Sexual Harassment Firestorm And The True Problem That Has Been Mocked By The Left: It’s Something Called ‘Sin’ And ‘Our Sin Nature’

I’ll just say up front where I’m going with this.  We obviously have a problem with sexual harassment and abuse, but if you think Republicans are bad, just realize that Democrats are proving themselves to be truly evil.  You won’t find a story describing the number of Republicans facing charges of harassment or abuse compared to the number of Democrats currently facing those charges because there are a LOT of Democrats currently facing those charges and the media protects and shelters Democrats just as they did when Bill Clinton was being accused of these things and much, much worse.  And, to continue,  if you think it’s bad in America, go to a country that does not have a Judeo-Christian tradition to see what sexual harassment and abuse truly looks like – and you will be shocked at how good America is by comparison.  I am going to submit to you that the problem is sin and our sin nature, and that sexuality is deep within the beast that is man, and the only way to get the man to reign in the beast is to literally scare the hell out of him.  Which is impossible when that man has been steeped in a worldview that ridicules hell.  Again, sexuality burns hot and deep in the beast that is man; and if there is no God, if there is no heaven and no hell, then there is nothing – NOTHING – beyond your opinion versus my opinion.  A partisan vote or a media propaganda poll or for that matter a legitimate vote or opinion poll among human beings has NOTHING to do with what is right or wrong: a majority doesn’t make right any more than might makes right.  But when we return to the realization that yes, we ARE all truly created in the Imago Dei, and that male and female He created us, then we have the basis for not only returning to a culture that veers back from the vile sexual values that secular liberal human progressives have been perverting us into, but a true foundation built on God and upon eternal truths that are truly right and there are things that are truly evil.  And that abusing a girl or a woman created in God’s image is in the category of evil even if a lot of people disagree.  We have a degenerate problem and we desperately need a transcendent solution.  That’s my synopsis.

It wasn’t all that long ago that Vice President Mike Pence made a statement that shouldn’t have garnered him anything but respect and even praise, but instead resulted in widespread ridicule and condemnation: he said that he would not be alone with a woman not his wife and would never attend any event with alcohol if his wife were not with him.

And he was actually condemned and demonized for that.

The liberal Washington Post argued as it’s headline title that “Pence’s unwillingness to be alone with a woman is a symptom of a bigger problem.”  And stated:

It’s easy to make jokes about, and it’s also easy to argue that this is nobody’s business but the Pences’. But there’s a deeply troubling worldview at work here, one that has profound implications for policy — and we’re already seeing it play out at both the state and federal levels.

Let’s take just a moment to consider this pair of rules Mike Pence has for himself. He obviously thinks that every interaction he has with a woman is so sexually charged that it’s safe to be around them only if there are other people there, too. Unless someone might be drinking, in which case even the presence of a crowd isn’t enough to prevent … something from happening. There’s little distance between that perspective and that of the ultra-Orthodox Jews who refuse to sit next to a woman on an airplane, or the fundamentalist Muslims who demand that women be covered head to toe to contain the unstoppable sexual allure that renders men unable to control their urges.

That was March 30 of this year.

Pence was stating that he would never allow himself to be in a position where he could harass or abuse a woman, nor would he ever allow himself to be in a position where he could ever be accused either rightly or wrongly for having harassed or abused a woman.  He would represent himself as a man of integrity.  And truly despicable people slimed him for it.

May I offer something that no liberal progressive will never comprehend called “moral clarity”???  The accusation that Mike Pence stating that he made a moral decision to govern his own behavior is akin to Islamic culture forcing women to cover themselves displays a degree of such moral idiocy and frankly such political bias that it is so far beneath contempt to be unreal.  When it comes to morality and moral decency, liberal progressives are literally both schizophrenic and psychotic.  They have no grasp of moral reality whatsoever.

What Mike Pence did is wrong, not allowing himself to be alone with a woman who isn’t his wife.  Restraining his own conduct that way.  Far, FAR better to be a liberal like Matt Lauer and have a damn button on his desk he can push to lock a door so he CAN be alone with a married woman who is not his wife and rape her until she passes out.

All the moral wisdom and moral clarity of liberalism in one bite.

The Washington Post is a discredited partisan witch-hunting band of propagandist hacks, but let’s take the roof off of what they were claiming in light of the avalanche of sexual harassment charges that began since one of the Democratic Party’s biggest donors got revealed as basically a serial rapist.

I’m going to say a few things about Roy Moore now: first being that, very unlike Democrats with first Al Franken (even with photographs of the turd in the act proving his guilt) and then John Conyers (who acknowledged his guilt in a legal settlement for sexual harassment), Republicans IMMEDIATELY distanced themselves from Roy Moore.  Oh, no, you did NOT have a Majority Leader Mitch McConnell attempt to justify Moore hanging around the way we awkwardly watched a Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi try to justify the unjustifiable.

Now, Roy Moore’s people have poked some serious holes in many of the accuser’s verifiable statements.  Interestingly, I wouldn’t mind if the entire case against Moore stood or fell on the alleged yearbook signature that it is claimed Moore signed in the high school yearbook of the woman making the most serious accusation.  Her attorney, famous legal hack Gloria Allred, refuses to allow ANY legitimate unbiased inspection of that yearbook, acknowledges as an officer of the court that she refused to ask her client if she actually saw Roy Moore sign her yearbook, because the answer might destroy her case, and refused Wolf Blitzer’s repeated demand to claim whether or not the signature is legitimate.  Multiple other witnesses have specifically refuted the account of a different Roy Moore accuser who claims Moore sexually assaulted her behind a restaurant.  There comes a point when maybe you’ve got a valid right to question 40 year-old claims of sexual abuse that come out one month before a critical US Senate race when one side claims to have evidence that it WILL NOT release to prove or disprove assertions.

Amazingly, ABC News immediately “reached out” to all 52 Republicans for their reaction to the allegations against Roy Moore.  I could find no example of any major media outlet attempting to pin down THE 46 Democrats and the 2 supposedly “independents” who always cast their vote with the Democrats on their reaction to Al Franken and the numerous allegations against him.  Some of which are evidenced by PHOTOGRAPHS of Franken IN THE ACT.  The Republican example was THE very top hit on the page to answer my Google search.  Whereas I looked through six pages of Google hits when I changed the search phrase from Senators Republicans respond Roy Moore to Senators Democrats respond Al Franken.  The closest thing I could find was from a source called “conservativereview.com.”  Which pointed out that at the time of its article, not ONE Democrat Senator had called for Al Franken to resign.  Rather, the only call was for a “Senate ethics investigation” which has never ONCE failed to expel a Senator since 1861 no matter how heinous any Senator ever acted.  For the record, the one “journalistic” news agency that most definitely did NOT “reach out” to all the Democrats in the Senate over Al Franken was ABC News which immediately played that trick to Republicans over Moore.

It’s this shameless trick the mainstream media plays over and over again, dating back to Walter Cronkite and even way before Old Man Walter who we found out was a doctrinaire liberal and slanted the news like a doctrinaire liberal before another doctrinaire liberal named Dan Rather tried to falsely frame George W. Bush with doctored documents.

The reason Republicans are so often utter cowards is because whenever anybody says or does anything offensive in our culture, you can bet that the media will cavalry itself over to every single Republican for a reaction and force them to go on the record fer or agin.  You never see that behavior with the media when the offensive words or deeds would embarrass Democrats.

But wait, you say.  Liberalism means respect for women.

Tell that to Al Franken and his now six so-far sexual assault accusers.  In uberleftist California, tell that to the 140 women who have described “a pervasive culture of misconduct in state government” by liberal Democrats such as Raul Bocanegra and Tony Mendoza.  Tell that to the multiple staffers of Rep. John Conyers.  Oh, wait, I’m sorry, fellow black Democrat James Clyburn says all those women were all white, and you know how them cracker bitches all lie.  So scratch them because Democrats are now as racist as they are rapist.  It was because cracker bitches are all stupid liars that prompted House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to give an utterly incoherent defense of Conyers.  But she’s been a holier-than-thou faux feminist Democrat who only sees evil in conservatives all her life.

Or we can take a trip down the pages of history and tell the story of liberals’ championing women.  Tell that to “the Lion of the Senate,” Ted Kennedy, who abandoned a woman to horribly and slowly die alone in the dark and cold of a watery grave.  A better term for Senator Kennedy would be “the senator of sleaze who was a drunk sexual bully.”  Tell that to Bill Clinton, hard-core sexual predator and rapist as even the New York Times is being forced to acknowledge by the standards that liberals tried to exclusively apply only to others.  We can take that same memory train when liberal progressives FIERCELY defended rapists and even child rapists like Roman Polanksi – who was adored and defended and celebrated and eulogized after drugging and sodomizing a 13-year old girl (something Roy Moore has not been accused of doing, fwiw).  Hey, let’s watch Hollywood adore this child rapist and tell me the likelihood of whether Judge Roy Moore who didn’t sodomize any young girls to the best of my knowledge would get such an ovation from this crowd:

“But he’s… he’s an ARTIST!” the left says. You know, because Beyoncé shouldn’t be forced to write or sing music condemning homosexuality the way that other artists like wedding photographers and bakers and custom-designers ought to be forced to condone the homosexuality that flagrantly flies in the face of their Christian biblical values. Because “art” is subjective, you see, and only liberalism qualifies as the sole critic of “art.” Mind you, Hollywood has been as racist as they have been religiously bigoted, with back-to-back years of all white nominees until political correctness forced them to pick some token negroes.

You have to apply a different standard to liberal progressives.  They’re better than everyone else, you see.  They deserve special treatment.  In fact, the class that creates “entitlements” are “entitled” to special treatment.  I know that Hitler ruined the term “master race” for everyone, and so we have to come up with a different name to describe what liberal progressives think of themselves.

Harvey Weinstein was one of damn near every single liberal progressive male in THE most liberal progressive industry in the world who routinely sexually abused women.  Think back to Bill Cosby, who endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 and said that those who opposed Barack Obama were “racists” in 2013.  Before his 2015 criminal charges.  What a damn miserable loathsome roach you are, Dr. Huckstable.

As we think of how vile the mainstream media is – and it is VILE, isn’t it NBC anchor Matt Lauer, CBS anchor Charlie Rose, NPR news chief Michael Oreskes, New York Times political reporter Glenn Thrush, and political analyst Mark Halperin – consider the fact that 96 percent of media political campaign donations went to Hillary Clinton.  Remember this of Halperin and the in-your-FACE bias of ABC:

And now ABC News has left in place its Political Director Mark Halperin. ABC has done this despite the network’s acknowledgement that Halperin wrote a memo that to many seems to direct ABC reporters, anchors and producers to slant its coverage by downplaying the misstatements of Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry and by viewing negatively any misstatements by Republican candidate Bush.

I’ve been saying it for years now.  These people are as dishonest as the sun is hot.

Not that the sun has anything whatsoever to do with global warming, mind you.  Heat, as we all know, is entirely produced by man and specifically through CO2 – a substance that scientifically stupid people idiotically believe is necessary for trees and for life – but really is a poison that should be banned even though anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

And now think of who was administering that bias.  Take a moment to realize that when conservatives called these people “fake news,” it amounted to FLATTERY compared to what they truly are and always have been.  Because all these people who are such miserable roaches it is beyond unreal get to write our news for us.  These morally-diseased slimebags get to tell us what is true and what is false.

Democrats and liberal progressives didn’t bat an eye when Hillary Clinton received tens of millions of dollars from countries that systematically abuse women.

And now we all know why: because all the damn liberal progressives were systematically abusing women, too.

Just remember what the Democratic Party taught us just in the 90s alone: that a young woman getting on her knees to give a powerful man blowjobs in the workplace office is perfectly A-OK, and that all the women who accuse such powerful men of any misconduct are trailer trash and you can patently disregard anything they say.

Women are good for one thing and to do that one thing they need to do only two things: get on their knees and open their mouths.  But not to talk.  Every single Democrat – EVERY SINGLE ONE – taught America that fact in 1999.

And the mainstream media helped them write that truth and repackage it into something entirely different than what it actually was.

Let’s not leave out another very top Democrat Party machine: the tech industry.  Like all the rest of liberal progressives, the tech industry is a woman-abusing machine, too.

Ninety-nine percent of the woman-abusing tech industry’s campaign donations went to Hillary Clinton.

We can look at the college and university campuses that are steeped in secular humanist progressive liberalism and see the shocking statistics of sexual assault.  Their very own worldview created this toxic system.  There’s been a more than 200% increase in assaults on college campuses; and women are more likely to be sexually assaulted on those bastions of secular humanist progressive liberal values than damn near anywhere else.

We can now also look – sadly – at our military and see how the secular humanist, liberal progressive policies of Barack Obama made our military machine a stinking bed of sexual assault and sexual harassment.  It absolutely SKYROCKETED under Obama’s watch, most especially during Obama’s 2nd term – where as he told the Russian president while he was colluding with Russia on a hot microphone, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”  And Obama EXPLOITED that “flexibility” in incredibly vile ways.  The dishonest mainstream media says that Obama was “fighting” sexual harassment/assault.  Baloney: both SKYROCKETED under him because of his policies as Obama abandoned all history, all tradition, all religion, all science about human biology, and imposed politically correct dogma as some kind of “solution.”

Just like in the Obama military, the vile record of sexual assault on secular humanism-dominated college campuses TRIPLED during Obama’s second term.

Now the amazing thing is that most women vote for this.

Now, I have just in the space above categorically demonstrated and documented that liberal progressives have absolutely no right and no platform to lecture anyone about the treatment of women or what is good or bad for women.  They themselves are a massive part of the damn problem.

If liberal progressives or Democrats want to pretend that the answer lies in education or “sexual harassment training,” allow me to simply state from the outset that the very ones “training” everyone else are themselves sexual predators and sexual harassers.

And anyone who wants to tell me that “we need more women” has to deal with the fact that women have overwhelmingly voted for these horrible, awful people.  Women are part of this too.  And women are corrupt.  I think of all the women who knew damn well what was going on and kept their mouths shut because the rapists and the sexual harassers were Democrats and they were ideologues who put their politics first and everything else second.

I think of liberal “journalist” Cokie Roberts who said that she knew for YEARS that John Conyers was a serial sexual harasser or worst and that “We all knew to avoid getting in an elevator with Rep. Conyers.”  But he was a Democrat, so we just took the stairs, let him prey on the stupid girls who didn’t know not to get in that elevator, and kept our mouths shut.  Because to open our mouths around Democrat men involves a penis being shoved in.  But we sure weren’t going to out this Democrat.

And the reason is that liberal-progressive so-called “feminists” have indoctrinated the belief that “being a woman” is numerically identical to “being a baby murderer,” such that if you don’t murder babies or believe that human life ought to have any sacred dignity whatsoever, you cannot qualify as a “woman.”

Mind you, these same liberal-progressive so-called “feminists” have arbitrarily decided that any man who decides he’s a woman IS a woman.

Understand that there are consequences to the idea that there is nothing whatsoever that is sacred about the dignity of human life.

Just like Nazism, an idea that began decades before the death camps and Zyclon B, ideas have consequences.

You cannot deny humanity and not have that evil ultimately emerge.

According to evolution, there is nothing special or sacred or dignified about you.  According to evolution:

humans are a tiny little twig representing one species among so many millions on this enormous arborescent tree of life

And any unwillingness to accept evolution merely:

represent our unwillingness to give up on the notion that there is meaning out there expressed in human terms, which is a kind of ultimate hubris.

Try to comprehend that any “morality” is a fabrication:

Asian Homo erectus died without issue and does not enter our immediate ancestry (for we evolved from African populations); Neanderthal people were collateral cousins, perhaps already living in Europe while we emerged in Africa… In other words, we are an improbable and fragile entity, fortunately successful after precarious beginnings as a small population in Africa, not the predictable end result of a global tendency. We are a thing, an item of history, not an embodiment of general principles.

Ah, yes, arguments of moral worth in evolutionary terms come up with the reasoning of Joseph Goebbels:

Certainly the Jew is also a Man, but the Flea is also an Animal.

Stephen Jay Gould phrased the worldview bluntly, stating that “there’s no reason humans are ‘higher’ life forms than bacteria or insects” [in Biography Magazine, March 1998, page 110].

A female is a human being, but the embryo is also a Homo Sapiens.  And that argument is actually true where Goebbels’ is intellectual evolutionary gibberish only if evolution is true and God is not.  Otherwise, we make up our own rules: the Jew is human if we allow the Jew to be human and the Jew is not human if we decide by popular vote or by dictator’s decree is not.  Barack Obama gave us all a classic example of this when he assured us that marriage was between one man and one woman until he decided it wasn’t.

