You are here: Home / Archives for how liberals or progressives think

MSNBC in ratings dumper as left-wing viewers ape Obama’s pretense of not knowing nuttin’

By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Joel Johannesen
May 21, 2013  •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: , , ,

How are cable news channels doing these days during all these huge Obama-gate scandals? There’s at least got to be some good news in that segment of the economy right?

At least you’d think so. But MSNBC is failing just when there’s so much news to talk about, MSNBC logoso much to question government about and to then reveal what’s been discovered, and to report as truths to their audience who are thirsting for real knowledge and facts, and to fully inform them so they can make wise or wiser decisions next time they get the chance (i.e. 2014 and 2016), etc.

Then again, I started out talking about news channels, then went to MSNBC. This is incongruous. The left-wing news and Obama/MoveOn.org talking-points parrot, MSNBC, is flopping like a dieing fish on a dock, having just been caught. Only in this case, we think we’ve caught them and their world of lies. (I know  –  holy mixed metaphor, Batman!)

Ironically, “The_More_You_Know_NBC-logoThe more you know,” as the NBC public service announcement slogan used to go, helps us here. The more you know what MSNBC actually is, and what’s really going on here, the smarter you will be.

Before we discuss this and the facts (I know  –  that’s racist!!!), here’s part of the article which got me “all ginned-up” as Barack Obama likes to call conservatives who are about to reveal truths about him:

Deadline_Hollywood_logo(200px)
Obama Scandals Bring MSNBC 7-Year Low While Fox News Rises

By DOMINIC PATTEN | Monday May 20, 2013 @ 4:44pm PDT

The scandals of the Obama administration seem to be hurting not just the White House but MSNBC as well, while Fox News Channel has just scored its second-best week of the year. After double-digit gains during last year’s presidential election, May 13-17 saw the progressive-aligned “Lean Forward” news network hit new lows as the IRS scandal erupted and revelations that the Justice Department secretly obtained AP records became public. With 350,000 viewers on average and 94,000 in the adults 25-54 demo, MSNBC had its least-watched and lowest-rated total-day results of the year last week. That was also the lowest total-day demo result the network has had since the week of June 26-July 2, 2006, when MSNBC pulled in just 83,000 viewers among adults 25-54, according to Nielsen data.

Related: Fox News Tops 2012 Cable News Network Ratings; MSNBC Up

For MSNBC, last week’s total day results were down 17% in viewers and 22% among the demo from the comparable Fox_News_Channel_logoMay 14 to May 18 week of last year. In primetime, the numbers were even worse as a steady decline from the beginning of the year continued. The network had 570,000 total viewers and 159,000 in the demo from 8-11 PM from May 13 to May 17, 2013. That’s the lowest-rated week of the year so far for MSNBC in terms of viewers and the third-lowest of 2013 in the demo. The week of May 6-12 was worst in the demo with 148,000 viewers when the network had 604,000 viewers on average. These latest results come as the news network’s recently launched and struggling All In With Chris Hayes hit a new viewership los of 396,000 and its second-lowest demo audience of just 88,000 on May 14. It also comes on the heels of MSNBC falling in April ratings from its second place ranking of the year before. …

When a news channel has become nothing but a water-carrying camel to a left-wing government which dictates to it the news and talking points to be parroted, and the news is about a government which stinks with corruption, well, the news channel flounders just like the dictating presidency itself. (Yessir, again with the mixed metaphor-a-palooza.)

And when the president sets up a pretense of not knowing nuttin’ about nuttin’, we are seeing how his media wing is acting likewise, barely reporting on any of the scandals. The audience will have to go elsewhere.

We know they  –  MSNBC at least  –  know plenty. So this omission of particular news stories in their reportage is strange behavior for a “news” organization which used to use the slogan “the more you know.” Apparently the less you know, the better for them, given their choice to be Obama camels.

The fish rots from the head down.

I take no joy in the failure of… oh I can’t even pretend. Let’s be honest. I’m thrilled that once again,the mindset of the common progressive is once again on display in all its failuretude.

We’ve seen how President Obama has pretended (you can go ahead and read this as “lied”) about “not knowing” or of his having “just found out” (from “the newspapers”!) about the latest in his growing record of failures and scandals. If head_in_sandyou haven’t seen, then read today’s daily email from Jim Geraghty of National Review for an info top-up. For example:

…Obama didn’t know the IRS was targeting conservatives until he read it in the papers. He didn’t know about “Fast and Furious” until he read it in the papers, too. He has “complete confidence” in Holder, and didn’t know about the decision to collect the phone records of reporters.  He didn’t know about the investigation into CIA director David Petraeus’s affair.  He told Letterman during the election he didn’t know what the national debt was. He didn’t know about the AIG bonuses in the TARP legislation. He said he didn’t know how bad the economic crisis was when he took office.

That “empty chair” metaphor from the Republican convention was so out of line, huh? …

In MSNBC’s perfidy and failure we see what happens when the Barack hits the fan. It and its fanboys have buried their heads in the sand to establish some sort of plausible deniability, just like their Barack Obama. All avoid culpability by simply “not knowing.” Or so they thought.

But some (OK, me) have also suggested that with, say, the IRS scandal (that’s Obama scandal number 57D for you who are playing the home version), the IRS may well have not been explicitly “instructed” by Obama or his administration to invoke tyranny upon the conservative and tea party groups seeking tax-exempt status before the last election. It may just be that the Obamatrons have simply become even more useful idiots. They are now fully awash in his culture of anti-conservative political partisanship and division, and, taking after him, are reflexively against anybody who opposes his left-wing manifesto of “fundamentally transforming America.” The theory goes that they honestly thought and think they were and are still doing the right thing. Obama’s claim to fame was, after all, his “community organizer” skills. So he has succeeded in this sphere.

Like me, Jonah Goldberg and several others (’cause like I’m in that same group, intellectually, don’tchaknow) also assert this theory.

… Throughout his presidency, Obama has set a very clear tone.

He’s made it clear that people who disagree with him are fevered, illegitimate, weird, creepy, dangerous, stupid, confused, ignorant or some other adjective you might assign to a revamped version of the seven dwarves. He’s explained that he doesn’t mind “cleaning up after” after Republicans but he doesn’t want to hear “a lot of talking” from them….

I’ve often said that liberals in the media are so liberal they don’t even know how liberal they are. Commentary.com’s Jonathan S. Tobin would also seem to agree.

… Add this all together and what you get is a picture of an agency that has so thoroughly absorbed the views of its political masters that it doesn’t even recognize when it has crossed the line into illegal activity. …

You’d think Obama could be taken at his word when he says he is “outraged” and “angry”. But here’s what he and his henchmen are really thinking: Eureka! It’s working!

The more you know.

 



Possibly related posts:

 

• By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Joel Johannesen
May 21, 2013 •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: , , ,
Filed Under: Bold Blog
• Also follow Joel Johannesen on Twitter -- @JoelJohannesen

Survey of police: Obama/left-wing gun control fetish wrong on nearly every point.

