Posts Tagged ‘sexual assaults’

Why Do Liberals Keep Ginning Up Racial And Feminist Outrage Based Entirely On LIES? Because That’s Just Who They Are, That’s Why

July 6, 2015

A few days ago I was riding the exercise bike at my gym and CNN was on.  The entire 35 minutes I was riding that stupid bike, CNN was “reporting” on the story that in the aftermath of the shooting in , racist white people were burning down six or seven black churches.

I went home assuming that all hell had been unleashed and white people were rising up in the kind of racist rage that they’d seen black people rise up in in city after city across the nation.

But, golly gee, later that night I turn on Megyn Kelly’s program and she points out the, you know, FACTS that NONE of the fires had actually linked to arson, that a rash of churches that primarily white people belonged to had burned down (due to lightning strikes), and that in the few actual cases OF arson against black churches, the arsonist was BLACK.

It takes at least two points to connect a line, but when liberal propaganda is concerned, it doesn’t even take ONE fact to draw a conclusion.

A few days after I saw the “news” story on CNN, I look at this on CNN’s website:

Why are black church fires associated with acts of hate?
By Eliott C. McLaughlin, CNN
Updated 6:51 PM ET, Thu July 2, 2015

(CNN)It’s a visceral and involuntary reaction, perhaps even knee-jerk: A black church burns in the South and our minds race immediately to hatred.

It must be arson. It must be the handiwork of some despicable white supremacist.

That was the sentiment on display across social and traditional media these past two weeks. The NAACP, while acknowledging only three of the recent fires were suspected arsons, called for vigilance, saying the blazes require “our collective attention.”

“For centuries, African-American churches have served as the epicenter of survival for many in the African-American community. As a consequence, these houses of faith have historically been the targets of violence. We will use every tool in our advocacy arsenal to preserve these beloved institutions,” Cornell William Brooks, the group’s president, said in a statement.

Brooks also cited the recent church massacre in South Carolina.

On June 17, Dylann Roof allegedly killed nine members of Charleston’s Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. Four days later, black churches began burning across the South. To date, seven in five states have caught fire.

Are the events linked? It’s unclear, as investigators continue to gather details. Early indications are that most of the fires were not arson, let alone hate crimes.

But that doesn’t mean we haven’t connected the events in our minds, and that colors how we digest news that another African-American house of worship has gone up in flames, experts say.

“It isn’t unreasonable to speculate that at least some of the black churches are acts of arson, especially coming in the aftermath of the horrific massacre of nine people in a black church,” said Jack Levin, a professor emeritus at Northeastern University who has studied hate crimes for 30 years and serves as co-director of the Brudnick Center on Violence and Conflict. […]

But yes it is damn well TOO “unreasonable,” if you call yourself a “reporter” or a “journalist.”

REAL journalists and reporters have a natural skepticism.  Everyone else ASSUMES but they demand the FACTS.  And they don’t say “Good morning” unless they’ve fact-checked the weather.

The problem is that liberalism did to journalism what it did to babies.  It just plain slaughtered them.  And today journalism is DEAD.

In the same vein, I’ve watched city after city burn down in rioting perpetuated by the mainstream media’s blatantly false depictions of so-called police brutality.

The facts that actual JOURNALISTS and REPORTERS would wait for?

Well, I saw this in the newspaper on July 3rd:

California sees fewest complaints filed against police officers since since 1990

I’ll bet you anything that what is true in our largest state with over 30 million people is true across the nation.  There are giant cities and there are tiny towns and California is so vast and so diverse that it has been frequently suggested that it be broken up into six different states.

But again, every damn time a police officer shoots a black man – pretty much no matter HOW much justification there is – you can count on the mainstream media to run to Al Sharpton and report his race-baiting hatred as “news.”

And then wonder of wonders, their cameras are conveniently there to report the next “protest” (a synonym for “race riot” consisting of burning, looting, and the terrorist sniper-attacks of police officers).

Black people are being murdered at an astonishing rate.  But they’re being murdered by other black people.  And they’re frequently murdered in gun-free zones.  But let’s not report actual FACTS.  Let’s keep ginning up black rage.

The attitude of lies and dishonesty and deception are most manifest in the Democrat politicians that the media cover-up for.  As an example, the liberal-progressive mayor of Baltimore DENIES saying she gave the black rioters “space to destroy”:

“I never said, nor would I ever say, that we are giving people space to destroy our city. So my words should not be twisted.” — Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, April 27, 2015

Judge for yourself:

Hmmm. “We also gave those who wished to destroy space to Do That as well.”

“Let them loot, it’ only property,” she is on the documented factual record as having said.