It’s not enough to say that there is no meaning, no value and no purpose apart from a Creator God: there is no POSSIBILITY of any ultimate meaning, value or purpose apart from God.  And that is a rigorously proven fact.

Fact: there is a God OR it is perfectly appropriate to rape women; versus the Bible which has a decidedly different view:

In a  recent book, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion,¹⁰ authors Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer claim that rape is “a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage,” just like “the leopard’s spots and the giraffe’s elongated neck.” In other words, rape is a biological “adaptation” that allows undesirable males the opportunity to pass on their genes. According to Randy Thornhill, “Every feature of every living thing, including human beings, has an underlying evolutionary background. That’s not a debatable matter.” According to the anthropology department at the University of California Santa Barbara, “That rape might be an adaptation is a reasonable hypothesis to pursue, and the proper framework is intersexual conflict.”¹¹ If rape is just an evolutionary adaptation, then how can it be immoral?

The Bible says that morality is a result of choices that people make, and not the result of some conditioned evolutionary response. Is there any experimental evidence supporting this viewpoint? In a newly released book, Three Seductive Ideas, Harvard University psychologist, Jerome Kagan, makes the claim (and backs it up with experimental evidence) that humans are radically different from every other species of life on earth. Dr. Kagan refutes the ideas of evolutionary psychologists, including “infant determinism” (the idea that all human behavior is set by age 2) hedonism (the idea that all human behavior is motivated by a desire to maximize pleasure and minimize pain), and “abstractionism” (the idea that all human behavior is controlled by a limited set of laws or rules). He points out that men who committed terrible atrocities had loving parents during their childhood years and that “evolutionary arguments are used to cleanse greed, promiscuity, and abuse of stepchildren of moral taint.” Instead, Dr. Kagan shows that humans are a special creation, endowed with a spiritual nature, and motivated by a desire to maintain a feeling of virtue, which is unique among sentient animals. He points out that there are no non-human animal models for human pride, shame, and guilt. Humans also appreciate the difference between moral right and wrong. According to Dr. Kagan, “Not even the cleverest ape could be conditioned to be angry upon seeing one animal steal food from another.” According to a recent review of the book in Science, “The idea of the duality of human nature (of meaning over and above mechanism, or mind over and above mechanism, of angel over and above beast), and of the remarkable discontinuity of human nature from everything that came before, is alive and well for Kagan precisely because he has such a high regard for facts.”¹²

The Bible makes a startling claim about human nature and it makes that startling claim over and over again:

• Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.  God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth — Genesis 6:11-12
• For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God — Romans 3:23
• “When they sin against You (for there is no man who does not sin) and You are angry with them and deliver them to an enemy, so that they take them away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near — 1 Kings 8:46
• as it is written, “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE — Romans 3:10
• For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. — Isaiah 64:6
• Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins.  — Ecclesiastes 7:20

I could go on and on.  Interestingly, there are far more verses that point out that sin is universal to human nature and that we are all sinners than there are in the New Testament.  Look at these passages for yourselves.

There is a God.  That is why we are held to an objective moral standard which does not change the way secular – or should I now start calling it “sexular” – humanist liberal progressive pseudo-morality changes practically every damn day.  There simply is no such thing as “objective morality” to a liberal.  There are zero grounds for that.  “Morality” for them is an opinion poll, and usually from a doctored survey, at that. And so, no, there is nothing objectively morally wrong with rape or any other kind of sexual harassment with liberal progressives, according to their moral system.  And to whatever extent they even actually HAVE a “moral system,” they are so hypocritical and filled with so many perverted double-talking double standards that we are right to mock these self-righteous preening modern-day Pharisees for whatever “morality” they now claim to stand for.

There IS something called “sin,” and we are ALL guilty of it.  Some of us are more guilty than others, and yes, I truly do believe that there will be levels of reward in heaven and there will be levels of suffering in hell.  But there is something called “sin,” and sin is anything we think, say or do that is in violation with the character of God because:

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  — Genesis 1:27

And our holy, righteous Creator holds us each and every one accountable to the image of God, the Imago Dei, that He instilled every single human being with.

That is why we are ALL valuable as human beings, male and female, and it is why Democrats are murderers to the tune of 60 million babies which is tenfold more murderous than the Nazis in the Holocaust and counting.

The Bible tells us that “it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).  The Bible tells us that “God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7).  We’re told that God “will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:14).  On the last day, on Judgment Day, that every human being whether small or great will face, every act, every thought, every intent, every word will be revealed and will be judged.  And God will not allow even ONE sin, one sinner whose sins are detected, into His heaven.  Atheists and Secular humanist liberal progressives mock this and viciously attack the God of the Bible.  They call Him “judgmental,” which is a VERY JUDGMENTAL thing for them to do, especially given HE has the right to judge them as their Creator and they don’t have the right to judge HIM.  But the reality of heaven and the reality of the other destiny of hell are the basis for any true morality.  Why should I be good and not evil?  Why should I be good and not evil if I am powerful in this world and can get away with it?  One reason: because “you may be sure that your sin will find you out” (Numbers 32:23).

Let me contrast this with the teachings of Jesus.  Most people don’t know this, and the disinformation-hate-spewing dogma toward Christianity by the secular humanist liberal progressive “education system” will never tell you: but Jesus had FEMALE disciples.  Matthew chapter 28 and Luke chapter 24 records that the very first eyewitnesses to the Resurrected Jesus were WOMEN.  We have several of these women named in Luke 24:10: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, as well as other women who followed Jesus.  What is interesting is that women were not allowed to testify in Jewish court during the time of Jesus, but Jesus allowed the honor that his very first witnesses be women.  Jesus TAUGHT women, which was UNHEARD Of for a Jewish rabbit during the time of Jesus.   The word for “disciple” is used in its feminine form to describe female Christians in Acts 9:36.  Jesus was a true revolutionary who restored to women the rights and freedoms they should have had as co-image-bearers of God (Gen 1:27).  The New Testament repeatedly warns Christians, most especially men, to avoid things like “fornication” and “adultery” that secular humanist liberal progressives openly mock and revile and ridicule.

Women do not need secular humanist progressive liberalism or the Democratic Party that champions that vile worldview: what women need is JESUS and the Christianity that truly seeks to follow their Lord and their Savior.

One of the things that liberalism gave us is rampant pornography and the pornification of our culture.  There are ALL KINDS of studies that document on this degraded and despicable act of Democratic Party liberalism upon our culture and upon the male mind.  Quote from a Harvard study:

The first way in which pornography undermines some males’ internal inhibitions against acting out their desires to rape is by objectifying women.

To whatever extent that “feminists” today are starting to turn on pornography as a demon that feeds male lust and reduces male inhibitions to carry out the desires they were taught watching degrading pornography, the same school of “feminism” was saying the EXACT opposite thing, claiming that “we have a right to our bodies!” and with the assistance of Democrat-appointed judges who professed abject moral stupidity in being unable to see a difference between porn and art they imposed this incredibly toxic, cancerous worldview and sexually-depraved view on our culture.  When Christians who wanted to follow the clear teachings of the Holy Bible pleaded with secular humanist liberal progressives, please don’t DO this awful thing!

Please understand, the Greek/New Testament word translated “fornication” that secular humanist progressive liberals and Democrats have mocked and ridiculed is “pornea.”  You’re not that dumb to not see where I’m clearly going, and where Christians went in the 1970s when morally depraved and morally stupid liberals declared it to be harmless and a right (even as they argued that the clear rights given to Americans in the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution are NOT rights!).  Liberal justices invented this “right” out of perverted ideology.  And it has toxified our culture.  And today the same Democrats who began the process of degrading and perverting our culture continue full-speed ahead as they ignore all legitimate biological science to similarly INVENT new sexual genders and orientations on a nearly daily basis now.  For the record, God created TWO and ONLY two: they are called “male and female.”

For the scientific record, that same legitimate biological science also tells us that when a male sperm cell and a female egg are joined together, they form a genetically unique human being that is therefore genetically different from the mother or the father.  It is NOT “your body.”  It is a separate and unique child’s body.  That zygote is a being by virtue of the fact that it is alive and it is human by virtue of its parents: IT IS A HUMAN BEING.  And any legitimate scientific analysis of the cells of that human being would reveal an organism that is rigorously scientifically classified in the following manner:

Kingdom-Animal
Phylum-chordata
Class-Mammalia
Order-Primate
Family-Hominid
Genus-Homo
Species-Sapiens

Just like you and me, pal.  A zygote is a human being in an embryonic stage as much as a teenager is a human being in an adolescent stage.  And any parent can tell you there is FAR more justifiable reason to kill the latter than there is the former.

Abortion, pornography, easy divorce all contributed to abort fatherhood in our culture.

Abortion is based on the premise that at the moment of conception – and literally even up to the very moment of delivery – that is NOT a baby in the womb; that is NOT a precious human being. It’s a thing inside a woman’s body and so it’s her property and so she can kill it. And so at the moment of conception, does a father father a child? No! Not if abortion is legitimate!!! He has merely contributed to an inanimate, nonsentient lump of goop and nothing more. And what is his “fatherhood” worth when the thing he conceived is a worthless thing that can be killed at a whim?

In Satan’s hatred for God and contempt for Fatherhood, fathers are NOT fathers and have NO right to their children. Given that fatherhood has been trivialized to nothing, given that fathers are now denied the most basic right to even the very life of their own children, given the destruction of what was once the sacred bond of marriage, the glue that kept fathers cemented to their families has been dissolved.

In our popular culture pumped out by Hollywood, men and particularly fathers are further reduced to useless imbeciles only good for mockery. Males and masculinity is pretty much blamed for every ill there is. Our leftist politicians and academics have pitted women against men and declared that men are responsible for every evil in the world. In the public schools we have seen secular humanism’s war against men warp into a war against boys. And these forces have combined to fundamentally distort and warp our very notion of what it even means to be a male, to be a man. While increasingly there IS no father at home to tell these children anything different: 39% of America’s children between first and twelfth grade live in homes without a father today.

Let me tell you something: Democrats LOVE the fact that they have warped our culture into one composed of single, unmarried women who live in homes without the father of their child/ren.  Because they have exploited these women their policies created such that 70% of single, unmarried women vote DEMOCRAT.

Understand something, single, unmarried woman: Democrats are sick, twisted, perverted, warped people who do not WANT you to be happy, do not WANT your children to grow up stable, do not WANT you to have a dream of living in your own home with your loving husband who is the father of your beautiful, well-adjusted children.  Because you would vote these DemocRats right out of office.  And that is simply a statistical fact.  The longer DEMOn-possessed-bureauCRATS can keep you down, women, the longer they can isolate you, keep you without a husband and a father to your kids, the longer they can keep you in grinding poverty, on welfare, desperate, without a true man to love you and keep you and stay beside you, the longer you will keep giving them what they want.

Anyway, the problem is something that secular humanist liberal progressives mock is spelled S-I-N.  And we are ALL sinners.  So let me get back to Roy Moore.  Yes, it is possible he did what the women accusers claim he did going back forty years ago.  Sin extends to all human beings.  Even Christians.  The Bible teaches that unbelievers have a sin nature and believers have two natures: the godly nature that comes from the Holy Spirit and the old human natures.  And we have to learn how to reign in our old sinful natures that remain with us.  And that includes our sexual “issues.”

We are sinners, and sinners need a Savior.  We need Jesus.  The Bible assures us that God created us in His image, and part of that image is eternity.  The Bible says that God set eternity in our hearts (Ecclesisates 3:11).  God created heaven and God created hell.  Both are real.  Our destiny is to be in one or the other.  And the thing is that God cannot allow any sin – ANY sin – into heaven or heaven, which is perfect, cannot be heaven.  And so everyone and everything that is allowed into heaven will be morally pure and perfect.

But the Bible says quite clearly that we are all sinners.  Which is quite a problem for us, one that we cannot solve or hope to solve on our own.  God created us and created us in HIS image.  And we are held accountable to that image.

But the Bible also teaches us that the very God who created us in His image assumed OUR image, added a human nature to His deity, and came to earth to represent sinful humanity.  And while we all sinned, Christ Jesus never sinned once in anything He ever thought, said or did.  He perfectly represented the sinless, pure righteousness of a holy Creator God.  And we can have our sins washed away by His blood because after living that perfect life on our behalf, representing me, He died to pay for my sins.  Because the wages of sin is death (Romans 3:23).  And so Jesus conquered the power of sin, and because He is God and death cannot hold God, Jesus rose again bodily from the dead.  And He conquered the power of sin and the power of death.  And therefore my eternal destiny is heaven because my sins do not exist when God looks at me through the perfect righteousness of Christ.

And when I believe that, when I believe that Christ died for my sins according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3), and that He rose again from the dead according to the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:4), and I declare that with my mouth in faith, something happens.  Yes, you can still sin, but now there is also a new nature implanted within you, a nature that unlike your sin nature does NOT want to sin, but to obey the Christ who placed that nature within you.  Jesus told us that the Holy Spirit within us convicts us of sin and righteousness and judgment (John 16:8-10).  Unlike the “righteousness” of secular humanist liberal progressives, this righteousness and sin and judgment are NOT based on constantly shifting human standards that mean nothing, but come from the character and nature and power of the Living Creator God who will one day hold every single human being who has ever been born to account.

And when I truly believe these things, when I truly have God’s Spirit living within me, there is simply something inside me that won’t let me do the things we see in our culture.

If there is no hell, there are no consequences for evil. And there is absolutely no reason not to allow evil to have free reign. The bottom line is this: all atheism requires is to believe there is no God and all agnosticism requires is to doubt God; in either case, there IS no moral system. There IS no moral disqualification to atheism or agnosticism. Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot and the Kim dynasty in North Korea were and are all perfectly fulfilled atheists who murdered well over 100 million innocent human beings JUST IN PEACETIME ALONE.  One can be a perfectly consistent atheist or agnostic and be a complete moral monster in a way that is impossible to be a Christian claiming to truly follow Jesus and be a moral monster.  Because Jesus was righteous and calls upon His followers to be righteous.  Any and all “moral” rules these people come up with are first of all self-serving and hypocritical and second of all nothing but shifting sand that will change as the winds of political correctness blow. Which is why Bill Clinton was never guilty of rape even though he had credible accusers and numerous instances of sexual assault and sexual harassment even though there were numerous accusers, but today Roy Moore was pilloried as guilty merely because women said something and therefore had to be believed. Even Hillary Clinton has implicitly acknowledged that by the standard that she currently espouses, her husband and the man who still most represents the Democratic Party and Democrat values belongs in a prison cell doing hard time for his outrageous and depraved violence toward women.  Back then, Democrats claimed that all the women who said Bill assaulted them or worse should NOT be believed, and mocked them by claiming that they were trailer trash.

If you think all this crap that you are seeing going on all around you is wrong, then you turn to the antidote to sin: you turn to the only way out of sin, past sin, through sin.  You turn to Jesus.

Liberal progressives have now thoroughly proven that their way may seem right to them and even to a depraved culture, but in the end it is the way of death (Proverbs 14:12).  The Bible warns about them and their ways: they say what God declares is evil and what they declare is good, but they are in for a terrifying end (Isaiah 5:20).

That’s the bottom line.  And liberals are themselves proving that what the Word of God declared centuries ago remains as true today as when God first declared it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Dishonesty And Hypocrisy Of The Establishment Coming Out In Rabid Rage Against Trump While Whitewashing Clinton Machine

Let’s get a few things out of the way: do I support Donald Trump?  Have I EVER supported Donald Trump?  Hell no.  I literally cried when it was obvious he was going to win in a horribly divided GOP primary where none of the field was able to truly gel any real support and Trump was able to win by process of division.  And I don’t have time to link to it, but you can see what I had to say way, WAY back when Trump said his despicable remark about John McCain as a POW and mocked his heroism and sacrifice of those who suffered more than any other servicemen for being American warriors.

It’s Donald Turd versus Hellbound Clinton.  And the question before the voters is “Who is the least worst?” and even more importantly, “Who has the less vile and destructive vision for America?”

So that said, am I voting for this turd?  Yeah.  I have never been more politically miserable in my entire life, but yeah.  Things are getting really bad in America, and only the worst fools don’t realize it; last election we had a choice between a man who, as a Mormon, believes that Jesus Christ is the spirit brother of Lucifer and a man who actually IS the spirit brother of Lucifer.  That was awful enough.  This race now is a race to the very bottom of the cesspool and the one who comes in second to the bottom of the sewer will be your next president.  And as bad, as awful as Donald Trump is and frankly always has been, Hillary Clinton is utterly evil.  She is corrupt, she has sold out America.  She is literally a traitor in giving away with utter contempt and disregard our national security.  And what she did she did under color of authority.