By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Joel Johannesen
April 10, 2013  •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: , ,

I’m a pro-gun rights advocate because I’m sane, and because I’m a conservative and believe in my individual rights and freedoms such as the fundamental right to defend myself.

President Obama’s anti-gun, pro-gun-control, multimillion dollar bully-pulpit campaign (and oh by the way, convenient political fund-raising stunt), currently taking place across the country aboard Air Force One at a taxpayer cost of untold millions, is ridiculous and as usual, misses the real targets, such as the mental health issues, gangs, the breakdown of the family, and more, behind the recent outbreaks.

Like so much of the liberal-left or progressive politics, Obama’s latest well-timed fetish is loaded with a gun-Beretta 92FS S maxiclip full of specious feel-good appeals to the emotions (once again using kids — including dead kids — as his stage props), and in symbolism, rather than reason and empirical evidence. And of course his proposals promise more big government, nanny-state solutions. More government and government regulations and controls and social-engineering and increased spending are the answer to every problem (even spending problems), according to progressives.

The measures the Obama Left propose would do practically nothing to reduce gun violence, and might in fact increase gun violence. They would clearly reduce citizens’ rights and freedoms. And contrary to the blather about being “smart” and”pro-science”, as Obama always falsely claims to be, his proposed measures are not at all smart and are completely unscientific. In reality, Obama’s big-government answers are really based in nothing but pure left-wing, partisan politics, with an eye to increasing the size and scope of government, and winning left-wing power in upcoming congressional elections in 2014.

If Barack Obama were an ex-cop or some sort of expert in crime prevention, or was at least a law and order advocate with any history or expertise in that area, it might give his ideas more fire power. But his record of success is that of being a left-wing politician, formerly representing Chicago  –  the city with more murders (500+ last year alone) than the troops in war-torn Afghanistan  –  and Chicago is the city with some of the toughest gun control measures in America. So his gun control ideas are based on what expertise or success? None, inasmuch as Barack Obama has expertise and success in just about nothing except rallying the left to his sophistic causes.

But the authoritative police community website PoliceOne.com wanted to explore the thinking of their own police community, and conducted an extensive survey among its members to that end. I think I’ll take their opinion more seriously than Barack Obama’s. Here are some of the key points (not complete — see the complete survey here) I found most interesting in their survey:

PoliceOne’s Gun Control Survey: 11 key lessons from officers’ perspectives

In March, PoliceOne conducted the most comprehensive survey ever of American law enforcement officers’ opinions on the topic gripping the nation’s attention in recent weeks: gun control.

More than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals took part in the survey, which aimed to bring together the thoughts and opinions of the only professional group devoted to limiting and defeating gun violence as part of their sworn responsibility.

Totaling just shy of 30 questions, the survey allowed officers across the United States to share their perspectives on issues spanning from gun control and gun violence to gun rights.

Top Line Takeaways
Breaking down the results, it’s important to note that 70 percent of respondents are field-level law enforcers — those who are face-to-face in the fight against violent crime on a daily basis — not office-bound, non-sworn administrators or perpetually-campaigning elected officials.

1.) Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

2.) The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.

3.) About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.

5.) More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent). See enlarged image

6.) The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.

7.) More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.

9.) More than half of respondents feel that increased punishment for obviously illegal gun sales could have a positive impact on reducing gun violence.

Bottom Line Conclusions
Quite clearly, the majority of officers polled oppose the theories brought forth by gun-control advocates who claim that proposed restrictions on weapon capabilities and production would reduce crime.

In fact, many officers responding to this survey seem to feel that those controls will negatively affect their ability to fight violent criminals.

Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.

Interestingly, even as I write this, a group of bi-partisan senators have struck-up a deal which includes some extra background checks for commercial gun purchases (which I should note would not have prevented many of any of the recent gun tragedies), increased punishment of gun trafficking, and would bolster federal funding for school security plans — something which you’ll remember the NRA advocated but which was shot down by the left when they immediately fired their automatic weapons (their word holes) at it, using their usual knee-jerk shoot first, ask questions later, mentality.

Here is a statement from the NRA today:

Fairfax, Va. - Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools. While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg’s “universal” background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows. The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson. We need a serious and meaningful solution that addresses crime in cities like Chicago, addresses mental health deficiencies, while at the same time protecting the rights of those of us who are not a danger to anyone. President Obama should be as committed to dealing with the gang problem that is tormenting honest people in his hometown as he is to blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of psychopathic murderers.

• Also see my recent article “5…4…3…2…1…BANG, you’re dead!”
• and (UPDATE!) Ann Coulter’s latest: “Liberals Go Crazy For The Mentally Ill”

 



Possibly related posts:

 

• By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Joel Johannesen
April 10, 2013 •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: , ,
Filed Under: Bold Blog
• Also follow Joel Johannesen on Twitter -- @JoelJohannesen

Snippets from the Joelosphere

By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Joel Johannesen
March 7, 2013  •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Lines I liked this morning:
First up: from Ann Coulter’s latest column. She’s continuing to try to edify liberals (good luck with that, Ann) on the stupidity at the root of their pathological gun control fetish, the construct of which has them purposely shielding their gaze from some of the actual roots of the actual problem.

… Of course, the vast majority of mentally disturbed individuals are not dangerous. But looking at it from the other end, more than half of all mass murder is committed by the mentally ill. Gun ownership doesn’t lead to random murder rampages; mental illness does.

And the good news for Republicans is: Democrats will only pretend to support keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous psychotics, while working frantically to gut and undermine such measures. Liberals fear “stigmatizing” the mentally ill more than they fear another mass murder.

Instead of proposing serious reforms, the Democrats play politics by demonizing responsible gun owners and the Republicans who defend them.

The Democrats’ gun proposals are like the joke about the drunk looking for his keys under the lamplight:

“Is that where you dropped them?”

“No, but the light’s better here.” …

I might add that in my opinion, the pose struck by liberals on the gun control issue reminds me of a drunkard pissing in the wind, and then lying and blaming the direction of the wind on “man-made global warming” and, of course, as if I had to tell you, Bush. And yes, my over-the-top mixed metaphor is happily acknowledged.

Another favorite quote comes from the equally inimitable James Taranto, and his Best of the Web column at the Wall Street Journal, today. Part of it concerns the death of the evil socialist dictator Hugo Chavez:

The socialist Venezuelan demagogue died of cancer yesterday, as London’s left-wing Guardian notes in an over-the-top obit:

No one imagined it would end like this. A ravaged body, a hospital bed, a shroud of silence, invisible. Hugo Chávez’s life blazed drama, a command performance, and friend and foe alike always envisaged an operatic finale.

He would rule for decades, transform Venezuela and Latin America, and bid supporters farewell from the palace balcony, an old man, his work complete. Or, a parallel fantasy: he would tumble from power, disgraced and defeated by the wreckage of revolution, ending his days a hounded pariah.

Oh give us a break. Chavez announced he had cancer almost two years ago, and it had been clear for months that his condition was terminal. It would take either an overactive imagination or none at all to fail to imagine “it would end like this.” Still, Chavez’s expected death calls to mind Hilaire Belloc’s “Epitaph on the Politician Himself”:

Here richly, with ridiculous display,
The Politician’s corpse was laid away.
While all of his acquaintance sneered and slanged,
I wept: for I had longed to see him hanged.