That’s bad enough, of course, but it hardly ends there.  The SAME liberal-progressive Democrat mayor is on the record DENYING that she issued stand down orders.  The police commanders under her stated that no such orders had been issued.

But damn them damn facts:

Baltimore police commanders acknowledge that they ordered officers not to engage rioters multiple times on the day of Freddie Gray‘s funeral but said they did so to protect officers and citizens as they prioritized life over property.

In an interview with The Baltimore Sun, police Commissioner Anthony W. Batts and six top commanders who directed deployments on April 27 denied that they gave blanket orders to do nothing as rioters looted, raided businesses and even attacked officers with impunity.

The story ONLY changed because the audio of the police commanders issuing the stand-down orders became public – something that will NEVER happen to the emails Hillary Clinton purged from her private server to destroy the evidence of her myriad crimes.

Frankly, most Democrats – including President Obama himself – along with most reporters, should be arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned for inciting riots.  Al Sharpton incites them on a regular basis, and he’s sitting next to Obama in the White House when he’s not fomenting racial hate.

Even when the underlying “facts” that initiated the riots are proven to have been lies, Obama has been able to exploit the lies to enact sweeping policies that impose more fascist totalitarian federal raw naked power.

In the same way, liberals are screaming about the “war on women” and a “rape culture.”  And they have completely seized control of university policies as a result.  To what effect?  Well, don’t count on MSNBC or NBC or CNN or ABC to report this stuff for you, but what has been “fundamentally transformed” into a ruthless war on young white men is terrifying.

First of all, the very basis for seizing control of the college and university policies was based ENTIRELY on false reporting and lies, we can now document:

New DOJ Data On Sexual Assaults: College Students Are Actually Less Likely To Be Victimized
December 11, 2014 By The Federalist Staff

A new report on sexual assault released today by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officially puts to bed the bogus statistic that one in five women on college campuses are victims of sexual assault. In fact, non-students are 25 percent more likely to be victims of sexual assault than students, according to the data. And the real number of assault victims is several orders of magnitude lower than one-in-five.

The full study, which was published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a division within DOJ, found that rather than one in five female college students becoming victims of sexual assault, the actual rate is 6.1 per 1,000 students, or 0.61 percent (instead of 1-in-5, the real number is 0.03-in-5). For non-students, the rate of sexual assault is 7.6 per 1,000 people.

BJS SA Study Highlights

The higher rate of victimization among non-students is important due in large part to recent accusations that U.S. colleges and universities are hotbeds of so-called “rape culture,” where sexual assault is endemic, and administrators and other students are happy to look the other way. The bogus “1 in 5″ statistic, which was the product of a highly suspect survey of only two universities and which paid respondents for their answers, has been repeatedly used as evidence of this pervasive rape culture on college campuses across the country.

Even more striking is that according to the BJS data, the likelihood of sexual assault has actually been trending downward across the board since 1997.

BJS SA Trends 1997[…]

People capable of actual thought – rather than spouting left-wing screaming points – would understand that if one-in-five women are raped on university campuses, THEY WOULD BE BEING RAPED BY OBAMA-VOTING LIBERAL PUKES.  Because it’s those same college pukes voting Democrat more reliably than damn near any other group.  But, of course, either way it proves what swine liberals are: either they’re rapists, or they’re lying about being raped.  And either way, they’re horrible people.

But, that fact aside, because of that bogus “one-in-five college women are sexually assaulted” reporting, the Obama White House imposed the most fascist policies on sexual assault since Adolf Hitler was running a government.  To the extent that we now have a government policy imposed on colleges and universities that white men are guilty even AFTER they have been proven innocent.

I only recently wrote up a story about a young man who got EXPELLED from Amherst for a rape there is no question never occurred. And in fact HE was the victim of a sexual assault, given the definition that to be drunk is to be unable to turn down a sexual encounter and therefore it qualifies as sexual assault.  Because of Obama Administration Hitlerian NAZISM, that young man was not allowed the right to have an attorney, was not allowed the right to have any kind of trial by his peers, was not allowed to have any discovery process, was not allowed to face his accuser, and his accuser’s story was taken at face-value and entirely believed to be truthful even after evidence was offered that showed she was lying like you wouldn’t believe.

The same thing just basically happened to a male student at Columbia University as “mattress girl” became a media darling and a guest of a Democrat Senator.  The same thing happened at Vassar.

Which is to say, the same liberal-progressive propagandists masquerading as “journalists” and “reporters” who don’t need a single FACT to “report” arson fires in black churches blatantly ignore actual fact-after-fact-after-fact that proves their previous reporting on the so-called “rape culture” was a great big fat giant lie.