So we have this “leak” of a tape of Donald Trump that is eleven years old but somehow just came out.  It was owned by NBC, which hired Donald Trump and profited off of him for ELEVEN YEARS.  NBC aggressively promoted Donald Trump on all their programs for YEARS.  But as always in liberalism what is wrong is right until it becomes convenient for it to be wrong again.  That is how these loathsome hypocrites ALWAYS operate.  And when Donald Trump was their money machine and they very clearly didn’t believe he had done anything wrong when he was their money machine.  If you don’t think that’s fair, let me just ask you this: why didn’t NBC bring this to light over a decade ago?  Why did they just suspend the NBC-affiliated employee who was in the video with Trump now?  Why the hell is this only unacceptable NOW???

NBC and ALL of the media culture SWIM in the vile depiction of women.  But it is only an awful thing when a Republican can be slimed for it.

Hillary Clinton has built her entire political career deriving her success from her husband’s political success.  It was always, “When WE were in the White House…”

Well, if you get to take credit for the good, you get to take credit for the bad, Hillary.  If you get to take credit for Bill’s economy, you get to take credit for Bill’s lustful and degenerate appetites and his contempt for women that you spent your life whitewashing and enabling.

And so when WE were in the White House WE were manipulating young female interns to get on their knees and give US oral sex.  When WE were governor of Arkansas WE were sexually harassing a number of women, including Paula Jones.  And then WE called women like her “trailer trash” and WORSE.  WE created a “bimbo eruption squad” to destroy these women personally.  When WE were attorney general of Arkansas, WE were rapists.

WE had our law license taken away for the worst kind of dishonesty.  WE paid an $850,000 fine for our lies and our slander and our actions.  Altogether, Bill paid out about a million bucks for his vile immoral behavior toward multiple women.

Even the left now acknowledges that Juanita Broaddricks rape allegations against Bill Clinton are credible.  Before telling us that the woman who got off other rapists and “stood by her rapist” while taking credit for everything people think he did that were good somehow means we should put a rapist in the White House by proxy through his wife.

Because Bill the rapist WILL be in the White House and WILL be in charge over the most important thing in America, according to Hillary herself.

As you demonize Donald Trump for his vile “locker room” remarks, consider it’s not even CLOSE to what the Clintons did – especially when you also realize that Hillary decided to represent a rapist of a young girl whom she KNEW was guilty of rape, got him off on a trivial technicality, and laughed about it and mocked the girl who was raped after going after that child on the grounds that hey, she got herself raped – what a SLUT that little girl had to be.

Bill and Hillary are rapists together.  One rapes, one gets off rapists.  And booth will rape America every chance they get.

Trump is a horrible man now.  But I remember when Bill was dealing with all this stuff and somehow none of it mattered.  So why does it matter now, other than the fact that to be a liberal is to be a hypocrite???  Because people like me understand that it doesn’t matter WHO gets in the White House, WE WILL HAVE A HORRIBLE HUMAN BEING IN THE WHITE HOUSE.  Unless Hillary gets elected; then we will have A MATCHING SET OF HORRIBLE HUMAN BEINGS.

The left always comes out with, “They’re just coming out with these allegations because of politics.  Well, this is NOTHING more than politics.

And when the Clintons point a finger about sexual garbage, there are three fingers pointing right back at them.  But the media ignores that.

No one is paying attention to the other revelation that came out on the same day: when it was revealed that Hillary Clinton is for open borders and Hillary Clinton gleefully told her Wall Street pals that she has one position for the public and a completely different position that she’s actually going to pursue behind closed doors.  Hillary Clinton literally told her Wall Street buddies who gave her a quarter of a billion dollars that she wants all these horrible trade deals so they can get rich bankrupting the middle class.

Rudy Guliani claimed that Hillary was for open borders, and Politifact said it was a pants on fire lie.  But now we know that Politifact is the real pants on fire lie.  We’ve got the biased media and we’ve got the biased media fact-checkers backing up the lies of the biased media.  That’s what we’ve got today.

But don’t look at that; no, instead look at the egregious behavior of Donald Trump – and forget that you were told to ignore far, FAR worse from Bill Clinton when he was a rapist, a serial sexual harasser, a serial predator of young women.

This race has really ALWAYS been about which candidate will pick which Supreme Court Justices, whether America believes that socialism and regulation and taxation will make American businesses more prosperous and hire more American workers or whether it will continue to destroy entrepreneurship in this country which under Obama is the worst in the history of that statistic.

I’m holding my nose as I’ve never held it before.  And I’m voting for the lesser or two very evil evils.

 

Terrorists Unite. Democrat Black Lives Matter And Islamic State BOTH Want Same Thing: Gunshots To Our Police And Death To Our ‘Oppression’

I still remember the communist slogan that was also the Democrat Party’s union boss slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!”

Now it’s “Terrorists of the world, unite!”  And Black Lives Matter has demonstrated very well that the formula “Islamic State = Black Lives Matter” is proven.

Yesterday I documented the fact that the same FBI – acronym now standing for “Fool Bureaucratic Incompetence” – that failed to indict Hillary Clinton no matter how damn beyond obvious her guilt was has failed at least FOUR times to intervene with terrorists with obvious histories of radicalism from massacring Americans in terrorist attacks.

Our entire system has been turned against itself; it is now a giant, broken reciprocating engine with every single downward stroke creating more and more and more internal damage as the metal is worn down until parts clash and gears are broken and the entire thing just implodes if not explodes.

Our society is headed for complete breakdown.  With hell to surely follow.  Anyone who is not a fool should see our end coming.

Not only can’t we stop Islamic radicals from attacking us EVEN WHEN OUR FBI KNOWS ALL ABOUT THEM, but we can’t even stop a criminal traitor from becoming our damn PRESIDENT!!!

America is a pig all ready for slaughter and like the pig we the people are the very last ones to realize it.

And, frankly, whether you are horrified by the prospect of Hillary Clinton or horrified by the prospect of Donald Trump, there is one and ONLY one man who is responsible for the climate of vicious and rabid anger that has permeated the very soul of this nation – and that one man is Barack Obama.  He set out to BREAK the Republican Party and he has succeeded beyond the wildest nightmare in enraging half the nation while at the same time radicalizing his own party so that what was lunatic fringe Democrat just a few years ago is now “mainstream Democrat Party” ideology today.  As I’ve shown elsewhere by literally predicting it –

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit.  Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is UN-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States.  And when we get a hard-core right wing president the way Obama has been a hard-core left wing president, Obama and the Democrat Party and all of those who voted for Obama and the Democrat Party will be entirely to blame for that president and his extremist actions.  You mark my words.  Because what goes around comes around, and if a Democrat can set aside the law the way Obama has now repeatedly done, well, guess who’s going to be stomping on your necks under your own president’s prior justification???  Conservatives are rising up in a spirit of righteous outrage.  You have repeatedly slapped us in the face through your messiah Obama, and the time is coming when we’re going to punch you hard in the nose and then keep on punching.  And when that day comes, liberals, look to yourselves for blame. — My exact words from June 18, 2012

Donald Trump is on OBAMA more than on anyone else.  Obama’s chief joy in life was sticking the Republicans in the eye and then exploiting their ensuing outrage as if he was as shocked by it as the [gambling] Captain Renault was shocked to “learn” there was gambling going on at the Casablanca.  Right after which he was handed his own winnings.  Obama knew full damn well what he was doing, poking the beast in the snout and then acting shocked that it became angry and pointing at it and saying, “Look at this monster!”  And I have the prophetic credibility that comes from explaining why three years before it happened.  Donald Trump – or someone even WORSE – is the natural, inevitable result of Obama.  And if Hillary Clinton succeeds, the next inevitable result will be ten times worse or he will be the Antichrist himself.  Because she is an even more divisive figure than he is and her entire career has proved it.

So don’t gasp in horror that Republicans picked a Donald Trump, ye Democrats who had already crowned a criminal and in fact a traitor.  Nobody BUT a criminal and a traitor installs an illegal secret server, then purges tens of thousands of emails from it, then uses Bleachbit to destroy all traces, while smashing 13 smart phones and five iPads.  That is NOT the behavior of anyone who should have EVER been close to the White House, let alone president.  That’s the actions of a drug cartel kingpin, or a the leader of an international child molester ring.

Two of the most loathsome things that came out of the wicked, depraved, vile soul of Barack Hussein Obama is Islamic State and Black Lives Matter.

We just saw it played out: on the same day we suffered two Islamic State-inspired terrorist attacks: one in Minnesota, where an Islamic State-inspired terrorist stabbed 9 people with a knife after screaming at them about Islam, and the other in New Jersey and New York, where an Islamic State-inspired terrorist used pressure cooker bombs against the American people.

Then it’s a matter of a couple of days later that we have Black Lives Matter-inspired riots in Charlotte, North Carolina.

And now we are finding out that these two bowel movements spawned by Obama have basically the same basic goals.

Ahmad Rahami, the terrorist bomber, wrote in his journal:

“Inshallah [God willing] the sounds of the bombs will be heard in your streets. Gunshots to your police. Death to your oppression.”

And I remember the Black Lives Matter words from a rally led by Al Sharpton:

Leader: “What do we want???”

Mob: “DEAD COPS!!!”

Leader: “When do we want it???”

Mob: “NOW!!!”

And just like Captain Renault in Casablanca, Democrats are shocked, SHOCKED!!! to learn that anyone would associate the appeals to murder police with the actual assassination of police officers in numerous attacks all over the country by the very same racist group that has been calling for it to happen to begin with.

Democrats are evil people representing an evil ideology, literally defiantly representing the devil and just as defiantly rejecting the God of the Bible.  If God hates it, Democrats love it; if God loves it, Democrats hate it.  It’s about as simple as that.

Oh, by the way, Ahmad Rahami pledged allegiance in his journal to Islamic State.  The same journal I quoted from above when he called for Gunshots to our police.  And guess who is trying to whitewash away that connection to “JayVee” Islamic State???

The man suspected of attempting a series of terror attacks in the US claimed he was inspired by Isis in a blood-soaked journal discovered after he was shot by police.

Ahmad Khan Rahami is accused of detonating a bomb that injured more than 30 people in New York, as well as another device targeting a military charity run in New Jersey and two others that did not explode as planned.

In a federal charge sheet filed on Tuesday, authorities revealed the existence of the journal and said it contained praise for Nidal Hasan, who massacred 13 people at Fort Hood in Texas, “brother Osama bin Laden” and Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-Yemeni al-Qaeda recruiter killed in a US drone strike in 2011.

Officials made no mention of the so-called Islamic State in the indictment, but photos of the journal have revealed direct references to the terror group’s chief propagandist and second-in-command, Abu Muhammad al-Adnani.

It reads: “I looked for guidance an Alhumdulilah [praise God], guidance came Sheikh Anwar [al-Awlaki], Brother Adnani/Dawla.

“Said it clearly attack the kuffar [disbelievers] in their backyard.”

Adnani, the head of Isis’ feared “Emni” security service and its propaganda wing, was killed in a US air strike in the Syria last month.

He was known for speeches calling on supporters to launch terror attacks around the world, which have been directly cited by several jihadists who carried out atrocities in Europe and the San Bernardino massacre in California.

Rahami’s journal appears to specifically refer to Adnani’s last announcement, released in May, which called for “soldiers of the caliphate” who could not travel to Isis territories to attack civilians “day and night” wherever, and however, they could.

The ramblings also refer to two names used by Isis for areas it controls in Iraq and Syria – “Dawla” and “Sham”.

Despite repeated allusions to the group, there was no mention of Isis in a charge sheet released by prosecutors earlier this week. The reason for the omission was unclear.

Official documents include several other passages from the journal, which ended with the message: “Inshallah [God willing] the sounds of the bombs will be heard in your streets. Gunshots to your police. Death to your oppression.”

It also saw Rahami announce his wish for “martyrdom” in the name of jihad.

It’s not “unclear.”  It’s not a “coincidence” that the SAME administration that has steadfastly refused to even use phrases such as “radical Islam” or “Islamic extremism” would somehow omit the clear and obvious connection between a terrorist that Obama failed to stop and his link to the Islamic State that he has trivialized.  “Unless you’re either pathologically stupid or a liberal whose goal in life is to protect Obama [and Hillary Clinton] from the consequences of their utterly failed policies.

This is yet another of now numerous attacks in the United States and thousands of attacks across the world from the Islamic State that Obama has consisntely mocked and trivalized and underestimated and ignored.

Just as Hillary Clinton totally and completely ignored desperate calls for additional security in Benghazi.  And then proceeded to try to bait-and-switch “planned terrorist attack” to a “spontaneous uprising” complete with heavy mortars and detailed strategic targeting coordinates and coordinated human assault.

By the time Obama leaves office, terrorism will have skyrocketed by one-thousand, nine-hundred percent.  When if it had merely increased by one-hundred percent (i.e. doubled), it would be an unforgivable failure.  But if they can continue to play this game of outright, dishonest deceit, they can install another pathologically demonic failure to power for another eight years of misery both in America and around the world where fifty million children don’t have homes because of Obama’s catastrophic failure to lead anything in the right direction.

And we’re seeing at the same time the same pathological, rabid hatred for America coming from “blacks” ignited to rage and hate by Obama that we are seeing from Islamic State.  Because Black Lies Matter.  And Barack Obama has lied to this group and convinced them that it is white [Republican] racism that is to blame for all their woes rather than the Democrats who have led their ruined cities to despair for a century.

And so, amazingly, we are seeing rioting in cities with black mayors, black city councils, black prosecutors, black police chiefs and even black police officers who are ALL institutional Democrats.  As were the ones who held these offices before them, and the ones who held office before them, etc.

Whenever a Democrat does something truly evil, the only thing to do is blame the Republicans.  Blame racism.  Blame white people.  Blame men.  Blame people who worked hard all their lives to save for their children.

And Obama has spawned a generation of butthurt black people to respond with bitterness and savage, animal hate in the face of any and all evidence and all human reason to the contrary.

Does that sound racist?  Well, the black people we are watching rioting and acting like animals are not inferior because they are black; they are inferior because they are DEMOCRATS who have been imbued with the spirit of the Democrat Party.  And the spirit of the Democrat Party denies that human beings are created – CREATED AND NOT EVOLVED – in the image of a holy God; and instead claims that black people and frankly all people are roaches that evolved by a meaningless, purposeless, valueless process of random evolution to be incapable of human morality and can do whatever the HELL they want because they are NOT morally accountable to any God who did NOT create them.

According to Darwinian evolution, it is no morally different for me to rape, torture and murder someone as it is to sacrifice my life for that same someone.  In point of fact, it is “morally” worse according to evolution for me to sacrifice myself instead of raping; because the greatest act in evolution is to pass my DNA to the next generation.  Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest: those are the ONLY two moral teachings of evolution.  If you pass on your DNA, congratulations, you belong to the “fittest.”  And evolution teaches without any question that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING you have to do to ensure that outcome is the “moral” thing to do.  So STEAL (for those of you in Charlotte, LOOT), RAPE, MURDER.  Do whatever you have to do or for that matter want to do to ensure that you father as many children as you can, no matter how illegitimately according to meaningless biblical morays.

Violence is merely a legitimate means to an end, according to evolution.

Because right is WRONG if what Democrats believe about “science” is true.

And so why should the shocking video coming out of Charlotte be any surprise?  It is ALL that these people are capable of.

Blacks make up 13% of the population but are responsible for 52% of all homicides according to the DoJ.  And like Captain Renault, they are shocked – SHOCKED – that the police would treat them different from the racial groups that AREN’T murdering.

Black cities are hell holes.  And they are hell holes because in the wordage of Genesis 6:11 they are filled with corruption and violence in God’s sight.  And they are filled with corruption and violence because they are filled with DEMOCRATS who live out the Democrat worldview and the Democrat lifestyle.

And as a result, the police do their job very, very differently.  And if you want them to quit policing that way, then get your damn acts together and stop acting like Darwinian/Democrat animals.

I always marvel how the media has for DECADES refused to confront Democrats such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton with questions that would expose their rabidly hostile attitude to the God of the Bible and to what the God of the Bible teaches as right and as wrong in His Word as they falsely claim to be “Christian.”  The same snide, dishonest “journalists” will do everything they can to trap every single Republican to “expose” them in some politically incorrect position that they can exploit to frame those Republicans as “hateful” or “intolerant.”