I don’t even appreciate poetry, but that struck a bell with me. I appreciate the facts of life, and that there is good, and there is evil, and Hugo Chavez was firmly, if not also arrogantly and glibly, on the side of evil. Yes, that is a little ironic too, given his speech at the U.N., the supposed bastion of diplomacy, where he sneered that he could smell sulfur in the wake of President Bush speaking there just before him. Bush actually being squarely on the side of good. So I, too, longed to see Chavez hanged, if metaphorically.

Obama_and_his_staged_ploy

Obama staged an apocalyptic freak-out show for weeks, using first-responders and others as props, to scare Americans into siding with him and hating Republicans.

Finally, it’s not so much a quotable quote, but an observation by Michael Reagan this morning, which gave me some hope for the salvation of what I’ve come to worry is a nation full of what Rush Limbaugh calls the “low-information voter.” (By the way, that term is, in its own right, a spot-on term worthy of serious consideration among conservatives hoping to win elections; i.e. inform them, preferably with Reagan’s father’s own method: speaking in “bold colors!”).

Michael Reagan is talking about a vote during this week’s Los Angeles mayoral primaries, which because they are pretty much going bankrupt after years of progressive party rule, included a proposition to raise city sales taxes (and adhering to one of the real modi operandi of the political progressive liberal left, it would of course also raise government spending). See if this image doesn’t look familiar:

Proposition A was backed by the police chief and outgoing Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who used police academy recruits as props and warned of losing 500 city cops if the sales tax hike was defeated.

Yes…

Just as Obama tried to scare the public into believing that the sequester would hurt our national security, the local pols here tried to scare voters into thinking public safety would be endangered without Proposition A.

And yet… perhaps hoist with their own petard (the petard being lie-bomb Obama), the lying politicians in the left coast’s center of the left-wing universe lost the vote.

 



Possibly related posts:

 

• By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Joel Johannesen
March 7, 2013 •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: , , , , , ,
Filed Under: Bold Blog
• Also follow Joel Johannesen on Twitter -- @JoelJohannesen

Who’s BS-ing whom? Hint: Obama is BS-ing. You. Again.

By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Joel Johannesen
March 5, 2013  •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: , ,

Regarding President Obama and his recent attempts to project (again) and blame Republicans for trying to freak out Americans with dire warnings of a sequester-related cataclysmic apocalypse after he was the one who explicitly tried to freak out America by warning of a coming cataclysmic apocalypse (i.e., Obama lied)…

Jim Geraghty of the National Review, in his daily briefing, emailed this summary of Republican compromises already given. You can use this to further enbitchen your “I’ll believe anything Obama and his mainstream media division tell me” liberal friends when they make the phony Obamatron claim (i.e. Obama lie) that Republicans won’t compromise and are just “looking out for the rich.”

(Klein is Ezra Klein, writing at Washington Post)

There’s a fairly key point that Klein keeps glossing over: Republicans feel they just made a concession on tax hikes — gobs and gobs of them, in fact:

Tax increases the fiscal cliff deal allowed:

1. Payroll Tax: increase in the Social Security portion of the payroll tax from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent for workers. This hits all Americans earning a paycheck—not just the “wealthy.” For example, The Wall Street Journal calculated that the “typical U.S. family earning $50,000 a year” will lose “an annual income boost of $1,000.”

2. Top marginal tax rate: increase from 35 percent to 39.6 percent for taxable incomes over $450,000 ($400,000 for single filers).

3. Phase out of personal exemptions for adjusted gross income (AGI) over $300,000 ($250,000 for single filers).

4. Phase down of itemized deductions for AGI over $300,000 ($250,000 for single filers).

5. Tax rates on investment: increase in the rate on dividends and capital gains from 15 percent to 20 percent for taxable incomes over $450,000 ($400,000 for single filers).

6. Death tax: increase in the rate (on estates larger than $5 million) from 35 percent to 40 percent.

7. Taxes on business investment: expiration of full expensing—the immediate deduction of capital purchases by businesses.

Obamacare tax increases that took effect:

8. Another investment tax increase: 3.8 percent surtax on investment income for taxpayers with taxable income exceeding $250,000 ($200,000 for singles).

9. Another payroll tax hike: 0.9 percent increase in the Hospital Insurance portion of the payroll tax for incomes over $250,000 ($200,000 for single filers).

10. Medical device tax: 2.3 percent excise tax paid by medical device manufacturers and importers on all their sales.

11. Reducing the income tax deduction for individuals’ medical expenses.

12. Elimination of the corporate income tax deduction for expenses related to theMedicare Part D subsidy.

13. Limitation of the corporate income tax deduction for compensation that health insurance companies pay to their executives.

Some Republicans feel you should go, I don’t know, at least a couple of months between tax increases.

But let’s back up a bit to that just looking out for “the rich” meme: This idiotic construct, trademarked by lying liberals and the entire progressive left, Democrats and their mainstream media division alike, about Republicans just wanting to protect “the rich” is, as I’ve written before, impossible to take seriously, if you’re trying to be even a little bit intellectually honest.

Take the political pragmatism of such a principle as a starting point. Some polls indicate that Americans would be just fine with raising taxes on the rich. This is mainly because of yet another progressive-created problem, which is that about 45% of Americans (the lower-income half) now don’t even pay income taxes, so why wouldn’t they be “for” raising taxes and getting more “free” goodies in return?

And why would Republicans adopt a stance so brazenly against popular opinion? They want to win elections, don’t they?

Secondly, how on earth do liberals explain that roughly half the country  –  mostly not rich  –  support and vote for Republicans, despite this (mythical) notion that Republicans don’t even look out for them, but rather just the top 1%.

In truth, and in both cases, Republicans and their supporters are looking out not for the rich, but rather for what’s right, what’s fair, and what’s best for America. They know that taxing “the rich” (which as we’ve found out is a moving target) is nothing but Pablum for the masses. They know that you could take 100% of “the rich’s” income away from them, and it would do virtually nothing to solve the debt and deficit problem, whatsoever. They know that profligate, progressive politicians and governments and their spending is the problem.

There are any number of additional details one can add to the relative propriety of the Republicans’ current stance. For example, raising taxes  –  especially on job-producers  –  especially during a time of economic recession, is demonstrably stupid economics and policy.

Also, they know that a lack of “revenue” or taxation isn’t the problem with America, at least insofar as tax rates on upper income earners, it’s the big nanny-state government spending, as per Europe’s problems. And for that matter, it’s the problem in most American households as well. And in that latter case, the solution isn’t to demand more income from your boss, or to borrow money from the Chinese people, it’s to adjust one’s spending.

So possibly, Republicans adopted this principle of halting the incessant raising of taxes on anybody and demanding a whack of spending cuts instead, because it’s what’s right, and it shows leadership to sometimes take unpopular stands, when it’s so clearly what’s right. But Obama isn’t about what’s right, he’s about what’s left. He’s about politics. He’s about what’s expedient. So he’ll BS his way through it to get it. It’s what greasy unprincipled politicians do. Alas, there are just enough useful idiots to achieve his dreams.