We’ve got the infamous Duke Lacrosse case and we’ve got a slew of other cases of a vicious war on men based on dishonest women and manufactured into an issue for dishonest politicians by dishonest reporters.

We’ve got the bogus story of Sandra Fluke – who was basically the heroine “mattress girl” was seeking to emulate and receive the same adoration – who just flat-out LIED to make a bogus claim about birth control.

But, true to form, Obama has cynically exploited the lies his ideologue army of cockroach “journalists” and “reporters” provided for him and issued sweeping fascistic controls to impose his agenda by fiat.

It goes back to the liberal progressive fascist theory of “You never want a serious crisis go to waste.”  Because for liberals, every crisis – especially they ones THEY created with their stupid, wicked policies – is another opportunity to expand the power of demonic government.

To be a liberal means to be a liar, and if you are a “journalist” or a “reporter” these days, you’re just a liar with a microphone and a camera.

As we speak, every reporter or journalist is shoving a microphone into the faces of every Republican presidential candidate they can find and demanding they give their position on Donald Trump’s remarks.  And the obvious response from the other candidates would be, “What the hell does that have to do with me?  Why don’t you ask me about MY positions and talk to Donald Trump about his own damn problems?”  But that’s not how the system works when the Grand Old Party is concerned.  The media says they do this because controversy sells and they are equal opportunity when controversy rears its head.

I’d love to be able to interview Hillary Clinton.  I’d love to ask her, “Do you believe that every political figure ought to be able to install his or her own private server and purge all their communications that would or could politically destroy or even criminally indict them the way you did? How are you NOT a damn fascist?”  I’d love to ask, “Given your enthusiastic support for Margaret Sanger, an avowed racist who was successful in building Planned Parenthood into a genocidal machine to exterminate negro babies, why shouldn’t you be called anything other than the worst kind of racist scum?”  No mainstream media reporter has or ever WILL ask Hillary Clinton such confrontational questions.  So no they AREN’T equal opportunity.

Why won’t the same media that goes after Republican politicians who oppose gay marriages as “intolerant” go after Democrats who support gay marriage as hating the Bible and despising biblical Christianity?  Because they are pathologically biased and unfair, that’s why.

Reporters and journalists are people who believe the 1st Amendment gives conservatives, Republicans and Christians the right to shut up and bow down to political correctness or be prepared to be targeted for slander.

I’ve been hitting it over and over and over again, I know.  But the Democrat Party is the party of deceit and slander and lies.  The Democrat Party is the party of the coming Antichrist.  The Democrat Party is the party of the deception and the mystery of lawlessness that the Bible foretold would characterize the last days.

Secular Humanism The Source Behind Education’s Ills Across The Board As We Decline In Knowledge, In Tolerance And In Morality

May 19, 2014

Secular humanism – in religious terms you can label it “atheism” and in political terms you can label it “progressive liberalism” – is a shell game that tries to hide the existence of the human soul.

The soul is there, of course.  It simply HAS to be there for humans to be in any meaningful way categorically different than the beasts, or for human justice to be anything other than a morbid joke as “beasts” judge one another for acting like beasts.  But the project of secular humanism is to only allow as much “soul” as is absolutely necessary to allow society to function while at the same time denying it’s reality lest the people reject the atheism and the progressive liberalism that are based on the denial of the soul.

The problem is that the soul is NOT a degreed property.  “Size” and “weight” are a degreed properties; a thing can have more of it or less of it and still be the thing itself.  But in this case the soul must be the kind of thing (a substance) that HAS properties rather than a property that has degrees.  We therefore either have souls – in which case the secular humanists are entirely wrong about the nature of humanity, the nature of religion, the nature of morality, the nature of science and the very  nature of the universe – or we do NOT have souls and therefore we do NOT have “free will” in which case human society, human justice and basically everything worthwhile about “humanity” is an entirely manufactured lie.

Look, I am either a soul – created in the image of God – that has a body, or else I am nothing more than a body – and frankly a meat puppet – which was the result of random DNA conditioned by my environment.  It’s one or the other; there is no middle ground.  Free will becomes a logical as well as biological impossibility for the latter view – which is why secular humanist scientists and philosophers are increasingly rejecting the very possibility of free will.