Meanwhile, consider Islam.  Muhammad came along a full six centuries after Jesus.  And Muhammad radically rejected Jesus and everything He stood for and everything the God of the Holy Bible stands for.  Muhammad screamed, “I am not in any way, any shape or any form accountable to THAT God or what He teaches!”  And not considering himself accountable in any way to the God of the Holy Bible, he proceeded to invent his OWN god.  And then began to force people to believe in his god and punish and persecute and murder those who refused.

For the record, the god that Muhammad invented permits rape, too.  Just follow the rules of Islam and you can rape and rape and rape again with impunity.  By the way, you get to loot and murder, too.  Just like Black Lives Matter is doing in Charlotte!!!

Both groups: godless Democrats who hate any god at all; and Islamic extremists who invented a god that glorifies their hate, seek to impose their truly Godless religions on the people by FORCE.  And if you think Obama isn’t forcing people, just refuse to pay your taxes, or refuse to obey all the regulations Democrats have imposed, or for that matter be a Christian who refused to participate in homosexual marriage because your God of the Bible teaches you with crystal clarity that marriage is only between one man and one woman.  And see what happens to you.

Both religions of Democrat Party socialist worship of the State and radical Islam invariably end in fascism and totalitarianism for a very good reason.  They are both merely two variants of the same rejection of our true Creator God who made man in His own image and holds His image-bearers accountable to His ways revealed in His Word.

There is now a one-to-one correlation to the violence and hatred for America that we are seeing from Obama-inspired Black Lives Matter activists and thugs and Islamic State.  They both hate police.  They both hate America that is “oppressive” in the vile worldview they have been indoctrinated to believe in.

Which is why they are both doing pretty much the same thing.

 

 

 

Brock Turner, Stanford, College Rape Culture, And The Liberal Progressivism That Is Responsible For All Three

So let’s start with the current story of the vile punk rapist who got a joke six-month sentence which was apparently twice as harsh as it should have been given the fact that they released him in three.

And decent people are left saying, “What the hell…?”

And the ONLY reason liberals are angry is because women constitute one of the perennial victim classes that make up the left.  And how dare you prey on one of our victim classes when it is our coalition of victim classes that is supposed to be able to ride political correctness to exploit everyone else instead?

I recently read an LA Times op ed titled, “Understanding the Nate Parker scandal” by Michael Eric Dyson in which the author rehashes every leftist slogan as he tries to swim through the waters of liberal butthurt women and black butthurt activists who both demand that their sacred cows remain sacred.  I mean, gosh, they’re both such victims, and what happens when one liberal protected victim class preys on another liberal victim class?  It’s GOT to be the white man’s fault; it’s just GOT to.  So the conclusion of the article would seem to be that every time a black man rapes a white woman, a white male should do hard, painful time for it.  Because otherwise the piece was a load of patronizing leftist drivel.

Allow me to dive in – since this is a story about a rapist swimmer – and offer my own op ed on the gist of this despicable story.  Brock Turner is an entitled punk who doesn’t believe he should be held responsible for his own actions; Stanford is one of the most leftist liberal progressive major universities in the nation, and “college rape culture” is the inevitable result of leftist Darwinian values, in that order.

We start with this pathetic little worm Brock Turner and the sense of entitlement that permeates his little roach soul.  The view is, “If I want something, someone else should provide it for me.”  You know, like if I want your money, I should vote for the government to confiscate it from hard-working people and redistribute it to me.  As I will say throughout here, it’s just the exact same entitlement worldview on a different entitlement stage.  I want your hard-earned money and you won’t give it up to me unless I redistribute it to myself; I want your sex and you won’t give it to me unless I can redistribute your unconscious body behind a dumpster.  Either way, I’m taking something that isn’t mine, and I ought to be able to do it because after all, I’m entitled and somebody somewhere owes me what I want but can’t obtain the honest way by legitimately working for it.

“Affluenza” is the latest form of stupid entitlement excuses.  It wasn’t Brock Turner’s fault, it was “the whole rotten village,” right?  But ALL of these damn excuses are vile.  “I did it because I’m rich and white” is no more morally shame-worthy of an excuse than “I did it because I’m poor and black.”  And I simply state for the record that accepting the latter entitlement excuse guaranteed that the former one would ultimately succeed, too.  So black writer Michael Eric Dyson, trying to explain or better-yet explain away Nate Parker’s behavior, blames it on “jock culture” and “male privilege.”  How about you did it because you’re a bad person and you’re going to pay the consequences of your depraved actions?

If you live by victim mentality, you ought to die by victim mentality.  Because sooner or later, you whiny victim, there will come a more whiny victim than you.  And so now the feminists who “fundamentally transformed” women into a victim class are aghast and appalled because male rapists are themselves victims.

It’s like liberal heroine Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who falsely claimed special status because she believes that somewhere in her family ancestry going back to the dinosaurs, somebody was a Native American.  It’s like that, because somewhere sometime I was a victim of something.  And I’m not responsible because after all, I’m a victim and I’ve got the entitled whining to prove it.

And thank you, liberalism.  That whole load of crap would have been impossible without the toxic pile of fecal matter that is your worldview.

So our rapist swimmer went to Stanford, of course.  Where else would a whiny liberal puke go?

Now, consider the “college culture” and whose damn culture it is:

That’s political donations.  Now consider the faculties of these indoctrination centers:

If you’ve spent time in a college or university any time in the past quarter-century you probably aren’t surprised to hear that professors have become strikingly more liberal. In 1990, according to survey data by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at UCLA, 42 percent of professors identified as “liberal” or “far-left.” By 2014, that number had jumped to 60 percent.

Over the same period, the number of academics identifying as “moderate” fell by 13 percentage points, and the share of “conservative” and “far-right” professors dropped nearly six points. In the academy, liberals now outnumber conservatives by roughly 5 to 1. Among the general public, on the other hand, conservatives are considerably more prevalent than liberals and have been for some time.

Let’s put it in terms of the Pottery Barn Rule that Colin Powel claims he told Bush before he went into Iraq: “You break it, you bought it.”

The college “rape culture” is out of control.  And you’ll find that “over the same period” that liberalism came to so entirely dominate college/university culture, rape culture came right along with it.

On the liberal diatribe, conservatives are warmongers.  How dare we want to fight back against terrorists who want to burn us alive?  Obama’s 1,900 percent increase in terrorism is surely much more peaceful, right?  But by that same diatribe that brought Obama to power, liberals are rapists.  The more liberal you are, the more rapist you are, and vice versa.

This is no accident.  It is literally a scientific progression, as I’ve described before:

And the horror that results in society is equally true of the individual who lives by Darwinism.

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Because – and I quote – “rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”  Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

One incredibly interesting read calls this “Darwin’s Dirty Secret.”

Let’s call it the ULTIMATE ENTITLEMENT EXCUSE: “I’m a rapist because I evolved that way.”

And progressive liberals “evolved” to become the most closed-minded, rabidly intolerant fascists there are.

Liberal progressivism is intellectual godlessness, and to put it in terms of Obama’s incredibly hypocritical debt, intellectual godlessness leads to moral godlessness 20 trillion times out of 20 trillion times.

If you can murder a baby, you can certainly whitewash away the act that led to the creation of that baby.

I love the Word of God, which is WHY I so passionately reject liberal progressivism which is so totally the denial of the Word of God and the God of the Bible as it is dominated by secular humanism, atheism, Darwinism, postmodernism, existentialism, behaviorism and every other vile form of “-ism” there is.  God’s Word declares:

• Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from God – Colossians 2:8
• Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. – Romans 1:22
• … always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.  – 2 Timothy 3:7

Whatever progressive liberalism touches, it infects with cancer.  It touched Brock Turner, just as it touched our societal acceptance of drugs and alcohol, touched our abandonment of God and His morality in favor of the amoral nihilism of Darwinism, touched the embrace of personal responsibility and replaced it with the denial of the same and the embrace of the entitlement and victimhood mindset.

You “carry your rape genes,” liberal; I’ll carry my Bible.

And the empirical fact of the matter is that the morality that comes from my Bible is so vastly superior to the depraved bile that comes out of your university system that it is far more beyond belief than the belief in God that you so ardently deny.

 

 

 

 

Guilty Even AFTER Being Proven Innocent: Liberals Talk About ‘Justice’ When COCKROACHES Are More Capable Of Justice Or Truth Than They Are

Yesterday, I wrote about the story of a liberal white woman who made a career out of deceitfully masquerading herself as black.  After beginning with the fact that there is now ZERO question that not only aren’t black people persecuted minorities in America, but they are now sacred cows by simply asking the question: “during the Holocaust, when Jews were being gassed to death by the millions, how many ethnic Germans pretended to be Jews?”  With the obvious answer of course being ZERO.  Because Jews were an ACTUAL persecuted minority and NO ONE would EVER claim to be one unless they were one and were willing to die to remain one.  I said quite a few other things as well, such as documenting the fact that the left not only doesn’t care about the fact that this woman lied and soaked up benefits that were meant for poor black people, but that they now maintain a definition of “black” that is demonically politically leftist rather than actually being based on one’s race.  And  I concluded by stating the following:

It’s really beyond amazing, now, the willingness to be deceived and to engage in self-deception the way the left is.  Everything under the sun is just an atheist-driven postmodernist and existentialist-based “social construct” with them, whether it’s the humanity of a baby in the womb or the nature of male-female relations and God’s created order or transgender identity or now even something as physically obvious as race: If Rachel Dolezal thinks of herself as black, well, she’s clearly got to be black, then.  If Bruce Jenner thinks he’s a chick, well, it would be intolerant to say he’s NOT a chick.  No matter what the hanging down parts say to the contrary because that’s only a “fact” and these people don’t give a flaming damn about facts or truth.  If I say that I’m the President of the United States, I ought to be able to kick Obama’s skinny ass out of the White House and put my feet up on the desk in the oval office, because if I think it, it’s got to be accepted as true, dontchaknow.  If I can be a woman because I say I think I’m a woman or a black woman because I say I think I’m a black woman, then why the hell shouldn’t I be the damn president because I say I think I’m the damn president???

Progressive liberalism is intrinsically fascist, and fascism is the rejection of reason.  Nazism was the rejection of reason and the embrace of raw, naked hate emotion: and that is precisely what we are seeing unleashed from the left as cities burn down and every single encounter with a black person by the police becomes the next reason to riot.  In the same manner, conservatives are persona non grata at virtually any college or university because they will be screamed down by a gauntlet of leftwing hate or worse yet banned by the universities themselves while liberal intellectuals decry the very freedom of speech itself.  And the rabid rejection of actual reality is rampant with these people: Bruce Jenner is a woman even though HE is clearly not a woman.  Rachel Dolezal is black even though anybody who isn’t blind can immediately see that she is white in spite of her black-face and her hairdresser-induced Afro.  Truth doesn’t matter; truth has nothing whatsoever to do with these people.  Progressive liberals aren’t people who listen to the truth; they are the kind of people who chant or rant or scream slogans in the faces of people who try to explain the truth to them.  Which is why the most intolerant places on earth today are the universities where leftist faculty and administrators got their foot in the door and then slammed that door shut on anyone who doesn’t think exactly like they do.

In the same way, the black leftists who are so damned fast to scream “racism” are pathologically racist themselves by their own demagoguery.  Or let me put it thus: where is the “Pan-Anglo Congress“???  Where’s the “National Association for the Advancement of Caucasian People“???  Where’s the “Congressional White Caucus“???  Where’s the “United Caucasian College Fund“???  Where are the “historically white colleges and universities” where white kids get preferential treatment for their race and receive scholarship from the aforementioned United Caucasian College Fund???  Where’s the “National White Chamber of Commerce” focused on advancing white-owned businesses???  Where are all the “historically white denominations“???  Where are all the white looters and rioters targeting black businesses for destruction as whites erupt in race riots in cities across America???  Where are the white people playing the race-game of “black bear hunting” the way black thugs do by playing their “knock-out game” of “polar bear hunting“???  If white people did what black people do on a massive scale, leftist black people would be demonizing us and slandering us and tearing their robes and pouring sackcloth and ashes over their heads as they wept and wailed in the streets.  But these same people are FINE being so racist it’s beyond unreal.

Because facts don’t matter to such people.  A demonstration and documentation of rabid hypocrisy doesn’t matter.  They are ONLY capable of seeing the speck in their brother’s eye and NEVER the giant log in their own eyes.  And every single one of these black organizations makes it official that black leftists utterly reject the teachings of Jesus and are determined to find the speck in their brother’s eye while they ignore the giant damn logs in their own.

Liberals are pathological hypocrites in so many ways that its beyond unreal.  But one of the very worst ways is their hypocrisy on free speech.  After being allowed a voice on the basis of what they claimed was an innate right to free speech, the left now demands that free speech be destroyed lest any other voice have any other right to any kind of legitimacy.

I am beyond sick at the toxic, racist and race-baiting moral filth that comes out of the pathologically hypocritical leftwing and the Democrat Party who marches to their drumbeat.

And I just want to point out here and now how I spoke as a prophet.  Because it took like one hour for Megyn Kelly to document just how absolutely true my words truly were.

Get a load of this story.

And also watch this:

With a young man’s reputation, his college education and his entire future on the line, he was denied the right to any kind to any kind of jury by his peers.  Instead he had the most leftist among untenured faculty presiding over his case.  Because liberals are NAZIS.  And “justice” to a liberal is a Nazi show trial.  He was denied to the right to an attorney in the proceedings.  They would not give him any access to discovery, by which he could have the chance to obtain relevant evidence that might undermine the case against him.  They would not allow him to cross-examine his accuser lest it intimidate her.  And they fascistically took the accusers word without a scintilla of actual evidence supporting her false accusations.  Because liberals are NAZIS.  So they kicked him out of college, publicly labeled him a sex offender.  And destroyed his life.

The lawyer he hired after he was destroyed and kicked out of college was able to factually document with the accuser’s own text messages that not only did he not sexually rape her, but in fact she sexually assaulted HIM.  There is ZERO question that he did not initiate any sexual encounter; rather the “victim” initiated it. The accused young man was able to document that the woman not only did not claim to have been assaulted on the night in question, but actually boasted about the sexual encounter.  And further he was able to document that the accuser invited ANOTHER man over to have sexual intercourse the very same night and boasted in advance that she was about to volunteer for a SECOND act of sex with a SECOND man that same night.

With this actual EVIDENCE factually proving his evidence, the student went back and asked Amherst to reopen the case.  They refused.  BECAUSE LIBERALS ARE PURE NAZIS.

This Amherst case is not the only example: we’ve got Barack Hussein Obama – the false messiah antichrist that every Democrat worships – imposing “guidelines” that make it IMPOSSIBLE for any falsely accused young man to have even a CHANCE to prove his evidence.  Because not only is he illegally and unconstitutionally deemed guilty until proven innocent, but even evidence of his actual innocence is now barred from Obama’s “justice.”  Because Barack Hussein Obama is a NAZI, pure and simple.  And this is now the THIRD MAJOR EXAMPLE OF LIBERALS DEMONICALLY DISTORTING JUSTICE TO IMPOSE FEMINAZI DICTATES UPON INNOCENT YOUNG MEN (with the Duke Lacrosse case and the recent case satanically pursued by Rolling Stone Magazine and the University of Virginia that is now obviously known to have been entirely false.

Liberals are NAZIS.  They have every scintilla of the same contempt and hate for reason and truth that the worst Nazi ever had.

And it is absolutely amazing how demonically hell-bound intent Democrats are in throwing down everything that God’s creative order (in terms of males and females and in terms of homosexuality and in terms of the sixty million innocent babies Nazi Democrats have brutally murdered) truly are.  There is now no question whatsoever that support for the Democrat Party is hatred for the God of the Bible and for Jesus Christ.

I’m watching Hillary Clinton and Democrat’s lock-Nazi-step march for their pant-suited fascist and I am just AMAZED.  This is a woman who set up her own private email account – with her own private SERVER, no less – on the fraudulent claim that she didn’t want to carry more than one device.  She was subsequently proven to be a liar when she was photographed repeatedly with multiple devices.  She purged her emails claiming they were about sensate personal emails with her husband.  But then her husband later proved she was lying by admitting that he had only sent two emails in his entire life – and neither of them was to his wife.  Now, she purged tens of thousands of emails that would have criminally indicted and convicted her for the worst kind of corruption and even TREASON (e.g., the emails that would have convicted her of treason regarding her role in the sale of HALF of the U.S. uranium stockpile to our enemy Russia), Hillary claimed that NONE of those emails dealt with government business and that she had sent ALL emails relating to any kind of government-related communications.  And now we find out that her criminal co-conspirator Sydney Blumenthal – a man so vile even Barack Obama banned him from having anything whatsoever to do with the Clinton State Department – sent her a buttload of emails that dealt with top-secret government communications but Hillary had not included them as she falsely claimed.