Which reminds me of the idiot comic and actor Chris Rock. and what he said recently, which was: “[The] president of the United States is our boss, but he is also… you know, the president and the first lady are kinda like the mom and the dad of the country. And when your dad says something you listen, and when you don’t it will usually bite you on the ass later on. So, I’m here to support the president.”

Oh dear.

Chris_Rock, idiot; surrounded by pop idiot stars

Chris Rock, idiot; surrounded by pop idiot stars as he proclaims Barack Obama is our boss, and Barack and Michelle Obama are our mom and dad. This is what Obama’s BS-ing creates — perfect useful idiots like this.

Not to legitimize by further commenting on it, in fact quite the opposite, but I think Chris Rock is, at best, confused as to who is behaving like a good mom and dad, and who is behaving like a greasy, lying politician  –  one who is willing to do or say anything to garner favor and “likes” on his political Facebook page. Rock’s analogy is an absolutely wrong-headed, contra-American, anti-constitutional, truly asinine, and a wildly juvenile comparison of Barack and Michelle Obama to our mom and dad (and “our boss”?!  — see Kurt Schlichter’s take on that doozy).

As I remember it, we learned in life to respect our mom and dad not because they gave us everything we wanted for free, but because they did not. They used their wisdom and experience and they judiciously gave us what was best for us, even if we hated it. We did not have to like them for it and in fact we hated them for it right though our teen years, and our parents knew it, but they carried on regardless. At some point, and sometimes contemporaneously, we knew our parents were right, even though it hurt us on some level at the time. That’s what good moms and dads do. They certainly never grabbed $50 out of our sister’s purse simply on the basis that she had it, and gave it to us so we could buy candy on the basis that me and my brother wanted stuff and didn’t have $50.

I mention this Chris Rock lunacy to mock him and his sycophancy. He is an actor who, if I didn’t know better, was simply doing an amazing rendition of the perfect useful idiot. And it’s people like Chris Rock and those pop celebrities who surrounded him on a stage as he made those remarks, whom Obama seems to have so affected  –  people who buy the Obama BS so wholly  –  who make me worry.

 



Possibly related posts:

 

• By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Joel Johannesen
March 5, 2013 •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: , ,
Filed Under: Bold Blog
• Also follow Joel Johannesen on Twitter -- @JoelJohannesen

When I Want a Progressive’s Opinion on What Guns I “Need” or “Don’t Need”…

By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Doug Giles
January 22, 2013  •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: ,

My buddy, Green Beret badass Bryan Sikes, shot a massive whitetail buck last week during our South Texas Purple Heart Adventure. He whacked said muy grande with a LaRue Tactical OBR chambered for the glorious .308 Win. round. Oh and BTW, Sikes used a high capacity magazine during this hunt.

For those of you who aren’t hip to the LaRue, it is a weapon that progressive darlings say we should not have because we don’t “need” such a weapon for hunting.

Hunting, according to these wizards of odd, is what they think our founding fathers had in mind when they penned that pesky Second Amendment, and according to these control freaks we don’t need a tactical weapon with a high capacity magazine to hunt with.

First off, dipsticks, the Second Amendment has nada to do with hunting. The founding fathers weren’t worried about their right to put the bam to Bambi (although we should be because progressives hate hunting and would love nothing more than to bring that activity to a grinding halt). If you don’t believe me, just corner one of these little darlings and ask them what they think about hunting.

Secondly, who are they to tell us what we “need” or don’t need when it comes to anything? Typical of the Left, they think they know what’s best for we the people. If you want to talk about “needs,” Ms. Leftist, we don’t need iPhones, Porsches, crazy straws, American Idol, beer, leaf blowers, and I don’t need a gorgeous Italian wife. But that’s America, folks. Stay out of our business.

Regarding the need for high capacity magazines for hunting, please tell the ranchers in the west when they’re doing depredation work on predators and nuisance animals that they don’t need such weapons. You might be surprised.

Now, for the record, I do not have a black weapon. I’m a bolt action, lever action, double rifle, and traditional side-by-side shotgun freak. I like the classic lines of beautiful sporting guns.

However, the more I contemplate our current milieu I’m beginning to think that a semi-auto, like the LaRue Tactical chambered for the .308, has got to be the ultimate gun. Why? Well, it’s quite effective on game up to moose, and it has been proven in battle against tyrants—which is exactly what the Second Amendment is all about, namely, whacking overreaching, freedom-strangling little King George wannabes should they oppress.

 



Possibly related posts:

 

• By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Doug Giles
January 22, 2013 •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: ,
Filed Under: Columnists, Doug Giles
• Also follow Joel Johannesen on Twitter -- @JoelJohannesen

Is America an Idiocracy?

By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Ashley Herzog
January 16, 2013  •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: , ,

In 1951, Ray Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a futuristic novel in which books are burned, and the citizenry occupies itself by watching hours of TV on wall-to-wall sets. Contrary to popular belief, Bradbury says Fahrenheit 451 wasn’t about censorship or McCarthyism. It was about how TV undermines interest in reading and learning.

In 2006, Mike Judge released the film Idiocracy, in which the main character, Joe Bauers, undergoes a suspended-animation experiment and wakes up in the year 2505. He’s unable to communicate, because “the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valley girl, inner-city slang and various grunts.” The degenerate morons who occupy this brave new world amuse themselves with vapid, vulgar reality shows like “Ow, My Balls!” (Which, by the way, is exactly what it sounds like.)

Are you laughing? You probably shouldn’t. Fahrenheit 451 and Idiocracy aren’t dystopian fantasies—we’re already there.

In case you’re not convinced, Oxygen just announced* a new reality show featuring rapper “Shawty Lo,” his eleven children, and his ten “baby mamas.” According to ABC News, he “refer[s] to his children’s mothers with nicknames like Jealous Baby Mama, Baby Mama from Hell, and Shady Baby Mama. The show also introduces viewers to Lo’s 19-year-old girlfriend.”

Thankfully, some groups on the left and right protested, with the Parents Television Council deeming it “grotesquely irresponsible and exploitative.” Still, the fact that Oxygen believed there was an audience for a show with such a tawdry premise (and a star who calls himself “Shawty Lo”) is depressing enough.

The main consumers of this garbage? My generation, the 18-to-29 set. We have more opportunities for cultural and intellectual enrichment than any previous generation, but we don’t take them. As Mark Bauerlein revealed in his aptly named book The Dumbest Generation, less than 10 percent of young people attend plays, ballets, or musical performances, only 23 percent visited a museum in the last year, and a record low number of us read for fun.

So where are America’s teens and twenty-somethings? Parked in front of the TV, watching Jersey Shore.