The problem is that if you were to actually assume the latter was actually true, then how could you hold anybody responsible for anything?  It’s really a frightening thought.  After all, if I commit a brutal murder, but there really is no “me” inside of me to truly hold accountable, but rather I was conditioned by genes I didn’t choose and an environment I didn’t choose, why should I be held accountable?  How is this not like holding a child responsible for what his parents did?  But of course, on this view, you can’t hold the parents responsible any more than the child, because they suffer the same complete lack of moral free will that their child does.  And the final result of this view is that we should no more hold a human being – who is NOTHING but an evolved monkey, after all – any more morally responsible for his or her “crimes” than we would hold a tiger responsible for killing a goat.   Because in both cases, you merely do what you “evolved” to do.

Therefore, the people who claim the latter (no God, ergo sum no imago dei ergo sum no free will) is reality have to pretend for the most part that it is most definitely NOT reality in order to have any kind of functioning human society.  What they have done is determined that humans are in fact “animals” (or beasts); and that, more specifically, we are “herd animals.”  Mind you, we are also clearly – judging by human experience – “predator animals” who prey on herd animals.  And so the secular humanists have construed for themselves a “foundation for their description of reality” in which they have appointed themselves the outside role of “the bureaucrats” and “the professors” and “the journalists” (etc.) who shape and control the behavior of the herd and attempt to keep the herd animals relatively safe from the predator animals.

And of course liberalism only becomes consistent in their anthropology when they refuse to execute murderers (after all, THAT would be holding someone accountable for their moral crimes when that man is merely a beast who merely did what his brain had evolved to do); so we house them, keep them locked up in cages.  Just like animals.  Because they ARE animals and nothing more than animals conditioned by DNA plus environment.  Just like YOU’RE nothing more than a mindless animal purely conditioned by DNA plus environment.

I suggest that the increasing breakdown of society under the control of secular humanism is itself a refutation of their system.  We are skyrocketing out of control as a species because when you treat men like beasts, like beasts men shall increasingly become.  As the Bible puts it, “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7).  But we can offer a great deal more of an analysis than merely pointing out that “by their fruits shall ye know them” (Matthew 7:16-20).

One of the things you need to realize is the bait and switch you have received regarding science and the nature of science.  You have been fed a pile of lies in the form of a narrative that science is incompatible with religion and that “science” produces open-mindedness and tolerance for new ideas whereas “religion” produces close-mindedness and hostility to new ideas.  But that is simply a lie: as a matter of factual history, “science” is uniquely a product of Judeo-Christianity.  It arose ONLY in Christendom as the result of belief in a Personal, Transcendent Creator God rather than anywhere else on earth.  Belief in God was a necessary condition for the rise of science as not only the discoverer of the scientific method itself (Francis Bacon) but the discoverer of every single branch of science was a publicly confessing Christian who “sought appreciate the beauty of God’s handiwork” and who “wanted to think God’s thoughts after Him.”

J.P. Moreland (Source: The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, p. 17) listed some of the philosophical presuppositions – based on the Judeo-Christian worldview – that were necessary for the foundation of science:

1. the existence of a theory-independent, external world

2. the orderly nature of the external world

3. the knowability of the external world

4. the existence of truth

5. the laws of logic

6. the reliability of human cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as -truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment

7. the adequacy of language to describe the world

8. the existence of values used in science (e.g., “test theories fairly and report test results honestly”)

9. the uniformity of nature and induction

10. the existence of numbers

Good luck in starting science without all of these assumptions – of which the assumption of God according to the Judeo-Christian worldview was necessary to provide.  Science could not verify or validate any of the list above for the reason that they already needed to be accepted in order for science to ever get off the ground in the first place.

To put it crassly, if it were up to secular humanists, we would still be living in caves and afraid of fire.  And if it left up to secular humanists, we will ultimately be living in caves and afraid of fire again.  And all you have to do to realize that society is not advancing under their standard, but degenerating, to know that.

God created the world as a habitation for the capstone of His creation, man.  And then God created man in His own image and therefore able to see and fathom the world which He had created for humanity.  That is the basis for science.

Gleason Archer framed an insurmountable intellectual contradiction for the “scientific atheist”:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self contradictory and self defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”  — Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, pp. 55-56

Basically, if the atheist is right, then “human reason” becomes a contradiction in terms and let’s just live like the beasts they say we are and be done pretending we’re something we’re not.

What secular humanists have been trying to do – frankly for generations – is to perpetuate a fraud.  It would be akin to me intercepting a great thinker’s work and trying to pass it off as my own.

But imagine – for the sake of argument – what would have happened had I done such a thing with the work of Albert Einstein.  Imagine I had enough of a vocabulary to pass myself off as a great scientific mind.  What would have happened to science as a result of my limiting it?

And that is what’s essentially being described in the R. Scott Smith article below.  Education – the teaching of science and of how to do science, for example – would suffer more and more as fools who are “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7) hijacked the agenda.