This woman – who is parading herself as some kind of champion for the poor – made herself so filthy rich using crony-capitalist-fascist corruption that it is beyond disgusting.  This filthy-rich whore for the rich is out demagouging hedge fund managers for their salaries when she and her husband made more for one damn SPEECH than the average working person makes in nearly twenty damn years of hard work.  And neither of them even WRITES their damn speeches; they just fly around first class on their private jet paid with charity money and read them.

We go back and consider foreign policy and national security.  Sixty-damn-percent of Senate Democrats – including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry – voted FOR the Iraq War.  But these same cockroach Democrats in an astonishing act of dishonesty and hypocrisy proceeded to blame George W. Bush for the very war they voted for.  Democrats don’t give a flying DAMN about truth or honesty or facts or integrity.  When George Bush began to implement his surge strategy, a presidential candidate named Barack Obama first said it wouldn’t work and essentially accused US troops of being war criminals, then after the Bush surge was clearly working deflected success away from Bush and the American serviceman to the Sunni sheiks.  Obama claimed it was the Anbar Awakening that resulted in victory, NOT American fighting men.  Okay, Obama you liar: WHERE THE HELL IS YOUR SUNNI SURGE????  And the answer is NOWHERE, because you were WRONG and because you LIED like the devil you are.

All along, the Democrat Party’s demonization  of George Bush – you know, other than the fact that they VOTED for his wars – was that Bush’s wars weren’t necessary and a Democrat could successfully rally the world to fight these battles.  You see, the problem is that Democrats are wicked people who believe lies and are therefore incapable of ever accepting reality; they couldn’t accept that George Bush faced the same world where no one would fight and the ONLY way to deal with terrorism was to go into the roach nests and burn the vermin out.  We either had to fight or we had to surrender.

And so Obama falsely and dishonestly claimed that he could rally the world to our cause and NOBODY is fighting for us.  AND SINCE OBAMA WILL NOT FIGHT NO MATTER THE PROVOCATION, our enemies all over the world – from ISIS that ONLY exists because America was fool enough to elect Obama – to Russia, to China, and so on, are undermining us and pushing us around and walking right on top of our faces.  And we are losing and are going to continue to lose.

We think of Hillary Clinton who masquerades as some champion for the poor when she hasn’t driven her own car since 1996.  She is the poster for “elitist white woman.”  But hey, she’ll demagogue the twenty-five wealthiest hedge fund managers as earning more than all the kindergarten teachers combined as if she and her husband hadn’t ever given a speech where they charged nearly TWENTY YEARS’ worth of the annual salary of the average damn worker.   And let’s burn Hillary’s daughter Chelsea at the stake because she’s MARRIED to one of those filthy-rich hedge fund managers.  Hillary Clinton shrilly screams about the war on women when she paid her OWN women employees pennies on the dollar for what she paid to the males who worked for her.

But Democrats don’t care.  It takes at least a tiny little bit of comprehension of actual reality to care, and these horribly depraved people don’t have any comprehension of actual reality.  It takes an honest assessment of their policies, and these people don’t have any honesty.  When it comes to Democrat politicians like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren, the bigger of a liar and the worse of a hypocrite that you are, the more Democrats will support you.  Because they’re bad people.

We are at that point of time that the Bible foretold and warned us about when there is NO GOOD in half the damned – and I mean “damned” in the full-fledged technical sense – electorate.  This is a nation that is guaranteed to go down and go down HARD because the ONLY way to avoid that scenario would be to hunt every single Democrat in this country down with dogs and burn them alive.  And we’re not going to do that.  Which probably means that we’re going to welcome the Antichrist of the Book of Revelation during the regime of a pathologically paranoid fascist criminal dictatorship of one President Hillary Rodham Clinton.

If you are a liberal – and given the fact that liberals now completely OWN the Democrat Party if you vote Democrat – you are now pathologically and rabidly hostile to truth of any kind.  You vindictively hate the truth and will have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the truth.  You are hell-bent intent on imposing a worldview by force that is based absolutely and entirely on LIES.

Why Liberals Are Modern NAZIS: The Death Of Thought And The Demise Of America Through Mindless Emotional ‘Liberal’ Outrage

As we speak, I am watching riots.  I am watching burnings and lootings of businesses, I am watching public access points being seized and blockaded, I am watching rabid calls to violence.  All in the name of “demonstrations.”

I am watching what horrified sadly-too-few Germans in the 1930s is what I’m watching.

I ask myself, how many conservative riots have there been?  The answer, of course, is zero.

Is it just black people who riot?  I mean, aside from Ferguson, we can go back to lots of other black riots, such as Watts in ’68 and so on.

But I ask myself, how many conservative black people rioted?  And the answer, of course, is zero.

This behavior isn’t about race.  It’s about a culture that has been led astray by means of an utterly depraved worldview commonly known as “liberalism.”

Interestingly, “liberalism” is about as “liberal” as “ISIS” is “religious.”  Classical liberalism held to the following values:

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

That’s from Princeton.  A strikingly similar definition pins it even better:

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government.

… It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.

By the classical definition of liberalism, I am a liberal.  I want more freedom for individuals because individuals are held accountable for their actions and therefore I want a limited government that emphasizes that liberty and freedom and corresponding duty of the individual.  Barack Obama, Nazi Pelosi (couldn’t resist) and Harry Reid are fascists bent on expanding government until individuals are free to do what government wants to force them to do by a massive system of laws, policies, rules, regulations, bureaucracies, and of course out-of-control executive orders by a now self-professed king or emperor who has fundamentally abrogated the Constitution and tossed out the Separation of Powers.

True liberals want individual personal liberty and individual personal responsibility that must correspond with individual personal liberty.  Because rights without duties is moral chaos.  And therefore true want limited government, they want a laissez-faire free market economy,  they want the rule of law and they want private property rights.  The “liberals” of today are joyfully running roughshod over all of these values as they seek to impose bigger and bigger and more and more powerful – and more totalitarian and more fascist – government.

What’s the mechanism of the left?  We’re watching it all around us today as liberals riot and burn and loot over a police officer who shot a man who had just strongarm robbed a store and brutally shoved aside its owner ON VIDEO, walked down the middle of a large avenue as if he owned it, physically assaulted a police officer in his car, punched that officer in the face, tried to take the officer’s weapon from him, and then ultimately charged the officer with murderous rage as the officer fired repeatedly at him.  That’s what the witness testimony – of at least half a dozen black people, fwiw – says and that’s what the forensic evidence says.

That was, of course, irrelevant to the left, who raced off to burn and loot and riot the moment they heard there would be no indictment of the police officer without bothering to hear the massive evidence justifying that jury decision (which included three black people).  Some examples of the eyewitness testimony:

• “Mike Brown continuously came forward in the charging motion and at some point, at one point he started to slow down and he came to a stop. And when he stopped, that’s when the officer ceased fire and when he ceased fired, Mike Brown started to charge once more at him. When he charged once more, the officer returned fire with, I would say, give an estimate of three to four shots. And that’s when Mike Brown finally collapsed right about even with this driveway.”  Read original – Grand Jury Volume 6 , page 167

• “Then Michael turned around and started charging towards the officer and the officer still yelling stop. He did have his firearm drawn, but he was yelling stop, stop, stop. He didn’t so he started shooting him.”  Read original – Grand Jury Volume 18, page 27

• “I thought he was trying to charge him at first because the only thing I kept saying was is he crazy? Why don’t he just stop instead of running because if somebody is pulling a gun on you, first thing I would think is to drop down on the ground and not try to look like I’m going to attack ’em, but that was my opinion. ”  Read original – Grand Jury Volume 11, page 181

• “Um, I guess it was like he stopped and he turned around like this, and then he started moving towards the officer and kind of looked like he picked up a little bit of speed, and then he started going down.” Read original – Grand Jury Volume 23, page 137

There were people who saw or claimed they saw something different.  But here was their problem according to the Washington Post:

And once an inaccuracy becomes part of a person’s recollection, it’s almost impossible to dislodge. Even when that person, Tversky wrote, is challenged with direct information that refutes his or her own memory. “Once witnesses state facts in a particular way or identify a particular person as the perpetrator, they are unwilling or even unable — due to the reconstruction of their memory — to reconsider their initial understanding.”

This appears to be what occurred in the Darren Wilson investigation. Even when authorities challenged witnesses with forensic evidence — which McCulloch said “does not change because of public pressure or personal agenda” — they didn’t back down. He gave as an example witnesses who said they saw Wilson pump bullets into Brown’s back, sticking with their story even after autopsies demonstrated that no bullets entered Brown’s back.

They “stood by original statements even through their statements were completely discredited by the physical evidence,”  McCulloch said.

The New York Times acknowledges:

Of the 20 or so eyewitnesses who appeared before the grand jury, most of those who spoke to the issue said they believed Mr. Brown had his hands up. But some accounts were clearly not credible and were recanted under interrogation. And of the credible witnesses whose stories were largely consistent, many were at odds with one another.

The people who claimed that Michael Brown surrendered and had his hands up and was saying “Don’t shoot” but that Officer Wilson shot him in the back, etc, were directly refuted by the physical evidence.  Many of them actually DID recant their previous inflammatory testimony when placed under oath.

There was NO WAY IN HELL A JURY WAS EVER GOING TO CONVICT OFFICER DARREN WILSON.  Just no freaking way.  Juries are loathe to convict or even indict police officers because they are loathe to second-guess men and women who they know have a difficult job which is to protect people and protect society from violent predators.

In short, most citizens agree with something Charles Barkley said:

“The notion that white cops are out there just killing black people is ridiculous. It’s flat-out ridiculous,” he said. “I challenge any black person to make that point. Cops are absolutely awesome. They’re the only thing in the ghetto (separating this place) from this place being the wild, wild west.”

This isn’t about race.  It is easy to document that there are cases of black officers who shot and killed white suspects who were not indicted for their actions, as well.

The worst thing on earth that could happen to black communities is if police officers – stung by leftist hate and violence – stopped patrolling black neighborhoods and allowed the people they are being hated for killing to run the streets.

Those are simply facts.

But the facts simply didn’t matter to the left.

The following – detailing the story of a “rape” and the brutally dismissive culture that refused to respond to the terrible and shocking crime – is manifestly descriptive of the mindset of the left today.

Rolling Stone set off a firestorm – which they breathlessly reported on after creating aforementioned firestorm – when it ran the following story.  I want you to note that the disclaimer was just added today as Rolling Stone all but refuted their own “reporting”:

A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA
Jackie was just starting her freshman year at the University of Virginia when she was brutally assaulted by seven men at a frat party. When she tried to hold them accountable, a whole new kind of abuse began
By Sabrina Rubin Erdely | November 19, 2014

TO OUR READERS:

Last month, Rolling Stone published a story titled “A Rape on Campus” by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, which described a brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie at a University of Virginia fraternity house; the university’s failure to respond to this alleged assault – and the school’s troubling history of indifference to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults. The story generated worldwide headlines and much soul-searching at UVA. University president Teresa Sullivan promised a full investigation and also to examine the way the school responds to sexual assault allegations.

Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie’s story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her. In the months Erdely spent reporting the story, Jackie neither said nor did anything that made Erdely, or Rolling Stone’s editors and fact-checkers, question Jackie’s credibility. Her friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported Jackie’s account. She had spoken of the assault in campus forums. We reached out to both the local branch and the national leadership of the fraternity where Jackie said she was attacked. They responded that they couldn’t confirm or deny her story but had concerns about the evidence.

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

Will Dana
Managing Editor

What we find when we begin to examine the “victim’s” story is that there WAS no frat party the night she claimed there was a party, that there is no staircase in the house in refutation of her account, and numerous other details prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this story was a complete and utter lie perpetuated by truly vile, depraved, wicked “liberal” fascist Nazis.

What we find is that the Rolling Stone “reporter” actually went “rape-shopping” to find the perfect story to fit her pre-conceived narrative.  This wasn’t “journalism,” it was LIBERAL journalism, which is another term for “Nazi propaganda.”  Rolling Stone didn’t even bother to do interviews with anyone who could have told the truth or reported the actual facts because the last thing liberalism cares about is the truth or the facts.  Liberals who as postmodernists mock the reality of truth the exact same way that Pontius Pilate mocked the existence of truth as he was turning away from the very embodiment of it and sentencing Him to death somehow hypocritically and dishonestly believe that they are the sole arbiters of the very thing that they deny.  And so they alone are in sole possession of “the truth” and they act accordingly.

The fraternity that was dishonestly slandered by this story was vandalized, its members threatened and ostracized.  Mobs of liberals chanted outside, “Burn this place down” over and over while they huddled inside.  As the University of Virginia, reacting to the mobs and responding to the dictates of liberalism, issued a moratorium that has STILL not been lifted essentially shutting down the frat from the right to do business.

There was a “rape,” all right.  Those young men and that fraternity were raped by progressive liberalism, which is fascism.

This story will soon be purged from the Rolling Stone database, purged from all the leftist hate sites that used it as “evidence” of their viciousness, and it will be like it never happened.

But the fascist feminist PC policies that the fascist PC Nazi university administrators and faculty implemented as a direct result of this lie will go on  forever.

Liberalism is a lie made possible by lies.  Liberalism is pathologically dishonest policies that are implemented as a result of pathologically dishonest lies from leftist liars.  The issues that liberals gin up demonic hate in order to impose their fascist tyranny change as the same people employ the same tactic again and again and again.  But the dishonesty and hypocrisy are always there.

Let’s remember this, also.  Let’s remember how a liberal fellow traveler, Meghan Daum, described the leftist mindset:

Column The University of Virginia rape Rorschach test
SHARELINE
▼Those looking closely at the UVA rape story represent a cross-section of the political spectrum
▼Questioning the UVA rape story will almost certainly get us dismissed as traitors to the sisterhood
December 3, 2014, 6:02 PM

Are you a “UVA truther”? In other words, are you an abhorrent, woman-hating, “pro-rape Republican”?.

Or are you a “feminazi” guided by “rape crisis fantasy” and driven by emotions over logic?

Those are among the epithets being hurled in the court of public opinion over the explosive allegations of a staggeringly awful rape at the University of Virginia published by Rolling Stone. In the story, a woman identified as Jackie tells of being led into a dark bedroom at a fraternity party, where seven men, with assistance from two others, raped her over a three-hour period.

The 9,000-word article by Sabrina Rubin Erdely set off a tidal wave of horror and outrage. Soon enough, though, came a trickle of inquiries into Erdely’s reporting methods, chiefly the question of why she hadn’t talked to the alleged perpetrators.

And since many of the first askers of that question had conservative or libertarian leanings, the feminist backlash was almost immediate. When The Times’ resident conservative columnist, Jonah Goldberg, examined holes in the story, his usual critics dismissed his conjectures as mere right-wing pushback against political correctness.

When a Reason magazine writer penned an evenhanded article on the case, indicating that he initially believed Jackie’s story, the liberal site Talking Points Memo nonetheless reacted with the headline “Libertarian Magazine Wonders if UVA Rolling Stone Rape Was a ‘Hoax.’” The lively feminist blog Jezebel did TPM one better: “‘Is the UVA Rape Story a Giant Hoax?’ Asks Idiot.”

Such snark is eye-catching and click-generating, but in this case, it’s not just conservatives and purported anti-feminists who are asking questions. In the New Republic, Judith Shulevitz eventually landed on an insight from lawyer and feminist social critic Wendy Kaminer, who told her, “I’d guess that the story is neither entirely fabricated nor entirely true and, in any case, compels a real investigation by investigators with no stake in their findings.”

In an interview on Slate’s feminist-leaning Double X podcast, writer Hanna Rosin confronted Erdely with questions similar to the ones her more libertarian counterparts had raised, with ambiguous results. On Wednesday, after further reporting including talking to several of Jackie’s friends, Rosin and Slate senior editor Allison Benedikt posted an article critical of both Erdely and Rolling Stone.

In the “us versus them” paradigm that so often colors discussions around gender and sexual assault , such a response might be surprising coming from a feminist. After all, it’s supposed to be the Jonah Goldbergs of the world (“idiots,” according to Jezebel) who would dare to question a woman’s account of a rape, or another woman’s account of her account. But the journalists and others who are now looking closely at this story represent a cross-section of the political spectrum.

Rosin and Shulevitz are hardly conservatives. Neither am I. Yet questioning the story will almost certainly get us dismissed as traitors to the sisterhood. If you don’t believe me, wait a few seconds for the rants from “activists” who will insist that asking rational, even obvious questions makes you a rape apologist, someone who dismisses all women’s stories or won’t admit that campus sexual assault is a problem.