You know, the reality show that added “smushing” and “gorillas” to our vocabulary. (Shockingly, the latter is not a reference to the cast members’ IQs.) In the 90s, the casts on early reality shows like The Real World had candid, intelligent discussions about everything from racism to gay rights to AIDS. They look like Rhodes scholars compared to the cast of Jersey Shore, who talk about…well, I’m not sure what, because the only episode I watched was a series of bleeps. The show doesn’t address any current events or any ideas—it’s a steady stream of drinking, fighting, and cussing.

And if you wonder where the increase in girl-on-girl aggression is coming from, tune into any of the Real Housewives series. The entire show revolves around materialistic, shallow women with bad plastic surgery cat-fighting and back-stabbing. As Ann Coulter put it, “Real Housewives is white trash pretending to be jetsetters.” And yet millions of viewers still tune in every week, admiring them, emulating them, and imagining this is how the wealthy and fashionable really live.

In August, more people tuned into TLC’s abomination Here Comes Honey Boo Boo than the Republican National Convention. In case you’ve somehow missed it, the show follows the adventures of “redneck” mom June and her four daughters (allegedly sired by four different men). This show is especially exploitative. In a recent episode, June’s teen daughter gave birth to a baby with six fingers. Instead of feeling sympathy for this poor child, the audience was supposed to snicker—all that was missing was the laugh track in the background. Laughing and leering at other people’s pain and misfortune is par for the course in this genre.

Therefore, it’s no surprise that researchers at the University of Michigan found today’s college students shockingly lacking in empathy, especially compared to their 1970s counterparts. They partially blamed the rise of reality TV for this trend.

“These shows may be profitable, but the primary basis for many of them seems to be to put people in painful, embarrassing or humiliating situations for the rest of us to watch — and, presumably, be entertained,” James Key wrote in USA Today. “This assault on our intelligence is not healthy for the soul.”

Not to mention it’s taking the place of activities that engage the mind, rather than rotting it.

If you don’t want America to become the country we saw in Idiocracy, turn it off.

 

* Editor’s note: On January 15, 2013, as a result of public pressure, Oxygen Network decided not to broadcast “All My Babies’ Mamas.” Read about it here.



Possibly related posts:

 

• By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Ashley Herzog
January 16, 2013 •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: , ,
Filed Under: Ashley Herzog, Columnists
• Also follow Joel Johannesen on Twitter -- @JoelJohannesen

Every Idea Is an Incitement

By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Mike Adams
January 8, 2013  •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: ,

Dear CRM 495 Students:

Welcome back! It’s hard to believe that Christmas break is over and that it’s time to start a new semester. It’s almost as hard as believing that one of your professors is actually sending you an email using the word “Christmas.” But even the liberals agree that I am no ordinary professor. Please allow me to explain.

After I got tenure, I left the political Left and became a conservative Republican. I know you’ve never had a conservative professor before and you are probably wondering what to expect. In a nutshell, you can expect to hear the truth about a number of things for the very first time in your college career. And that means you can probably expect to be offended from time to time.

Just in case you are wondering whether you are getting in over your head, let me give you a few examples of beliefs I hold, which you may well deem to be offensive. Based on the following revelations, you can make an informed decision as to whether this class is really for you.

African-Americanism. I think the term African-American is ridiculous. If you insist on being called this then you aren’t American and you’ve probably never been to Africa. If you demand to be a hyphenated American then you’re just un-American. Get over yourself or get out of the country. Sorry if you’re offended but you offend me with your ethnocentrism.

Coke. I cannot stand that four letter word that begins with “c” and refers to female genitalia. Repeating it at The Vagina Monologues does not make women empowered. It makes them unrefined idiots. If you c*** c*** a feminist play without using feminists who say the word c*** then you simply c*** be taken seriously. Sorry if you’re offended, but women who curse like sailors offend me.

Daddy issues. Every semester, I get at least one female student who comes into class late and hyperventilating. She makes a scene in order to get sympathy. Then, she apologizes after class while dumping all her personal problems on me. Let me be blunt: women like this have daddy issues. Put simply, daddy didn’t give them enough attention and now they are seeking it from me because I remind them of daddy. Sorry that offends you. Go tell your daddy.

Guns. I have more guns than I need but fewer than I want. In fact, as I sit in my home office writing this email I am positioned between two packed gun safes. There are enough guns in this room to issue a 21 gun salute in the event you don’t make it through the semester. There are also about 12,000 rounds of ammunition in this room. And there is more elsewhere in the house. Some people are afraid of guns but I am afraid of gunlessness. Most of your professors say that homophobia is a social disease. I say that hoplophobia is a social disease. If you don’t like abortion – oops! I mean guns – you don’t have to have one.

Momma’s boys. Every semester, I get at least three male students who cannot run their lives. They constantly ask me questions that I have already answered on the syllabus. When is the first test? What kind of questions are on it? How many tests are there? These are the kinds of young males who still could not wipe their bottoms when they were 12 (and probably still can’t do their own laundry). If you are one of them, you have no chance of passing my class and no chance of succeeding in life. Please drop out now and join the army. Sorry if that offends you but you need to be a man. If that’s too much to ask, just complain to momma next time you’re home dropping off your laundry.

Pepsi. I cannot stand that five letter word that begins with “p” and refers to female genitalia. Every year at The Vagina Monologues, they sell p***** pops, which are little candied vaginas on a stick. The feminists walk around licking them in a display of feminist empowerment. I hate to be p**** but why don’t they sell p**** pops, too. Maybe that would offend them. That’s too bad because their sexism offends me.

Queer Centers. When I was a kid, we played “smear the queer” (dodge ball). Later, they said we could not call it that. Now, the word “queer” has made a queer re-entry into the realm of social acceptability. Some colleges are even opening “Queer Resource Centers.” Make up your mind, thought police. And stop acting like women with daddy issues! Sorry if that offends you. Indecisiveness offends me.

Racial Preferences. If you can’t get into college without checking a box that says African-American or Hispanic, you do not need to be here. Sorry but the only reason there are racial differences in SAT scores is because minorities refuse to take off the training wheels. You’re just as smart as anyone else so hop off the Big Wheel and join the bike race. Sorry if you’re offended but your racism offends me.

Wolf-crying. People cry racism all the time. In fact, I’ve been told I’m a racist for opposing affirmative action. That’s funny to me. I don’t think blacks need a crutch because I believe they are equal. Therefore, I’m called a racist – even though I was the first kid on my block to own a Flip Wilson record. Those people (oops, I said, those people) need to chill. In fact, I should let them borrow my old Flip Wilson record to lighten the mood. Next thing you know, they’ll say Flip Wilson offends them because Geraldine made fun of cross dressing. Have I mentioned that cross-dressing offends me?

XXX. Pornography is more than disgusting. It is evil and I hate it. This is probably not offensive to anyone – unless, of course, you are a porn star. But, once you become a porn star, you pretty much give up the right to be offended. If you’re offended anyway just drop my class and sign up for one of Dr. Porco’s instead (no I did not make up that last name). Dr. Porco was just hired by the UNCW English Department despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that he published a book of pornographic poems – some of which were written while he was drunk and hanging out in topless bars. He tries to pass them off as academic. And that offends me, which is why I simply choose not to read them.