I would like to begin this discussion with an article on the logically-entailed implications of Darwinism in crucial human pursuits by beginning with an article detailing the ramifications of Darwinism on education:

Winter 2014
Does Darwinian Evolution Actually Undermine Education?
By R. Scott Smith

Low standard test scores, serious budget crunches and more — our public schools face daunting challenges. But perhaps they face a deeper issue, one not being mentioned in recent public discussions: What if they aren’t really teaching our youth knowledge?

Today’s education is based upon the assumption that science gives us knowledge. But other disciplines give us (at best) “inferior knowledge,” or just preferences and opinions.

And today’s scientific orthodoxy is Darwinian and naturalistic, meaning all that’s real is natural, or material; there isn’t anything real that’s supernatural or immaterial. There’s no God, souls or minds, and so no real “mental states” — thoughts, beliefs, experiences, intentions, etc.

If that seems overstated, notice what Daniel Dennett, a leading philosopher of neuroscience at Tufts University, says. He admits that according to naturalistic evolution, the dominant scientific theory, brains and physical patterns of physical forces exist. Physical stuff (matter) is real, but things like mental states aren’t.

Yet when we do science, pay our taxes or watch a football game, it seems we really think, have beliefs and experience things. So, how can that be?

According to Dennett, all that’s going on is the interpretation of the behavior of “intentional systems,” like sophisticated chess-playing computers and people. While observing them, we try to interpret and predict their behavior. For instance, we might interpret a computer’s move in a game as “intending” to checkmate its opponent, whereas the human player “thinks” or “believes” she can escape by making a certain move. We just interpret their behaviors by how we conceive of (or talk about) their behaviors as mental states — but that’s all there’s to it. There are no real beliefs, thoughts or observations.

However, suppose a person comes here from a fourth-world country. She’ll need to get a concept of what a traffic light is and that she can cross the street on a green light, not red. To learn that, she’ll need experiences and thoughts of what these things are, and then form a concept of when it’s safe to cross a street.

So, for Darwinian evolution and naturalism, there’s a crucial problem here: How could anyone make observations and form concepts and interpretations? To do these seems to require we use the very mental things we’re told don’t exist.

Yet without real observations, we don’t seem able to do any scientific experiments. Without concepts, thoughts and beliefs, how could we even form, test and accept scientific theories?

Worse, how could we have knowledge if there aren’t real beliefs we can accept as true? We also need adequate evidence for our beliefs to count as knowledge. But with Darwinian, naturalistic science, evidence from experience seems impossible.

Now, maybe Michael Tye (a philosopher at the University of Texas at Austin) could reply that we do have mental states, yet these really are just something physical, like brain states, being conceived of as being mental. But, that won’t work — to even have concepts, we need real mental states to work with.

So, it seems the assumption upon which our education system is founded — that Darwinian evolutionary, naturalistic science uniquely gives us knowledge of the facts — cannot be true. And, Darwinian evolution also is mistaken, for on it we couldn’t know anything. Yet we do know many things — for instance, that we’re alive.

Therefore, real, immaterial mental states must exist. While this essay doesn’t prove it, it suggests something very important — supernaturalism isn’t far-fetched after all. Indeed, we can infer even more. If we can have real immaterial thoughts, experiences, beliefs and more, then it seems that there must be something immaterial that is real which can have and use them. That suggests that we have minds, even souls, that are real and non-physical. So, how then do we best explain their existence? Surely not from Darwinian evolution. Instead, it seems that this short study highly suggests that God exists and has made us in a way that we can have knowledge. I am reminded of what Solomon said: “To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord” (Prov. 1:7, GNT).

Thus, fixing our education system seems to involve, in part, a  repudiation of naturalism and Darwinian, naturalistic science. For on it, we lose all knowledge whatsoever. But since we do know many things, that fact strongly suggests that God exists.


R. Scott Smith (M.A. ’95) is an associate professor of ethics and Christian apologetics in Biola’s master’s program in Christian
apologetics. He holds a Ph.D. in religion and social ethics from the University of Southern California.

Science isn’t “discovering” very much.  We put a man on the moon in the 1960s and we literally aren’t capable of repeating that feat today.  The first computer was invented by a Christian, of course.  We keep making them smaller and faster, but we haven’t had any major leaps for decades.  We’ve been following Moore’s Law rather than any “scientific advance.”  We’ve been very successful at “technology,” and at reducing the size of previously designed devices or at creatively marketing/engineering a device based on the success of a previous device.  But contrary to your secular humanist, we’re not making giant leaps and bounds on the frontiers of science.