Such attacks are not only absurd, they’re also insulting. They’re insulting to journalists, who know the importance of holding themselves and their sources accountable to the truth. Worse, they’re insulting to survivors of sexual assault whose stories should be told without obfuscation and equivocation. It’s that kind of murkiness, after all, that contributes to an undercurrent of suspicion of victims — an undercurrent that, unfortunately, continues to dominate many conversations about rape.

Inquiries into this story should not devolve into battles between truthers and believers, the “idiots” and the “real feminists.” Believe it or not, conservatives don’t have a monopoly on skepticism, just as liberals and feminists aren’t the only ones inclined to believe a story like Jackie’s. If those of us asking questions turn out to be idiots for not believing the story on its face, fair enough.

But last I checked, nothing cures idiocy like asking questions.

Which, ultimately, is another way of saying there’s no cure for modern so-called “liberalism.”  Because to be a “liberal” today is to be a rabid fool who spits out hate and riots over any suggestion of a question.

They are modern Nazis by a euphemistic new name.  But don’t think the tactics of Hitler and Goebbels aren’t alive and well in their demon-possessed souls.

You can’t reason with liberals because their knee-jerk reaction is invariably to demonize your motives – which are beyond anyone’s ability to prove or disprove – and thus demonize everything you think, say or do because you are a “racist” or a “homophobe” or a “misogynist” or a “misanthropist” or whatever label they want to hate you with.  It’s an element of their theology that you are evil and therefore you must obviously be evil.  And good luck talking to the rabid left.

I think of Ferguson.  I remember the left decrying the Gestapo tactics of the police as they showed up in force to prevent rioting.  All the subsequent rioting, of course, was clearly the result of the police for showing up with armored cars to prevent rioting.  So of course after the grand jury verdict was read, the police weren’t out in force.  And of course there was rioting.  And the same cockroach leftists who had decried the police presence now proceeded to blame the lack of police presence for the next wave of rioting and burning and looting.

If the grand jury had decided to indict Officer Darren Wilson, do you know how many conservatives would have rioted?  ZERO.  And that’s because conservatives are decent and liberals are NAZIS and the worst kind of ugliness is always in their hearts 24/7, just waiting to erupt in another riot like all the other riots they’ve called “demonstrations.”

Because to be a liberal is to be morally insane and therefore to be insane in every other way, as well.

Meghan Daum is pointing out that a few liberals like herself were opposed to this fascist liberal mindset.  And I actually take my hat off to Meghan Daum for her courage.  But the fact of the matter is that there are VERY few like her in the worldview of liberalism.  And she herself described the avalanche-of-hate fascist mindset that confronted anyone who tried in any way, shape or form to question this now-openly-revealed lie.

I don’t care what the subject is: ObamaCare?  Yeah, everything that Obama and his rabid supporters said turned out not only to be untrue, but outright lies advanced to deceive the American people who were deemed “stupid.”

Two minutes is all you need to utterly destroy ObamaCare:

You can read transcripts of some of what ObamaCare architect – BECAUSE YES, HE WAS – here.

But you go back and see the hateful charges from Nazis – I mean “liberals” – who accused us of everything from racism (because to not adore absolutely everything about Barack Obama and his entire worldview meant you clearly had to be a racist) to hatred of the poor and literally a desire to kill them.

That “law” was passed by fascists using fascist methodology, pure and simple.  It was passed by those who believe that the American people are stupid – and not deserving of individual liberty and not capable of individual personal responsibility – and therefore these sheep must be steered and guided if not herded by their Utopian masters.

We can talk about Obama’s fascist and tyrannous executive power grab over illegal immigration the same way.

It doesn’t matter that Obama himself personally refuted his own actions on at least 22 separate occasions.

That’s nothing more than a fact.  It’s nothing more than the truth.  And both are totally irrelevant to “liberals” today.

I’m watching another liberal protest going on now as leftist mindlessly chant, “We can’t breathe!” over and over and over and over again.

What they ought to be chanting is “We can’t think.”

They WON’T think.

Evolution Vs. The 10 Commandments: And The Winner Is…?

One of the things that makes living a moral life – keeping the 10 commandments – discouraging and disheartening these days is the fact that people all around us are NOT keeping them.  If you’ve been around kids you know how kids invariably look at other kids as the measure of what should and shouldn’t be okay.  When exasperated children say, “But all the other kids are doing it!” parents offer the knee-jerk response: “If all the other kids jumped off a cliff, would you do that, too?”  And that’s a valid point, of course.  But your kid isn’t asking to jump off a cliff; he’s asking to stay out late or he’s asking to go to a concert or something else that he simply doesn’t view as tantamount to leaping off a cliff to his certain death.  What that child sees is a fun thing that the other kids are doing that he can’t do, and as a child who has himself been confronted with “the cliff” question, I can tell you that it might end the argument but it hardly ends a kid’s angst.

It would be a very different world if someone received heavenly electroshocks from God every single time they violated the 10 commandments.  But that isn’t the way it happens.  David and later Jeremiah famously asked the question we’ve all likely asked at one time or another: “Why do the wicked prosper?”

It’s not merely that so many people break God’s laws all around us and seem to get away with it and even seem to get rewarded for it that creates discouragement, however.  It’s also that there is an entire worldview that explains this apparent state in terms of a presentation that God’s laws aren’t really even “laws” at all but merely intolerant edicts written by intolerant, superstitious and frankly bigoted human beings who invented God as a means to control and dominate people.  Sometimes it very much seems like the whole world system has been designed to confuse and discourage God’s people into wondering why we bother to follow God’s commands.  In place of God today we are instead being offered a Darwinian system of evolution that is being held up as “science” and therefore beyond question.

We’ve all heard about the Ten Commandments in the Bible.  And it occurred to me that it would be interesting to explore them from the viewpoint of Darwinian evolution – consistently applied – and see how the results strike your moral intuitions.  I submit to you that sometimes the best way to finally put your trust on God’s system is to consider the results of man’s systems and see their end.  That’s ultimately how David began to receive his answer to his question of why the wicked prosper: in verse 17 of Psalm 73 David said, “then I understood their final destiny.”  We need to be able to do that with Darwinism.

When Jesus Christ and His Word are your source for ideas, you simply do not need to be afraid of the competition.  The best antidote to all the lies that surround us is the truth.  And so I would like to take some time to survey the truth: the truth about science and where it came from; the truth about some very interesting issues in which science is surprisingly ignorant; the truth about a giant flaw in Darwin’s presentation; and finally an examination of what Darwinian “ethics” would look like to show you its end.  And what I want you to see is that God’s law makes absolute sense in light of its vicious Darwinian competition.

So I begin with the origin of science: how did we get science?  Should we view it as incompatible with Christianity?  Well, it turns out that we got science from Christianity.  Here’s an interesting fact I link to in my notes: The scientific method itself and the founder of virtually every single branch of modern science was discovered by a publicly confessed Christian.  Dr. Rodney Stark, a sociologist, “researched the leading scientists from 1543 [– the beginning of the scientific revolution –] to 1680 and found that of the top 52 scientists, one was a skeptic, one was a pantheist and 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as devout because of their zeal.”  We find that science arose only once in human history – and it arose in Europe under the civilization then called “Christendom.” Christianity provided the worldview foundations necessary and essential for the birth of science: The earth was not the illusion of Eastern religion and philosophy, but a physical, tangible place. And the material world was not the corrupt and lower realm of Greek religion and philosophy, but God created it and called it “good.” And God endowed the capstone of His creation, man – as the bearer of His divine image – with the reason, the curiosity, and the desire to know the truth. And God – who designed an orderly and law-abiding universe and earth for man – made man the caretaker of His creation. And thus the great astronomer Johannes Kepler described his project as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”  And that is frankly why 106 of the first 108 colleges in America were founded as religious Christian institutions.  My point is this: is Christianity at war with the essence of science?  NO!  Atheism is at war with the essence of science.  It is simply a demonstrable lie that legitimate science is at odds with Christianity; and this lie should not trouble you no matter how often you hear the lie or who repeats it.

There’s another myth that I would like to briefly examine; and that is the myth of science as some monolithic field that has answered all of the profoundly important questions.  That is how it is frequently presented in the media; but when you listen to scientists themselves you get a very different story.  I’ve recently began watching a Science Channel program called “Through the Wormhole.”  And I’ve been shocked at just how little science genuinely knows when the scientists and not the news media discuss science.

For example, take black holes:  We find that “black holes are places where the accepted laws of physics break down.”  Dr. Gabor Kunstatter of the University of Winnipeg physics department, defines black holes as a “a tiny region of space where the known laws of physics break down.”  It turns out that every system of physics known to man – Newtonian, Einsteinian, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory – all are falsified inside black holes.  And by the way, this is kind of a big deal because there are something like 100 million black holes in our galaxy.  It’s simply not true to claim that science accounts for all reality.  It simply doesn’t.

Here’s another one that surprised me.  If you try to reconcile Einstein’s relativity with Quantum Mechanics, a strange thing happens: you’re left with an equation that has no ‘t’ variable for time.  Time gets cancelled out of any equation that tries to harmonize these two widely held theories.  Since this runs counter to observable reality, most scientists rightly believe that quantum physics and relatively theory “don’t play well together.”  In fact, they invalidate one another.  It is rather astonishing that modern physics can’t account for something as basic to human existence as time.  But some physicists are so determined to believe their theories that they literally argue that if their equations says time doesn’t exist, then time doesn’t exist.  I laughed as a Rutgers University philosopher of physics named Tim Madulin explained that these guys are spending way too much time with numbers and not enough time with reality.  But that’s what is going on far too often in what is passing for “science” today – especially evolutionary science.

How about this one: 95% of the universe that physicists depend on for their theories is MISSING.  “An enormous chunk of the Universe seems to be invisible. We can’t see it, hear it, or detect it in any way… To crack the cosmic code that underlies our Universe, we have to understand energy in all its forms. But what if almost 95% of the Universe is made of a form of energy we can’t see and don’t understand?”  The 95% of the universe that they can’t detect in any way is there because it HAS to be there for their theories to hold up.

Here’s another one  – and it’s actually quite a doozy: the Big Bang.  99.9% of working scientists in relevant fields of astronomy accept the Big Bang.  But taking what had to happen into account, what is the likelihood of a life-supporting universe coming into existence by chance?  Think about it: there’s nothing, there’s nothing, there’s nothing.  And then POOF! There’s everything.  Just what are the odds of something like that just happening by chance?  According to the great mathematician Roger Penrose, who calculated the odds of what had to happen for the Big Bang, the odds against such an occurrence happening by chance were on the order of 10^10^123 to 1.  How big of a number against the Big Bang happening by chance is that?  I’ll let well-known theoretical physicist Laura Mersini-Houghton – who is an atheist, by the way – tell you. From “Through the Wormhole”: “The seed of this idea was planted many years ago when she realized she had a problem with the Universe – a pretty big problem. According to her calculations, the Universe should not exist. “The chances to start the Universe with the high-energy Big Bang are one in 10 with another 10 zeros behind it and another 123 zeros behind it. So, pretty much, zero.”  As a result of these odds, Mersini-Houghton wrote a paper proposing what she acknowledged to be a “highly speculative” theory denying Big Bang cosmology which might provide the materialists with a way to rescue their atheistic belief system.

The big problem with the Big Bang is that the Big Bang requires a Big Banger.  All matter, all energy, all space and all time came into existence.  You need somebody to make that “POOF” happen – someone who Himself is not limited by matter, energy, space or time.  Only the Bible identifies Him:  “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”  We need that Guy.  We need God.

The strongest argument against “science” disproving the existence of God is SCIENCE.

Let me leave you with one last example right out of the Bible: Jeremiah 33:22 records a statement by God that the stars in the sky are “countless.”  That may not sound like that big of a deal, but consider: In 128BC Hipparchus claimed to have counted the stars, with their number being 1,026.  That number stood as the official count of the stars of the sky for seventeen hundred years until 1600AD, when Kepler counted the stars and concluded that Hipparchus had double-counted some: and the updated number was 1,005 stars.  Was God wrong?  Well, with the aid of the Hubble telescope scientists now estimate that there are 70 sextillion – that’s a number followed by 21 zeroes – stars in over 1 billion galaxies.  And that number actually exceeds the number of grains of sand on all the seashores on earth, to complete the proof of Jeremiah 33.

We don’t have to be afraid to debate the truth.  We don’t have to be afraid of the facts.  We don’t have to play games with the numbers and the evidence in order to support our faith.  THAT’S WHAT THE OTHER SIDE HAS TO DO.  Another way to put it is this: don’t let science or anything else tell you how to read your Bible.  Because you are a LOT more warranted to let your Bible tell you how to read everything else.

So with that as a primer, let’s begin to contemplate Charles Darwin and his Darwinian evolution. There is one primary reason that Darwinism is accepted as a “valid scientific theory” and “Creationism” or even “Intelligent Design” is not so accepted: and that is that we’re told that Darwinism passes the bar of being “testable” or “falsifiable” but theories that depend on God in any way are NOT so testable or falsifiable.  We’re told that we can’t put a Creator God under a microscope and observe Him creating.  But let me show you how utterly fallacious that standard is by showing you Darwin’s “test” for his theory: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Well, Darwin himself said the eye as a refutation of his theory gave him cold fits.  He wrote in a letter: “I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable.  The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!”  A couple of things leap out of that: the first thing is that Darwin is clearly not an objective scientist who is willing to go wherever the evidence leads; he is passionately determined to get God out of the picture.  It makes him literally “cold” and “sick” to see any evidence of a Designer, doesn’t it?  With that said, let’s talk about Darwin’s own dilemma with the eye.  The thing about an eye is that it doesn’t work unless all the components are properly in place.  It’s not like you can grow an eyeball but not have any optical nerves and still see a little bit.  You’ve either got the whole eye or you’ve got squat.  I read Richard Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker during a period when I was genuinely doubting whether God really existed or not.  And when I saw his account of how the eye developed a little tiny bit at a time, it was a laugher for me, even being the skeptic that I was.  On his account, the first eye began to form from a photoreceptor cell on a depression in some early creature’s body – as though we all need to go home and check our belly buttons every day lest an eye is starting to grow out of it.  And as Dawkins presented this bizarre story of how the eye formed by “numerous, successive, slight modifications,” his story just got worse and worse.  It amounted to a fairy-tale for atheists.  It had to happen this way to keep God out of the picture, so that’s clearly how it happened no matter how implausible or even ridiculous it sounds.

And it actually gets WORSE for Darwinists, because we now know that the cell is filled with incredible tiny machines that all have to be present in a cell in order for that cell to work.  And scientists point out that it would take a good 50 times even the 4.6 billion of years earth has supposedly existed for random chance to manufacture just one useful protein for even the simplest bacteria cell.  That’s not amoeba to man; “numerous, successive, slight modifications” can’t even get Darwinism to a bacteria cell!  We now know a lot more about what the Bible describes: that we are truly “fearfully and wonderfully made” just as Psalm 139:14

But there is actually an even more glaring problem with Darwin’s “falsifiability” than most Christian thinkers have attacked.  Let’s look at the Darwin’s falsifiability standard again: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”  That is a nearly impossible standard to defeat: we have to prove something is absolutely impossible.  But let me try doing the same thing with my Creationist theory so you can see the bait-and-switch that’s going on here: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not have possibly been formed by God, my Creation theory would absolutely break down.”  My point is that Creationism and Intelligent Design have been ruled out without any consideration by the modern scientific establishment because they are “not falsifiable” when the Darwinism that they want to embrace is actually no more falsifiable than our Creation theories are.  The only difference is that when atheists tell their stories about how time and chance and random mutation managed to pull off one impossible miracle after another, OUR STORIES MAKE A LOT MORE SENSE!  You need to understand that there is a true spirit of delusion and hypocrisy at work in our world.

So science itself originated out of Christian thought on fundamentally Christian precepts of intelligence and design and the science that arose out of and because of Christianity clearly isn’t incompatible with Christianity; so science really truly doesn’t know that much about the ultimate nature of the universe and what it DOES know confirms rather than contradicts that our universe and life itself was the product of supernatural Intelligent Design; and so Darwinism amounts to an atheist polemic that has support merely because it illegitimately rules out its rivals on utterly fraudulent grounds.  Are you with me so far?

With all of that as our backdrop, let us now ponder the implications of Darwinian morality.  As a young man with a mangled faith, wondering if God truly existed and cared about how I lived, I realized something: if evolution is true and there is no God, then there is no such thing as human morality, either.  And I literally not only could but frankly ought to have been utterly amoral if that was the case.  As soon as that thought occurred to me, however, it frightened me far more than it reassured me.  Because I had not been raised to be amoral.  Everything I had been taught in my entire life up to that point had directed me to believing in right and wrong.  And it was a dark thought indeed that there was no God and morality flowed from Darwinism.  Because Darwinian morality is as vicious as it is violent.