Now that everything is on the table, you are ready for your first assignment. Since this is a class covering the First Amendment, we are going to focus on important US Supreme Court decisions dealing with free speech. Our first case will be Gitlow v. New York. I want you to read it with two questions in mind:

1. Since the Supreme Court nationalized the First Amendment, speech codes have emerged on most state-run campuses. How have these speech codes survived in light of the nationalization movement?

2. Holmes’ dissent in this case has been often quoted. If he is correct in saying that “every idea is an incitement” then how can universities actually enforce speeches codes? As they are actually enforced, do these codes violate other portions of our constitution?

As you can see, we’ll be tackling some serious issues this semester. So we need to weed out all of the self-absorbed, hypersensitive products of the era of political correctness in higher education. That was the purpose of this email. If you are still reading then congratulations! You’ve demonstrated more intellectual integrity and emotional maturity than the majority of your professors.

See you next week in class.

 



Possibly related posts:

 

• By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Mike Adams
January 8, 2013 •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: ,
Filed Under: Columnists, Mike Adams
• Also follow Joel Johannesen on Twitter -- @JoelJohannesen

The Assault Weapons Ban Didn’t Work Then and It Won’t Work Now

By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Doug Giles
January 3, 2013  •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: ,

Senator Dianne Feinstein is queuing up come January 2013 to retable—yet again—an Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) in order to “severely mitigate the possibilities of another Sandy Hook atrocity.” Great idea, Dianne, as the first AWB that Clinton signed into law worked wonders in schools from 1994-2004. It was awesome. It panned out wonderfully aside from the following:

  • November 7, 1994: Wickliffe, Ohio: (Wickliffe Middle School shooting) Keith Ledeger, 37, a former student at the school, shot and killed custodian Pete Christopher and wounded four other adults.
  • January 12, 1995: Seattle, Washington: A 15-year-old Garfield High School student left school during the day and returned with his grandfather’s 9mm semiautomatic handgun. He wounded two students.
  • October 12, 1995: Blackville, South Carolina: (Blackville-Hilda High School shooting) Anthony Sincino, 16, killed one teacher and wounded another before committing suicide.
  • November 15, 1995: Lynnville, Tennessee: (Richland High School shooting) James Rouse, 17, killed a student and teacher and seriously wounded another teacher with a .22-caliber rifle.
  • February 2, 1996: Moses Lake, Washington: (Frontier Middle School shooting) Barry Loukaitis, 14, killed a teacher and two students and wounded another student when he opened fire on his algebra class.
  • August 15, 1996: San Diego, California: (San Diego State University shooting) Frederick Martin Davidson, a 36-year-old graduate student killed three professors that he believed were involved in a conspiracy against him.
  • September 17, 1996: State College, Pennsylvania: (Hetzel Union Building shooting) Jillian Robbins, 19, shoots and kills one student and injures two outside.
  • February 19, 1997: Bethel, Alaska: Bethel Regional High School student Evan Ramsey, 16, shot and killed the school’s principal and one student, and wounded two other students.
  • October 1, 1997: Pearl, Mississippi: (Pearl High School shooting) Luke Woodham, 16, murdered his mother at home before killing his ex-girlfriend and another student and wounding seven others at Pearl High School. He and his friends were said to be outcasts who worshiped Satan.
  • November 27, 1997: West Palm Beach, Florida: Conniston Middle School student Tronneal Magnum, 14, fatally shot Johnpierre Kamel, 14, outside school after an argument over a wristwatch.
  • December 1, 1997: West Paducah, Kentucky: (Heath High School shooting) Three students were killed and five wounded by Michael Carneal, 14, as they participated in a prayer circle.
  • December 15, 1997: Stamps, Arkansas: Joseph “Colt” Todd, 14, concealed in a wooded area on school grounds, shoots and wounds two students as they were entering Stamps High School.
  • March 24, 1998: Craighead County, Arkansas: Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11, killed four students and one teacher and wounded ten others as Westside Middle School emptied during a fire alarm intentionally set off by Golden.
  • April 24, 1998: Edinboro, Pennsylvania (Parker Middle School dance shooting) Andrew Wurst, 14, fatally shot teacher John Gillette, 48, and wounded two students and a teacher at an 8th grade graduation dance.
  • May 19, 1998: Fayetteville, Tennessee: Jacob Davis, 18, shoots Robert Creson, 18, in a dispute over a girl.
  • May 21, 1998: Springfield, Oregon: After killing his parents at home, Kip Kinkel, 15, drove to Thurston High School where he shot and killed two students and wounded 25 others.
  • June 15, 1998: Richmond, Virginia: A 14-year-old student of Armstrong High School wounds a teacher and a school volunteer.
  • December 10, 1998: Detroit, Michigan: Professor Andrzej Olbrot is killed by graduate student Wlodzimierz Dedecjus, 48.
  • April 20, 1999: Littleton, Colorado: (Columbine High School massacre) Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, killed 12 students and one teacher, and wounded 21 others before committing suicide at Columbine High School.
  • May 20, 1999: Conyers, Georgia: (Heritage High School shooting) Six students injured by Thomas Solomon Jr., 15.
  • November 19, 1999: Deming, New Mexico: A 13-year-old girl fatally shot at Deming Middle School by Victor Cordova Jr., 13. Cordova stated he had intended to commit suicide but was jostled by others and the gun moved.
  • February 29, 2000: Elementary School, Flint, Michigan: 6-year-old Dedrick Owens, youngest-ever school shooter. Kayla Rolland was the single fatality.
  • May 26, 2000: Lake Worth, Florida: Lake Worth Middle School Florida teacher Barry Grunow was fatally shot by his student, 13-year-old Nathaniel Brazill, who had returned to school after being sent home at 1 p.m. by the assistant principal for throwing water balloons. Brazill returned to school on his bike with a 5-inch Raven and four bullets stolen from his grandfather the week before. Brazill was an honor student. Grunow was a popular teacher and Brazill’s favorite.
  • August 28, 2000: University of Arkansas shooting at Fayetteville, Arkansas: At approximately 12:14 pm, Dr. John R. Locke, 67, Director of the Comparative Literature Program was shot and killed in his office by James E. Kelly, 36, a Comparative Literature PhD candidate who had recently been dismissed from the program for lack of progress toward his degree. Kelly shot Dr. Locke three times before taking his own life in Dr. Locke’s office after it was cordoned off by campus police.
  • September 26, 2000: Darrel Johnson, 13, offender in Louisiana school shooting with 1 student fatality.
  • March 5, 2001: Charles Andrew William, age 15, offender in California school shooting at Santana High School, 15 wounded 2 of whom died.
  • March 30, 2001: Donald R. Burt Jr., age 18, offender in Indiana school shooting with 1 student fatality.
  • September 24, 2003: John Jason McLaughlin, age 15, offender in Minnesota school shooting with 2 student fatalities.
  • February 2, 2004: Unidentified offender in Washington, DC school shooting with 1 student fatality.
  • May 7, 2004: Unidentified 17-year-old offender in Maryland school shooting with 1 student fatality.