And that is most definitely true of education – and especially education in America relative to other nations as we plunge ever more deeply into the philosophy of secular humanism that had NOTHING to do with the origin of science or the origin of ANY OTHER MEANINGFUL THING.

I look at education and I see what many parents as well as many educators see: kids that are getting dumber and dumber.

And you have to ask yourself, why is that, given that we’re spending more per pupil than ever???  Why do we keep falling behind?  And why do Christian schools run circles around the government (secular humanist education center) schools???  Because it is simply a FACT that they do:

If you want a flourishing education system – you know, the kind of system that put a man on the moon – you need to demand a return to a religion-friendly education system rather than the one that has replaced the system that made America great.

It is a fact of history that American public education began as a RELIGIOUS ENDEAVOROf the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian.  As a native Californian, I also marveled to learn that Christianity and churches EXCLUSIVELY bore the burden of education for basically the first hundred years of westward expansion.

I’ve written about what happened as government invited itself in to take over education:

Then what turned out to be a Faustian bargain was struck.  Government took over the education system, ostensibly allowing the churches and denominations to pursue other noble work such as the mission fields.  It didn’t take long for the same government that had protected human slavery and created the Trail of Tears to begin systematically removing Scripture, God and prayer from the classrooms and thus from the children of each successive generation’s minds.

Christians stepped away from the work of education that they had historically devoted themselves to and began to put the overwhelming majority of their funds into their churches and their missionaries.  Meanwhile, liberals began to place virtually all of their funds into the universities and thus began to increasingly shape the curricula.

Ultimately, as a result, the Christians who began the universities and schools found themselves completely shut out of their own progeny.

Look what’s happened.  Liberals have purged out conservatives.  The snootiest, most hoity toity, most sanctimonious lecturers about “tolerance” are THE most intolerant people of all:

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field,” said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. “There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.” […]

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said. “It doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve observed it happening.” The study, however, describes this finding as “preliminary.”

By the way, I’m “possibly” liberal by that standard of measurement.  Yeah, being conservative or being a Christian (and recall that it was the Democrat Party that voted to remove “God” from its party platform until God was illegally put back into the platform amid a chorus of boos) most definitely “counts against you” in the stacked deck that liberalism has created to benefit itself and punish its enemies.  As Professor Guillermo Gonzalez found out the hard way when liberals denied him tenure because he had the gall to write a book expressing his belief in an intelligent designer of the universe.  And after denying him tenure because he believed in God and they are fascists, they fired a professor who should by all rights have been celebrated.

Because liberals are in fact the most intolerant people.  Once they took over the universities, they made very certain that they would never lose that control by making certain that conservative faculty would be systematically denied tenure and purged out.

That was our strike two for us [note: I write about three strikes in the article].  Liberals got into the education system and then barricaded the door behind them.

By the way, the two fields of academia liberals most hijacked were the fields of education and law.  They trained up the teachers and the lawyers who would be able to indoctrinate their students and more lawyers who would be able to basically make the Constitution an infinitely malleable document that basically means whatever liberals think it means.  By taking over education, liberals were able to introduce increasingly and frankly wildly failed teaching methodologies that brainwashed kids into liberalism without bothering to teach them reading, writing, arithmetic and history.  Our government school system has completely broken down and failed because liberals turned education into indoctrination.  And what is even worse, the more liberal teaching methodologies fail, the more liberals exploit their failure to usher in even WORSE methodologies.  It has become a vicious circle.

Today we have an “education system” ladened with secular humanist theories which don’t teach children because as secular humanists they have understanding of “humanity” or the little souls whom they seek more to indoctrinate than to educate.

Johnny can’t read, at least he can’t read very well.  But that’s okay; he doesn’t need to be able to read very well in order to serve the future State or the crony capitalist corporations in the progressive liberals’ fascist system in order to be a good drone worker bee.  When your child is toiling away at his or her menial job, feel good in the knowledge that your child will do so believing that being a good citizen and taking your place as one of myriad cogs in the machine will keep him or her moving mindlessly forward.

In a way, I’ve already also described the rabid intolerance that is the quintessence of secular humanism in describing above the purging of conservatives by liberals.  But believe me, there is way, way more than that.

One of the frightening things about the Holocaust was that only one who closely followed the theories presented in the German universities could see it coming.  But those who DID follow what was being taught in the elite German universities could see it coming very clearly.  Many of those who did follow what was being taught were terrified and tried to warn the free nations about what was happening.  But of course nobody listened.  And so it all played out exactly as the most strident voices warned it would play out unless something was done.  That “play” was World War II and the death camps that accompanied it.