Let’s start with the fact that evolutionists claim that their system of Darwinism is simply the way the world works.  Assume that’s true for a moment.  And then look at the world around you.  Because like it or not, Darwinism entails social Darwinism.  What is true for nature must be true for the individual and society.  If nature progresses by competition for survival, and the victory of the strong over the weak, then all progress must come the same way.  If life is an unceasing struggle for existence, and its outcome is the survival of the fittest, as Darwin claimed, then that is how we ought to function as individuals and as a society.

Modern Darwinists want to use their system to violently club God to death, then drop that club and say, “Now that Darwinism has killed God and religion, let’s not live as if our system that says life is a struggle for existence in which only the fittest survive and the weak are a threat to the rest of the herd is actually true.”  Like so many other elements of Darwinian thought, there is a massive self-contradiction.

Richard Dawkins has laid war and death on the back of religion, but he refuses to accept the far greater holocaust of death on the back of his atheism.  When we rightly point out that atheistic communism was responsible for the murder of more than 110 million people during peacetime alone, Dawkins claims that communism and atheism have nothing to do with each other.  But as I showed last week, that simply is false: atheism was at the very core of Marxism.  If you look up “state atheism,” you find that it is virtually identical with communism.  And it is no coincidence that not only did Karl Marx identify with Charles Darwin as strongly supporting his theory of class struggle and write that Darwinism was “the basis in natural history for our views,” but Nazism was also little more than applied Darwinism – with the rationale of both creating a master race and exterminating the Jews being profoundly Darwinian.  Hitler even made his own people the victims of his Darwinism, stating, “If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”  That is profoundly Darwinian.  Now intellectual frauds like Richard Dawkins are trying to go back and rewrite history to expunge the incredibly tragic results of Darwinism being applied to the actual world and society.

And the horror that results in society is equally true of the individual who lives by Darwinism.

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Because “rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”  Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

I like to watch nature programs on TV, although it is often hard – because the stories end so bleakly.  In one episode, I watched a dominant female baboon whose had baby died because she couldn’t produce milk snatch the baby of a healthy mother.  And of course that baby died because the dominant baboon female couldn’t produce any milk but wouldn’t return it to its mother.  In another program, I watched a lion cub get trampled by buffalo when the herd suddenly changed direction; its pelvis was crushed and it was dragging itself around by its front lets with its hind legs useless.  What happened?  Was there a lion welfare program?  No.  The mother and its siblings and the pride abandoned it after a few days, and it surely died horribly.  Because in nature the weak, the sick and the injured are a liability and even a threat to the rest of society and they should die so the strong can live.  That’s the way the world often is in the aftermath of the Fall.

Have you ever wondered why God allows animal suffering like that?  Let me offer an answer: because God wants us to look at the animals and see that He created us different.  We are NOT animals; we are made in the image of a rational, moral God.  And we should not live or think like beings lacking the Imago Dei.

Now, in the time that I have left, let me finally get to the essence of the 10 Commandments.  God told Israel in Exodus 20:2, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery .“  Allow me to restate that in a slightly different way: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you OUT” of that animal state of bondage.  You will NOT live like animals in some Darwinian state; instead you will live like My people whom I created and whom I love and hold to a higher standard than any beast of the field.

Why is it that the first five commandments focus on man’s relationship to God?  Today, our government schools are trying to abandon the commandments focusing on God but somehow keep the ethics of the last five.  A US District Court Judge actually tried to cut the Ten Commandments down to six.  One pastor recently preached on that and said, “The educators are attempting to enact the ethics of the second half of the Ten Commandments which have to do with not lying, stealing, etc. without taking heed to the first half!  They are trying to teach young men and women how to love their neighbor without first training them to love God!  All such attempts will fall short, because unless you first love God, and have God living in you, it is not possible to live out his character, which is what loving your neighbor is all about.”

In light of what you have just heard on Darwinism, let me sing the same song again: because we are NOT to live like animals; we are NOT to live like a bunch of creatures who invent our own meanings and values for ourselves; instead we ARE to live in the light of our relationship to our Creator from which our love for our neighbor flows.  We are to live up to the image of God in us as humans.  And frankly if we truly love the Lord our God with all of our heart, mind and strength, and if we truly have the love of God in Christ in our hearts, we cannot help but love our neighbors as we love ourselves.  It flows out of us like water flows out of a spring.

There’s a powerful reason for this: it derives from the fact that community is central to the heart of the Trinity.  There’s a theological term in Greek called “Perichoresis.”  It means, “to dance around.” The divine dance within the Trinity.  It derives from passages such as John 14:10, in which Jesus asked, “Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?”  The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father.  The Father loves the Son and the Spirit, and the Son and the Spirit cooperate together to bring joy to the Father.  You have every element within the Trinity that you need to have complete community.  God did not have to invent community the way man invented the wheel; community was central to the heart of God.

You can’t give what you don’t have.  If God were strictly one in the most rigorous sense, as Allah is in Islam, where would we get true, genuine community?  When God created man in His own image, according to Genesis 1:27, how was it that Adam and Eve were relational and communal beings unless community were an essential part of the essence of the God who had created them?  When you love your neighbor as you love yourself, as taught in both the Ten Commandments and by Jesus, what else are you doing but modeling the love that was essential to the “divine dance” of the Godhead before the Creation of the world?

You don’t get that from Darwinism.  In fact, you don’t get anything good from Darwinism at all.

In allowing the demonic doctrine of Darwinism, God allowed a very stark contrast between His way and the way of fallen man.  Joshua told the Israelites in Joshua 24:15, “choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve.”  And like the Israelites of old, we too have a choice to make.  The resurrected Jesus tells the Laodiceans in Rev 3:15-16, “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!  So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”  We need to stop living with one foot in the “survival of the fittest” world of Darwin and the other foot in the “love your neighbor as yourself” world of Jesus and truly choose this day whom we will serve.  There is a gigantic gulf between the “vicious animal” world of Darwinism and the “image of God” world of Christianity.  There are two natures – the selfish animal nature of Darwinism and the selfless divine nature of God – that are profoundly and fundamentally opposed to one another.  And they are at war within you.

The Ten Commandments as Jesus taught were not given to the descendants of animals, as Darwinism teaches; they were given to the children of God who love Him and want His love to flow through them to others.

Let’s pray that we may be radical followers of the Ten Commandments as they were taught in both the Old and New Testaments.  It’s evolution vs. the Ten Commandments; it’s Darwin vs. Jesus.  Who will be the true winner in your life?

Is Obama Able To Finally Keep A Damn Promise And Turn America Around? Mr. Disbarred ‘It Depends On What The Meaning Of The Word ‘Is’ Is’ Says Yes He Can!

Nobody denies that Bill Clinton is able to give a great speech.  If anything, Clinton’s speeches make Obama look mediocre by comparison.  Particularly when Clinton talks about his record and you’re a sentient life form who has any consciousness of reality as to Obama’s economy after four years of his failed policies.

But ultimately, Bill Clinton’s speech amounted to this: “Trust me.  Obama is the man to lead us to shared prosperity.”

I could point out that “shared prosperity” didn’t work in the U.S.S.R.; it didn’t work in Maoist China; it didn’t work in Cuba; it didn’t work in North Korea.  It didn’t work pretty much anywhere it has ever been tried.  It is bankrupting Europe as we speak.  And it won’t work here.  But I’m more fixated on Bill Clinton’s “Trust me” thing.

How many intelligent people don’t understand that Bill Clinton gave his speech as a career Democrat who was loyally trying to rally Democrats?  Probably zero.  But unfortunately, there simply aren’t a lot of intelligent people any more, thanks to what liberals have done to our government schools over the last forty damn years.

It comes down to this: Bill Clinton was a president who got his ass historically kicked for his party’s failures in 1994.  And as a result of that asskicking, Republicans took control of both the House and the Senate.  And as a result of that repudiation, Bill Clinton said, “The era of big government is over,” and began to govern NOT as a liberal like Obama but as a moderate who compromised and worked with the Republican Party.  And as a result of that “era of big government is over” governance, America got a balanced budget and began to thrive under grand tax cuts like the capital gains rate that Clinton cut from 28% to 20%.  That Republican-style tax cut unleashed the economy, causing capital investment to MORE THAN TRIPLE.

That, for the record, is because Tax Cuts Increase Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues.

It is a deliberately forgotten fact that Clinton ended his presidency as a success because he benefitted from the policies of a completely Republican-controlled Congress.  Bush ended his presidency as a disaster because he was plagued by the policies of a completely Democrat-controlled Congress.

It is a national disgrace that this nation is controlled by a mainstream media propaganda machine that keeps pumping the message that Obama couldn’t succeed because of Republican obstructionism.  Because they will NEVER be consistent or honest and tell you that our economy melted down in 2008 thanks to the policies of Democrats who controlled both the House AND the Senate, whereas Obama benefitted from complete control of both branches of Congress for his first two years in office and now still has Democrats controlling the Senate.  George Bush would have LOVED to have enjoyed as little “obstructionism” as he was burdened by his last two years in office under the rule of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

That is why every single time I hear a Democrat mention “Republican obstructionism” I can know that I am dealing with a completely dishonest human being and that it is time to move on.  Because you have got to be an abject lying hypocrite to say that after George Bush tried not once but SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prior to the collapse of those two institutions which triggered the mortgage-market meltdown in 2008.  When you look at the FACT that conservative economists literally PREDICTED the collapse when Democrats empowered Fannie and Freddie to give mortgages to people who could not possibly afford to pay their loans; when you look at the FACT that Fannie and Freddie were the ONLY entities that were empowered to create the subprime-based mortgage backed securities that became the “toxic assets” that poisoned the portfolios of suddenly bankrupted firms like Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch; when you look at the FACT that as this disaster was building and building and building after Bill Clinton expanded the disasterous loan program, and that Democrats in Congress rabidly refused any kind of reform of these suicidal policies when there was still time to fix what was broken, you are simply a fool if you don’t acknowledge that it was DEMOCRATS who were the obstructionists.  And all you people are for whining about Republicans is DISHONEST HYPOCRITES.

And somehow Bill Clinton managed to completely omit the FACT that he created a financial collapse and resulting serious recession of his own in the DotCom Bubble collapse that resulted in George Bush watching $7.1 trillion in wealth vaporized while the 78% of the Nasdaq portfolio valuation was annihilated.  And the only reason that recession isn’t well-remembered is that the 9/11 disaster that resulted from Bill Clinton’s gutting the military and the CIA and our intelligence apparatus and leaving us both weak and blind even as he emboldened Osama bin Laden to view America as a weak “paper tiger” that was “ready to be cowed by an attack.”

Bill Clinton omitted the fact that he left George Bush in a hole that wasn’t a lot less deep than the hole Bush left Obama in.

So should we trust Bill Clinton when he rallies to his fellow Democrat and says, “Trust me, Obama is the only man who can lead you to a better future?”

How about not?

Let’s see: Juanita Broaddrick credibly accused Bill Clinton of raping her. There’s no question Bill Clinton had a sexual affair with Gennifer Flowers – and lied about it. Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle her sexual harassment case against him. Kathleen Willey was a loyal Democrat and supporter of Bill Clinton until he grabbed her hand and placed it on his genitalia. And then we all know about how he lied about his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, even calling her a “stalker,” until it was revealed that she had a dress with his semen on it.

Yeah, I’d trust Bill Clinton.  Every bit as much as Monica Lewinsky’s father would trust Bill Clinton with Monica’s younger sister.

As a result of his “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” bullcrap, Bill Clinton was DISBARRED FROM PRACTICING LAW.

Lawyers constitute the fourth most distrusted profession in America.  And Bill Clinton was too dishonest to remain part of it.  That should only add to the weight that the slickest politician of all time – he was nicknamed “Slick Willie” as governor of Arkansas for damn good reason – is the king of the second most distrusted profession in America as a politician.

And so, yeah, if I were in the market for a used car, and Bill Clinton came out as the salesman, I would go find myself another used car salesman.

Barack Obama is a wildly failed president.  And he is a failure for the very reason that Bill Clinton was ultimately a successful president: because while Bill Clinton compromised and negotiated and bargained with Republicans, Barack Obama surrounded himself with radical leftist ideologues and has steered America left like no president ever has before him.

Obama is going to make a bunch of promises to turn America around and cut the deficit and create jobs, etc. etc., blah, blah, blah.  They’re the same promises he failed to keep four years ago and he’s going to demand more of the same failed policies that failed to fulfill those promises that he demanded the last four failed years.

Todd Akin Ought To Leave Senate Race. But Here’s Why What He Said Isn’t As ‘Illegitimate’ As Liberals Demagogue.

Update, August 22, 2012: If you really want to demonize a party for Todd Akin’s comments, maybe you should refuse to vote Democrat:

Democrats funded Akin to help McCaskill
The Washington Examiner
by: Sean Higgins
Monday, August 20, 2012

Call it a wise investment in light of his recent comments: Democrats wanted Missouri Republican congressman Todd Akin to win his state’s hotly contested Senate GOP primary because they believed he gave incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill her best shot at retaining her seat. As the Washington Post reported earlier this month:

There’s a reason why Democrats spent over $1.5 million trying to help Akin win his three-way primary. He was the most conservative candidate in the field — and the most unpredictable one. …

While Democrats are now blasting Akin’s comments on “legitimate rape,” one person is resisting calls for Akin to step aside: Claire McCaskill.

It’s rather funny in a way that the left is trying to now demonize Mitt Romney over the remarks of a candidate that Democrats funded.  Especially given the fact that Mitt Romney called for him to leave the race and Claire McCaskill refused to do so.  [End update].

Todd Akin isn’t in trouble because he did something unethical or illegal.  He’s in trouble because of ONE remark:

Asked in an interview on a St. Louis television station about his views on abortion, Mr. Akin, a six-term member of Congress who is backed by Tea Partyconservatives, made it clear that his opposition to the practice was nearly absolute, even in instances of rape.

“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” Mr. Akin said of pregnancies from rape. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”

Here’s the thing: had Akin simply said “forcible rape” instead of “legitimate rape,” the remark would have been entirely factually correct.  Forcible rape distinguishes from things such as statuatory rape (when two people have consensual sex but one of them is underage) and situations that many feminists push such as a woman having consensual sex and then later deciding said consensual sex was a mistake and ergo sum amounted to a rape.

Pregnancy from forcible rape are incredibly rare.  That is simply a documented fact.

Consider the following evidence.  Let me first dismiss the liberal/feminist claim that “unreported rapes” somehow throw off the statistics that prove that forcible rapes hardly ever result in pregnancy with this: because the only way such a claim could be remotely true is if “reporting a rape” decreases fertility whereas not reporting a rape increases fertility.  Otherwise, whether a victim reports a rape or not, she is obviously no more or less likely to get pregnant than if she doesn’t report a rape or not.  So very simply the assertion that reported rapes almost never result in pregnancy but unreported ones somehow often result in pregnancy is complete nonsense.

Now the evidence:

How many forcible rapes result in a pregnancy? The numbers claimed have ranged the entire spectrum of possibilities. Some feminists have claimed as high as 5 to 10 percent, which is absurd. One problem has been the lack of available studies and accurate statistics. Often women do not admit to having been raped. On the other hand, it has been known that women, pregnant from consensual intercourse, have later claimed rape. Is it possible to know the actual facts?

There have been some studies. In the statistical abstract of the US in 1989, there were 90,000 rapes reported in the United States. (Bureau of Census Table #283)

Another study was from the U.S. Justice Department, which surveyed 49,000 households annually between the years 1973-1987. In 1973, it reported 95,934 completed rapes. In 1987, the figure was 82,505. The study stated that only 53% were reported to police. Factoring this in, the totals were 181,000 rapes in 1973 and 155,000 in 1987. In August 1995, the US Justice Department, using a different study with different questions, returned a result of 170,000 completed rapes plus 140,000 attempted rapes.

There are approximately 100,000,000 females old enough to be at risk for rape in the United States. If we calculate on the basis of 100,000 rapes, that means that one woman in 1,000 is raped each year. If we calculate on the basis of 200,000 rapes, that means that one woman in 500 is raped each year.

Now for the important question. How many rape pregnancies are there? The answer is that, according to statistical reporting, there are no more than one or two pregnancies resultant from every 1,000 forcible rapes.

But, does it make sense? Let’s look, using the figure of 200,000 rapes each year.