And that’s excluding the Fairchild Air Force Base Massacre in 1994; the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building Massacre in 1995; the Caltrans Maintenance Yard Massacre in 1997; the Connecticut State Lottery Headquarters Massacre in 1998; the Wedgewood Baptist Church Massacre of 1999; the Xerox Office Building Massacre in 1999; the Edgewater Technology Office Massacre in 2000; and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks which killed nearly 3,000 people (in which the culprits used box cutters and airplanes to pull that one off). We should have had an Assault Box Cutter and Airplane Ban in place I guess.

Yep, excluding the aforementioned, the AWB that the Left put into practice nearly two decades ago really mitigated murderous schoolyard and workplace evil for its ten-year run, right?

Ah, who am I kidding? The Assault Weapons Ban didn’t work. School shootings shot through the roof, and lo and behold killers still found a way around the uber-strict regulations to carry out their death wishes with an assortment of weapons. Yep, correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the biggest spike in school shootings in our nation’s short history occurred during the initial AWB. Google it and get back to me.

Oh, and another thing according to a comprehensive Congressional Research Service report on guns and gun control legislation: Less than 2% of 203,300 state and federal prisoners who were armed during the crime for which they were incarcerated “used, carried, or possessed a semiautomatic assault weapon.” If the hooligans did use a gun it was mostly your normal, non-funky firearm, i.e. mostly hunting guns and non-”assault” weapons. But we can rest assured that the Progressives would never come after our Remington 870s and our revolvers (because they promised). Never. Ever. Ever.

In addition to the AWB not really stemming the tide of gun violence in the public school systems, it sure didn’t calm things down in the “gun-free” Windy City, as Chi-town racked up a whopping 7,636 murders during the Clinton ban.

Speaking of Chicago, this year alone 446 kids have been shot where guns have been verboten, and just this week Chicago hit 500 murders that have now occurred in the “gun free” Toddlin’ Town for 2012.

It appears as if our former AWB and our current “gun free” zones don’t work.

 



Possibly related posts:

 

• By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Doug Giles
January 3, 2013 •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: ,
Filed Under: Columnists, Doug Giles
• Also follow Joel Johannesen on Twitter -- @JoelJohannesen

Fellowship in the Woodlands

By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Mike Adams
January 3, 2013  •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: ,

Most of America’s problems are cultural. Even our economic problems stem from the cultural rejection of personal responsibility and the acceptance of collective responsibility. And none of our problems would be as bad if the church was still shaping the culture instead of merely responding to it. I was reminded of this during my annual holiday trip home to The Woodlands, Texas.

I’ve attended Christmas Eve services four out of the last six years at the Woodlands Church (formerly Fellowship of the Woodlands), which is a Southern Baptist mega church that keeps its Baptist affiliation well hidden from the general public. That is symptomatic of what ails the church in 21st Century America. Production and marketing take center stage. Core beliefs are lost somewhere in the process.

Make no mistake about it; the production is good at The Woodlands Church. The set is grand and the music is wonderful. Pastor Kerry Shook and his wife Chris are largely responsible for that. Their son, a musician living in Nashville, comes home to perform in the Christmas services every year. I’ve seldom heard a more talented young singer and guitarist.

Couched in the musical productions of these mega churches, one sees an overwhelming desire to deliver a product that demonstrates the cultural relevance of the church. This is especially true on holidays when the church has more visitors than usual. This Christmas Eve, one of the singers was dressed like Michael Jackson and was moon walking around the stage as others sang. I didn’t see a likeness of baby Jesus in a manger. But I saw a likeness of Michael Jackson in a sequin outfit.

Many people dispute whether Jackson was a pedophile. No one disputes that he is still culturally relevant. Nonetheless, it was strange seeing Michael Jackson’s likeness on stage just minutes after the church staff assured parents that the church nursery provided a safe environment for their young children. Mega churches are seldom short on cash or irony.

After the music, an enormous train engine (actually, it was a life size model) appeared in the middle of the stage. It was slowly moved in on a set of make shift tracks in the midst of smoke and accompanied by the sound of a real train whistle. The pastor boasted that the whistle could be heard all the way over on highway 242. I agreed that the set was impressive. It probably took the church staff as much time to build it as would have been required to build a medium sized home for an impoverished Houston family.

The crowd at Woodlands Church also got to see a YouTube video of a man watching an old train pull into a station. I still don’t understand the point of showing the video, which featured a man so excited to see an old train that he took the Lord’s name in vain three times. Let that sink in for a minute: The Woodlands Church played (in church, mind you) a video in which a man was taking the Lord’s name in vain three times. And they did it as part of a Christmas Eve service celebrating the birth of our Lord.

It reminded me of the time I took the Lord’s name in vain in a lecture at Summit Ministries in 2010. I didn’t mean to do it. But it didn’t matter. The kids at the ministry let me have it – and rightfully so. I was absolutely in the wrong.

My question for the mega church is simple: how did the commandment-violating video get past the entire staff at the Woodlands Church without someone catching it and correcting it? It’s pretty easy to do an overdub on “oh my God” to turn it into “oh my.” But the entire staff missed it. Or perhaps they didn’t care.

Unlike my teenaged Summit students, senior pastor Kerry Shook couldn’t see anything wrong with playing that video in church on Christmas Eve – even though its narrator took the Lord’s name in vain three times. He just laughed at it. And that was all that mattered. The service wasn’t meant to honor God. It was meant to entertain.

Kerry and Chris delivered a joint sermon, which had a broad general theme connected to the giant locomotive that stood behind them. The thesis was that we need to relinquish our need to control people and circumstances and instead let God direct our lives. But during the short sermon, Kerry’s wife said something rather unusual. It had to do with holy moments in our lives. It was as morally confused a statement as I have ever heard inside a place calling itself a church.

Without batting an eye, Chris Shook stated that all of the moments in our lives are equally holy no matter what we are doing because they were all created by God. So she insisted that we must learn to live in the moment, rather than seek a holy moment – because, once again, all moments are holy, and equally so.

To illustrate the error of Chris Shook’s statement, consider these “equally holy” moments, which were “all created by God”:
-A man sees a woman being raped and intervenes to stop the attack.

-A man sees a woman being raped and decides to join in.

-A man gives his wife a dozen roses.

-A man gives his wife herpes.

-A man tells his grandmother she is a saint.

-A man tells his grandmother she is a whore.

Obviously, not every moment in our lives is equally holy or God honoring “no matter what we are doing.” It matters very much what we are doing. Everyone knows that, including Chris’ husband Kerry who contradicted his wife about five minutes later. Near the end of their joint sermon, Kerry thanked people for coming to The Woodlands Church on “Christmas Eve, one of the holiest nights of the year.”

Put simply, there can be no holier or holiest night if every moment in our lives is equally holy. Either Kerry was right or his wife Chris was right. A cannot be not-A. The law of non-contradiction matters.

Every right thinking person knows that Kerry was right. His wife needed to sit down and let her husband the senior pastor deliver the correct message unencumbered by contradictions steeped in moral relativism. The culture teaches moral relativism. The church needs to correct it.