The lesson of history is that ideas have consequences.  And terrible ideas have terrible consequences, indeed.

So with that introduction, allow me to replay a recent article written by a student of one of the most – if not THE most – prestigious of universities in America reflecting a new rabid intolerance of free speech in academia:

 In its oft-cited Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declares that “Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.” In principle, this policy seems sound: It would not do for academics to have their research restricted by the political whims of the moment.

Yet the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?

Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue. […]

It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.

Basically, she says that free speech on campus should be abolished and professors with opposing views be fired.

Here as in so many other ways, secular humanist “liberalism” is Nazism.  Period.

I want you to consider the bastion of bias and intolerance that academia has truly become:

AN ANTONIO — Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.

Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”

It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

We are now seeing a massive effort on the part of students who have been brain-washed by the above secular humanist dictatorship of academia in which they simply refuse to tolerate or even listen to any ideas that disagree with their dogma.

Students are now shouting down anyone with whom they disagree.  It doesn’t matter how many other students want to hear a speaker: secular humanist liberal students and faculty are fascists who impose their will and dictate their agenda on others (even when they are in the very tiny minority):  And so:

At least three prominent leaders — former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde, and former UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau — cancelled their commencement speeches this spring after a typhoon of campus activism.

Consider what happened this week with Birgeneau, who had been scheduled to speak at Haverford College, a close-knit liberal arts school just outside Philadelphia.

By some measures, Birgeneau is the perfect person to give a graduation speech: Successful, civic-minded and notable, not least for guiding Berkeley as it became the first American public university to offer comprehensive financial aid to students in the country illegally. But Birgeneau was actually far from ideal, some Haverford students and faculty decided.

Despite his left-friendly work on immigration, they said they wanted Birgeneau to apologize for how campus police brutalized Occupy Wall Street demonstrators in 2011 — or else they would protest his graduation speech.

In response, Birgeneau decided not to attend the graduation. His cancellation, the most recent of the three, is raising concerns in some quarters that campus leftist groups are putting so much emphasis on social justice issues that they’re squashing the spirit of open debate. […]

But some observers say the recent campus blow back belongs in its own category, which political writer Michelle Goldberg, in a column for The Nation, called “left-wing anti-liberalism” – the idea that some speech and some people are so politically disagreeable that their views don’t need to be heard.

Lukianoff, of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, pointed to a 2013 dust-up at Brown University in which former New York police head Ray Kelly’s speech to students had to be canceled after he was shouted down and unable to speak.

Kelly has long been despised by the left for his defense of stop-and-frisk policies and how the NYPD cracked down on Occupy Wall Street protesters. His embarrassment at Brown became a YouTube moment that other officials would likely hope to avoid. [….]

For centuries, universities – which again were started by Christians out of the monasticism movement (as in America, where 106 of the first 108 universities in America including ALL the Ivy League schools were began by Christians; and of the first 126 colleges, 123 were Christian) have celebrated their institutions as bastions of free expression and the interchange of ideas.  That is a lie today.  You don’t GET to learn “ideas” any more; you get to learn THE idea of secular humanist liberalism and nothing else.  Because whether you are a student or a professor or an administrator, these secular humanist liberals will come after you if you commit the sin of heresy in their rabid eyes.

Therefore, what has happened in the colleges and universities is analogous to a wayward girl who began to date a monster and ultimately helped murder her own parents in the night.  That’s what secular humanism did in purging the universities and colleges from the Christian tradition that gave BIRTH to those universities and colleges.

I compare what I’m seeing today to the French Revolution.  It, like what we’re seeing today, was the result of secular humanism.  And like what we’re seeing today, the French Revolution quickly degenerated from a bunch of hoity-toity pronouncements to hell on earth as the French Revolution rapidly degenerated into the Reign of Terror.

It is an easy thing to prove that rabid intolerance is a defining feature of the (secular humanist “liberal”) left today.  We are seeing the left declare open war on free speech and on the exercise of First Amendment rights as this nation has never seen before.  Executives are being forced out of companies they helped found because they had the audacity to exercise their free speech rights as AmericansJournalists are getting purged for daring to speak the truth.   And just consider the vicious, rabid leftist Occupy Movement compared to the conservative Tea Party that was so demonized by the leftist press:

Occupy Movement Costs America UNTOLD MILLIONS ($2.3 Milion In L.A. ALONE) Versus Tea Party Movement Which MADE Cities Money

Liberalism = Marxism. See The Occupy Movement Shutting Down Ports, Capitalism, Jobs To Get Their Way (Communist Russian Revolution Part Deux)

After Obama Deceitfully Demonized GOP For ‘Dirtier Air And Dirtier Water,’ His Occupy Movement Leaves Behind 30 TONS Of Diseased Filfth At Just ONE Site

Vile Liberal Occupy Movement Killed The Grass At L.A. City Hall – What Should Be Done Now?