• Of the 200,000 women who were forcibly raped, one-third were either too old or too young to get pregnant. That leaves 133,000 at risk for pregnancy.
• A woman is capable of being fertilized only 3 days (perhaps 5) out of a 30-day month. Multiply our figure of 133,000 by three tenths. Three days out of 30 is one out of ten, divide 133 by ten and we have 13,300 women remaining. If we use five days out of 30 it is one out of six. Divide one hundred and thirty three thousand by six and we have 22,166 remaining.
• One-fourth of all women in the United States of childbearing age have been sterilized, so the remaining three-fourths come out to 10,000 (or 15,000).
• Only half of assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm in her vagina,¹ so let’s cut the remaining figures in half. This gives us numbers of 5,000 (or 7,500).
• Fifteen percent of men are sterile, that drops that figure to 4,250 (or 6,375).
• Fifteen percent of non-surgically sterilized women are naturally sterile. That reduces the number to 3,600 (or 5,400).
• Another fifteen percent are on the pill and/or already pregnant. That reduces the number to 3,070 (or 4,600).
• Now factor in the fact that it takes 5-10 months for the average couple to achieve a pregnancy. Use the smaller figure of 5 months to be conservative and divide the avove figures by 5. The number drops to 600 (or 920).
• In an average population, the miscarriage rate is about 15 percent. In this case we have incredible emotional trauma. Her body is upset. Even if she conceives, the miscarriage rate will be higher than in a more normal pregnancy. If 20 percent of raped women miscarry, the figure drops to 450 (or 740).

Finally, factor in what is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that’s physical trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get and stay pregnant a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy. So what further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one knows, but this factor certainly cuts this last figure by at least 50 percent and probably more. If we use the 50 percent figure, we have a final figure of 225 (or 370) women pregnant each year. These numbers closely match the 200 that have been documented in clinical studies.

So assault rape pregnancy is extremely rare. If we use the figure of 200, it is 4 per state per year. Even if we use a figure of 500, we’re talking about only ten per state, per year. In the United States in one year, there are more than 6 million pregnancies. Roughly 3 million eventuate in live birth, 1.5 million are aborted and 500,000 miscarry. And so while each assault rape pregnancy is a tragedy for the mother (not for the baby, though), we can with confidence say that such pregnancies amount to a minuscule fraction of the total annual pregnancies in the United States. Further, less than half of assault rape pregnancies are aborted, even though that course of action tends to be vigorously pushed by those around the woman. ^2,3

One final thought, Sandra Mahkorn, in two excellent studies, has asked such women what was their chief complaint? One might fully assume it was the fact that she was pregnant, but that is incorrect. Her chief complaint was how other people treated her. Such treatment ranged from negative, to simply getting little support from those around her. Even in a culture that offers little support and aggressively pushes abortion as a solution, fewer that half of such babies are killed by abortion. Think of how many fewer yet there would be if each pregnant victim of a rape were given the support, aid and tender loving care that she and her baby deserve.

Our goal is to offer truly compassionate care to the woman. That is what is best for both mother and child.

¹ New England Journal of Medicine, A.N. Groth, Sexual DyFORBESSunction [sic] During Rape, Oct. 6, 1977, p.764-6

² Mahkorn & Dolan, “Sexual Assault & Pregnancy.” In New Perspectives on Human Abortion, University Publisher of Amer., 1981, pp.182-199

³ Mahkorn, “Pregnancy & Sexual Assault.” In Psychological Aspects of Abortion, University Publishers of Amer., 1979, pp. 53-72

By J. C. Willke, MD,
reprinted with permission from 4/99 Life Issues Connector

Four pregnancies caused by forcible rape per state per year.  One in one thousand forcible rapes result in pregnancy.  That pretty much proves what Todd Akin is saying if you simply remove the poorly chosen term “legitimate rape.”

Note that this conclusive evidence doesn’t attempt to claim that “women who don’t enjoy the rape can’t get pregnant” or any of the other crazy claims that the left is now saying that Akin somehow implied even though he never said anything of the sort.  But for the reasons listed above and possibly certain other reasons, it is nevertheless a simple scientific, biological, statistically documented FACT that forcible rape rarely results in pregnancy.

Akin was trying to get at something important: what liberals invariably attempt to do is take an EXTREME situation that occurs once in a blue moon and then enact legislation that affects the entire population.  To wit, what liberals have implicitly done is created a legal assumption that EVERY pregnancy of EVERY woman should be treated identically to a pregnancy caused by forcible rape, such that a “victim” of pregnancy ought to be able to abort her baby just as any victim of forcible rape ought to be allowed to do. 

Roe v. Wade was enacted on a complete fabrication: the woman identified in the case as Roe (Norma McCorvey) was claimed to have been gang-raped and therefore ought to be able to get an abortion.  But in fact she had NOT been raped at all.  And so not only “forcible rape” but in fact GANG rape was the legal basis upon which all women suddenly became victims of pregnancy and had the right to kill their own children.

That actual woman, Norma McCorvey, is now a Christian crusading for the right to life and the end to the mass abortions that her case inflicted on society.  She has asked the courts to reverse that decision the way one ought to reverse a guilty verdict of a person who has been proven to be innocent.  But the liberals got what they wanted out of her – a fabricated case that allowed them to advance their agenda – and they’re done with her.

Even überliberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has stated that Roe v. Wade was based on terrible legal reasoning.  But so what?  Liberals lied and fabricated and abrogated the Constitution to get what they wanted.  Screw the evidence and screw the truth.  And most certainly screw the Constitution, which has been reduced to “penumbras and emanations” rather than anything that actually says or stands for anything meaningful.

The entire underlying case behind Roe v. Wade was that every single woman ought to be treated as if she had been gang raped if she gets pregnant. And since all pregnancies are the result of said implicit assumed gang rape, she should not have to carry that child against her will.  All that was part of the background for what Todd Akin was – excuse me, but – LEGITIMATELY saying. 

I am a staunch pro-life proponent.  And my reasoning is clear: the child who is in the womb is an innocent human being.  Therefore whether that pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, the child is still human.  But that said, I would never push for legislation that would force a victim of forcible rape or incest to have a child against her will.

Why not?  For two reasons: one is practical: BECAUSE so few pregnancies occur from such situations, I would rather see the rest of the millions of pregnancies viewed separately and distinctly from “forcible rape” or “gang rape” the way the liberals imposed on Roe v. Wade.  To demand that women be forced to bear their rapists’ babies is simply something that will never be legislated by any politically elected body.  Let us protect the 99.999 percent of babies as our first goal.  And the second reason is simply that the fathers are such reprehensible human beings.

I am now digressing, but let me repeat a point I have made numerous times before: that abortion has destroyed fatherhood in America.  And the higher the abortion rate in a population (e.g., the black abortion rate is stratospherically higher than any other population) the greater the fatherlessness in that population.  And the reason this is true is self-evident:

When a man and woman have intercourse, can a child be conceived?  Absolutely NOT, say liberals as a matter of rigid doctrine.  No “baby” or “child” was conceived; the “fetus” is merely an inanimate lump of goop possessing no humanity, no personhood, no rights of any kind.  It is a thing.  It is NOT a baby.  No “father” “fathered” ANYTHING.

And with that “reasoning,” no “father” should have any rights whatsoever over what happens to his “child” because he didn’t “father” any “child” did he???

Therefore, the “father” is merely a basically uninvolved contributor of some material that facilitated a lump of goop. 

Therefore, no “father” ought to have any rights over what is clearly not a child or a baby or a human being no matter how much he might think otherwise.  If the “mother” decides she doesn’t want to be a “mother” after all, that man is compelled by the force of law to stand by and do nothing while his BABY is murdered.

And thus fatherhood was murdered.  And the doctrine of “wham, bam, thank you ma’am” was solidified into our culture.

Every father ought to have the duty to support and care for his child.  Every mother ought to have the duty to birth her child and nourish that child.  Abortion has turned both of these truths into lies.

Getting back to the political discussion, it is pathetic that Joe Biden can incite racial hatred –

“They’re going to put y’all back in chains”

– he said to an audience of mostly black people.

There is a crystal clear meaning that is utterly hateful: Republicans, the Party of Abraham Lincoln, the Party that fought a war to end slavery against the Democrats, will literally put black people back into slavery if Mitt Romney is elected president.

But that was just Joe being Joe, Democrats said.  What he really meant to say was something different.  How dare you try to hold him to what he actually said, they say.

And then poor Todd Akin blunders into a stupid choice of words and of course there is no possible way in hell that the mainstream media will treat that Republican with the same kid gloves they just treated Joe Biden with.  No, it is the political buzz saw for him for no other reason than that he is a Republican.

And that massive hypocrite double-standard is simply the reality: Democrats are dishonest hypocrites as a matter of fact.  We will never get fair treatment from them or from any industry such as the mainstream media that they dominate.  Period.

To try to slander Akin by arguing that he was somehow stating that all forcible rape victims ought to be blamed for not “shutting that whole thing down” (i.e., a pregnancy) is simply idiotic.  But that is what is being shrilly argued by the left.

Therefore, as a practical matter, I believe Todd Akin ought to leave the Senate race. What he said amounted to such poorly-chosen words that he will be haunted by those words throughout the campaign.  The way he phrased what he was trying to say was simply politically inexcusable.  And further, the Republican Party cannot support him or they will be branded with the same hot iron. Which means that there is simply no way Todd Akin can win – and therefore frankly if the man cares about his country or even about abortion, he ought to step aside and allow a better candidate to have a chance to win a very winnable election for the pro-life Republican Party.

If Todd Akin stays in the race (he has a short time remaining to bow out) I hope he wins, and I would cast my vote for him if I lived in Missouri.  But I hope he does the best thing for the GOP and drops out of the race.

Remember How Democrats Cheered What They Called ‘The Arab Spring’ And Cheered Obama For Creating It? Well, Obama’s ‘Arab Spring’ = ‘Mass Rapes’ Now

The Democrat Party has exported its war on women (and see here and here) to Egypt:

In ‘new Egypt’, mobs sexually assault women with impunity
Reports of assaults on women in Tahrir Square, the epicenter of the uprising that forced Hosni Mubarak to step down last year, have been on the rise
By SARAH EL DEEB
updated 6/7/2012 4:28:02 AM ET

CAIRO — Her screams were not drowned out by the clamor of the crazed mob of nearly 200 men around her. An endless number of hands reached toward the woman in the red shirt in an assault scene that lasted less than 15 minutes but felt more like an hour.

She was pushed by the sea of men for about a block into a side street from Tahrir Square. Many of the men were trying to break up the frenzy, but it was impossible to tell who was helping and who was assaulting. Pushed against the wall, the unknown woman’s head finally disappeared. Her screams grew fainter, then stopped. Her slender tall frame had clearly given way. She apparently had passed out.

The helping hands finally splashed the attackers with bottles of water to chase them away.

The assault late Tuesday was witnessed by an Associated Press reporter who was almost overwhelmed by the crowd herself and had to be pulled to safety by men who ferried her out of the melee in an open Jeep.

Reports of assaults on women in Tahrir, the epicenter of the uprising that forced Hosni Mubarak to step down last year, have been on the rise with a new round of mass protests to denounce a mixed verdict against the ousted leader and his sons in a trial last week.

The late Tuesday assault was the last straw for many. Protesters and activists met Wednesday to organize a campaign to prevent sexual harassment in the square. They recognize it is part of a bigger social problem that has largely gone unpunished in Egypt. But the phenomenon is trampling on their dream of creating in Tahrir a micro-model of a state that respects civil liberties and civic responsibility, which they had hoped would emerge after Mubarak’s ouster.

‘It shouldn’t be happening’
“Enough is enough,” said Abdel-Fatah Mahmoud, a 22-year-old engineering student, who met Wednesday with friends to organize patrols of the square in an effort to deter attacks against women. “It has gone overboard. No matter what is behind this, it is unacceptable. It shouldn’t be happening on our streets let alone Tahrir.”

No official numbers exist for attacks on women in the square because police do not go near the area, and women rarely report such incidents. But activists and protesters have reported a number of particularly violent assaults on women in the past week. Many suspect such assaults are organized by opponents of the protests to weaken the spirit of the protesters and drive people away.

Mahmoud said two of his female friends were cornered Monday and pushed into a small passageway by a group of men in the same area where the woman in the red shirt was assaulted. One was groped while the other was seriously assaulted, Mahmoud said, refusing to divulge specifics other than to insist she wasn’t raped.

Mona Seif, a well-known activist who has been trying to promote awareness about the problem, said Wednesday she was told about three different incidents in the past five days, including two that were violent. In one incident, the attackers ripped the woman’s clothes off and trampled on her companions, she said.

Let’s not forget that Barack Obama took complete credit for the Arab Spring and the Mubarak exit by rushing out to put himself right in the middle of it.  The left cheered Obama for his messianic leadership:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: You know, gentlemen, I’m a little bit jubilant right now, a little bit frisky so I’ll say something that will bother people. But if you have, a lot of the people in this country think the President of the United States is Muslim, which he’s not, he’s Christian. They think he’s foreign born, which he’s not, he’s American born. But they have this attitude about him, the people on the right a lot of them, right? And here he is, and he comes into office, and this jubilant situation in Eqypt, with the first time in our lives we get to see people from the Arab world in a very positive democratic setting. Not as terrorists or not as people fighting Israel, or whatever. Not mouthing epithets against the West, but people like us.

DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: Right, celebrating.

MATTHEWS: In a way it’s like it took Obama to have this happen, or it’s just so serendipitous.

“It took Obama to have this happen.”  Praise him!  Worship him!  Our blessed messiah!  Of course, a lot of people – like Israelis – were arguing from the outset that “this” actually wasn’t a good thing.  At all.  Conservatives like Sean Hannity predicted from the very outset that the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islamists were going to take control of Egypt – just as they did.

But who cares about reality?  Praise Obama!  Praise him!  Worship him!

 Is “serendipitous” a good adjective to describe rape?  I’m sorry, I don’t have my liberal-to-English dictionary with me.

Obama also erroneously massively downplayed the role that the Muslim Brotherhood would come to have (you know, unlike Sean Hannity and a lot of other conservatives who were RIGHT):

Mr. Obama downplayed concerns that the Muslim Brotherhood could take power and install a government hostile to U.S. interests.

“I think that the Muslim Brotherhood is one faction in Egypt. They don’t have majority support in Egypt but they are well organized and there are strains of their ideology that are anti U.S., there is no doubt about it,” Mr. Obama said.

Mr. Obama said he wanted a representative government in Egypt that reflected the country’s broader civil society.

The fool was wrong, wrong, WRONG about that:

Though the current upheavals in the Middle East were not initiated by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist parties in Egypt, as in Tunisia and Libya, have been the chief beneficiaries of the collapse of long-standing authoritarian repressive regimes across North Africa.

In Egypt itself, the two largest Islamist groups, the Brotherhood and the Salafists, won about three-quarters of the ballots in the second round of legislative elections held in December 2011, while the secular and the liberal forces took a battering.

The Brotherhood, an organization founded by Egyptian schoolteacher Hassan el Banna back in 1928, has never deviated from its founder’s central axiom:

“Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Koran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

It is this radical vision, which animates all those in the region who seek a fully Islamic society and way of life.

The Muslim Brotherhood has always been deeply anti-Western, viscerally hostile to Israel and openly anti-Semitic — points usually downplayed in Western commentary on the “Arab Spring.”

In spite of the fact that Obama was actually giving aid to the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama demanded that America give a billion dollars in aid to Egypt.  You know, to the country that is now using RAPE in its war on women.

And now the same fool is making the same mistakes in Syria.

First of all, do you remember the justifications for going to war over Libya, which also aint working out that great?  We were told that “Barack Obama’s war in Libya bears the intellectual imprint of Samantha Power.”  And what was that “intellectual imprint”?  This:

“She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.”

That’s just GREAT.  So Obama went to war with Libya to remove a dictator who threatened to kill his own people but has refused to go to war with a dictator who has ACTUALLY murdered over fourteen thousand of his own people.  But apparently radical liberal Obama is on the same page as doctrinaire liberal Barbara Walters – because they’re both helping this vicious dictator.

Libya has not worked out very well.  At all.  Aside from the fact that Libya has descended into complete anarchy, there is the fact that terrorists have used that anarchy to turn Libya into another Afghanistan/Yemen-style haven.

Oh, and Obama also supported and trained Egyptian activists to undermine and overthrow Mubarak.  Just to complete the picture of who supported all these rapes that are now going on.

Both Democrats and radical Muslims have the same cherished goal: to keep women ignorant and in line with their agenda no matter how obviously anti-woman it is.