Of course, having Chris up there was the most important thing because it shows that The Woodlands Church really isn’t a Baptist Church after all. They let women preach and that shows they are culturally relevant. A little bad theology never hurt anyone.

In our holiest moments, we recognize that sound theology must defer to the secular doctrine of feminism. Some doctrines are holier than others. And relativism is culturally relevant even when it isn’t logically consistent.

 



Possibly related posts:

 

• By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Mike Adams
January 3, 2013 •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: ,
Filed Under: Columnists, Mike Adams
• Also follow Joel Johannesen on Twitter -- @JoelJohannesen

Cleaning Up After Ruth Bader Ginsburg

By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Mike Adams
November 26, 2012  •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: , ,

Of all the sloppy and confused decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in recent years, few compare with CLS v. Martinez (2010). The decision was more than just poorly reasoned. It was also based upon willful blindness toward factual misrepresentations by the defendants in the case. Justice Ginsburg authored an opinion she knew she could arrive at only by pretending to believe facts she knew were not true.

Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, offers a good critique of the decision in his new book, Unlearning Liberty. I write about it today because the decision is still causing serious problems for us in higher education. The problems are due to both a) incompetence and b) feigned ignorance concerning the holding in the case. Either way, the mess has gotten so out of hand that the only solution is state legislative intervention.

Nearly every conflict between a religious organization and a public university begins with a refusal of the group to affirm sexual practices and lifestyles that the administrators endorse. That isn’t always the case but it is too often the case. Surely, my libertarian and liberal friends agree that our public universities ought not to have official positions on such private matters. But, unfortunately, they do.

To be clear, these administrators do not simply favor toleration of alternative lifestyles. Tolerance presupposes a moral judgment they, which they refuse to offer. Instead, they use their power to make sure no one else is offering these judgments either. If any organization goes against their beliefs about sex, they simply refuse to recognize the organization.

Enter Christian Legal Society, or CLS, at Hastings College. A few years ago, they had the audacity to say that anyone who “advocates or unrepentantly engages” in sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman could not be eligible for leadership or voting membership in their official student group. They were de-recognized and then they sued.

Early in the litigation, Hastings College committed itself to a willful and knowing misrepresentation of its own policies. They specifically claimed that all groups had always been operating under an open membership or “all-comers” policy. That is to say, they were claiming that no group was ever allowed to exclude anyone from leadership or voting membership on the basis of beliefs about sex – or anything else, for that matter.

The argument was demonstrably false. At the time CLS filed suit, a gay student club, Outlaw, was forcing members to adhere to a belief statement that was favorable toward homosexuality. Additionally, La Raza, a radical leftist Hispanic organization, was requiring adherence to certain political beliefs. They were also requiring that members be Hispanic.

Nonetheless, Justice Ginsberg pretended to believe an obvious falsehood in order to fashion the following rule: public universities with all-comers policies do not violate the First Amendment when they prevent groups from selecting members and leaders on the basis of belief provided that the university does not target such groups on the basis of their beliefs.

In other words, a government entity has not really deprived a group of its First Amendment Freedom of Association rights provided it has deprived everyone else of those same rights. It takes years of working for the ACLU to develop that kind of enlightenment on the issue of religious liberty.

When confronted with the possibility that hostile groups might take over organizations they disagreed with, Ginsburg dismissed the concerns as “more hypothetical than real.” Those were her actual words. The irony is that while Ginsburg was saying she did not want to rule on a hypothetical case, she was actually ruling on a hypothetical case. Her ruling about universities with all-comers policies was based upon a case involving a university that did not really have an all-comers policy. In other words, it was a “more hypothetical than real” fact scenario.

Imagine a world with no hypotheticals. It’s easy if you try, Ruth.

Now back to reality. Just two months after Ginsburg wrote her opinion, all UNC student organizations received a memo telling them that the CLS decision required them to sign on to a new statement concerning open membership. This was odd, for the following reasons:

1) the CLS decision did not require anyone to do anything. It said the university could – not must but could – impose a ban on belief requirements if such a ban were put in place across the board.

2) No UNC campuses actually practice open membership. All of them have fraternities and sororities that require members to take oaths of membership. These groups typically have creeds or belief requirements. In other words, there has never been an open membership policy at any of the UNC campuses.

In addition to not being required to impose such a ban on belief requirements, universities in the UNC system are not even allowed to do so because they do not impose the ban across the board. But they did in anyway.

Within two years, here at my own university, the belief requirements started to disappear from religious and political organizations run by students wholly unaware their rights were being violated. The university told them to remove them in response to a non-existent mandate and they simply complied. They were duped.

When a group I now advise came to our campus this semester, its officers were told to remove officer belief requirements. I found out about it and fought them successfully with the help of FIRE Vice-President Robert Shibley. Specifically, the university altered its policies to conform to its pre-CLS practice stating that groups founded on certain beliefs can require officers and members to affirm those beliefs.

Game over. Right? Wrong.

A student reporter recently called our university and asked whether it was true that – as FIRE reported on its blog, The Torch – UNCW has now backed off its open membership policy. The university denied that it had. So I re-investigated the matter and found something very disturbing.

Just before the new paragraph stating that groups founded on the basis of belief can require officers and members to affirm those beliefs, a strange paragraph appears. In this paragraph, it says that UNCW has an open membership policy with regard to sexual orientation, religion, and a number of other variables.

So why did they specifically use the term “open membership”? And why the denial that they have in any way backed off their previous “open membership” policy – the one they did not actually practice because they had fraternities and sororities who require agreement with creeds as a condition of initiation?

The reason is simple: they are using that language as a trump card. They are preparing for the possibility that a group like CLS will come to campus and have a specific requirement for officers concerning sexual conduct. When they do, the university will seize upon language by Ginsburg, from CLS v. Martinez, which talks about the difficulty of separating status (e.g. sexual orientation) from belief (e.g. homosexuality is wrong) in the implementation of student membership policies.

Administrators will then claim that such a requirement violates their open membership policy – the one they do not actually have. Finally, Ginsburg or some other dishonest judge will pretend to believe them.

The only way to prevent this from unfolding in court to the detriment of the taxpayers is to have immediate legislative intervention. University bureaucrats are incompetent at best and scheming at worst. It’s time for lawyers in the NC House to come in and clean up the mess created by Ginsburg.

The state cannot offer less liberty than the Supreme Court requires. But as long as it does not rely upon the interpretation of federal law, it can offer more. And it should do so immediately while Republicans control the house and the N.C. governor’s mansion.

With one page of legislation, Ohio passed a law that banned all universities from interfering with the freedom of association rights of public university students. It should serve as a model for the nation. We should adopt it in the Tar Heel State and even add criminal penalties for college administrators who conspire to deprive students of their basic religious freedoms. We did it once to stop the KKK. Why not do the same to these robed and hooded academic bigots.



Possibly related posts:

 

• By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Mike Adams
November 26, 2012 •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: , ,
Filed Under: Columnists, Mike Adams
• Also follow Joel Johannesen on Twitter -- @JoelJohannesen