controversy and hate.

Cameron’s calm answer explaining his view that marriage “was defined by God a long time ago … one man, one woman for life” has drawn a firestorm of criticism from fellow celebrities, homosexual organizations and even rock musician Nikki Sixx, who blasted Cameron as “a–hole of the week” for his answer, and Roseanne Barr, who called Cameron “an accomplice to murder with his hate speech.”

When one compares the tone and delivery of Cameron, with the hateful comments of his critics, I think you’ll see the contrasts.

Cameron responded…

“In a recent interview about my film, “Monumental,” I was asked to share my views on homosexuality, gay marriage and abortion,” Cameron says. “I spoke as honestly as I could, but some people believe my responses were not loving toward those in the gay community. That is not true. I can assuredly say that it’s my life’s mission to love all people.

“The only way to properly answer these kind of questions is to begin the discussion with another question: Is life and sexuality sacred or are they not?” he continues. “If they are, then God has something to say about these things. If not, then everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the matter.

“I believe that freedom of speech and freedom of religion go hand-in-hand in America,” he continues. “I should be able to express moral views on social issues – especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years – without being slandered, accused of hate speech and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.

“In any society that is governed by the rule of law, some form of morality is always imposed. It’s inescapable,” Cameron asserts. “But it is also a complicated subject, and that is why I believe we need to learn how to debate these things with greater love and respect.

Rather than debate the content, I like to look at the process.  I think it’s very easy to get lost in the details, or the emotions involved the topics themselves.  However, when you look at the processes involved-the methodology used, you get a very different picture of how the various “participants” operate.  You see Cameron calmly stating his opinion, then, you see the rather nasty reaction.  And, you see, as Cameron points out, that those that preach tolerance are not, in actuality, tolerant.

In another context, who is their quarrel with?  Is Cameron the enemy, or is Cameron’s “boss” the one to fight?  Is this yet another example of  people rebelling against God?  And, since they cannot get at God, so they’ll attack his followers?  Either way, it again shows us how the political and cultural left operates:  tolerance is free to all that agree with them.  To attack an “apostate” from the liberal church is perfectly fine.  Followers of Jesus are not under the umbrella if “tolerance,” or “diversity.”  They are to be attacked, silenced, discredited, and maligned. It kinda makes you think to aks who our leftist “friends” are really serving, doesn’t it?

H/T:  Teresamerica

Share