Occupy Movement Officially A Terrorist Group Now

The American Left Personified By Occupy Movement: Vile, Violent Fascist Thugs

Occupy Movement Is Destroying Jobs And Hurting Little People

Consider The Fundamental Incoherence And Hypocrisy Of The Left And The Occupy Movement

Occupy Wall Street Movement Ranks Have Criminals, Rioters, Rapists, Terrorists And Now Murderers

There have been 7,765 documented arrests of leftist Occupy Movement fascists.  Versus ZERO for the Tea Party.

Occupy – as a symbol and a symptom of the left – believed it had the right to “occupy” private property, to destroy property, to destroy jobs, to pretty much take over.  And in the case of UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, we discover that it is a sin punishable by the maximum penalty to apply law and order to the left.  Better to just let them occupy and riot and vandalize, I suppose.

Liberalism is fascist intolerance when “liberalism” has been hijacked by secular humanist progressive liberalism.  Liberals are simply pathologically intolerant people across the board as expressed in pretty much any way you can measure it.

I come at last to sexual assaults.  They’ve either absolutely skyrocketed in Obama’s military and in liberalism’s universities or Obama has – incredibly cynically – manufactured a political crisis to demagogue.  Let’s just assume the data we have is correct and Obama ISN’T an incredibly evil man and go with it.  Sexual assaults have skyrocketed on his watch during his administration.

Secular humanists have no answer for why this would be.  After all, they’ve been talking about it and requiring more enforcement – including universities which clearly aren’t able to deal with the crisis – and punishing it more than ever.  So why is it growing out of control on a liberal president’s watch?

The answer is easy.  On my Judeo-Christian view, rape is wrong, wrong, WRONG.  Because contrary to secular humanism, we’re NOT just DNA-plus-environment-plus nothing meat puppets; we are human beings created by God in His image.  And to sexually assault another human being is to ignore, degrade and pervert the image of God in another soul.

On a secular humanist, not so much.

Oh, your liberal feminist asserts it’s wrong.  But when you stop and consider the tenets of Darwinian evolution, on what grounds do they assert such a thing?

Evolutionists have long talked about rape in terms of advancing evolution.  We’re equipped for fleeing, fighting and fornicating, we’re told.  There’s such a thing as a “rape gene,” we’re told.  And since Darwinism is all about “survival of the fittest,” and since the fittest survive precisely by passing on their DNA, well, rape is merely one of many possible pathways for an organism to strive to be the fittest in Darwinan terms.  And of course the animal world abounds with examples in which humans would call it “rape” but animals would call it “reproducing.”

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Because as evolutionists explain:

“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!”

Rape isn’t wrong because secular humanists say it is.  That’s not a good enough reason.  Certainly not for the increasing numbers of humans committing sexual assaults it isn’t, anyway.

Why is rape wrong?  Frankly, in our new system of “morality,” rape is wrong because Obama says it is wrong.  That’s certainly the “logic” Obama used to first say that homosexual marriage was wrong when it was politically convenient to do so and that it somehow became right when it was politically convenient for him to say it was right.  I mean, literally, gay marriage was wrong until Obama said it was right.  And now it’s right.  But anyone who thinks that this is the way morality works is quite literally morally insane.

And so we have insane sexual assault statistics to go with it.

If secular humanist liberalism is in any way, shape or form true, THERE IS NO REASON TO BE TOLERANT.  In fact, we ought to be as vicious, as ruthless, as determined to win in our struggle for ideology – which of course is merely the result of how our brains happened to be randomly wired versus having any “truth” to them if secular humanism is true – as is necessary to prevail.

If secular humanist liberalism is true, then the struggle for “ideas” today is no different between rival packs of baboons fighting over the same turf.

And the reason the beast is coming is because God foreknew 2,000 years ago and beyond that in the last days, the most vicious pack of baboons (the secular humanist liberals) would prevail in a world in which rational argument and debate had been expunged by “liberalism.”

 

Homosexual Sexual Assaults In Military Skyrocketing – And Also Why Sexual Assaults In Military Are Skyrocketing In GENERAL

January 2, 2014

First let’s have the news from the pages of the Los Angeles Times:

Air Force member’s allegation of sex assault brings him more grief
Male victims of sexual assault in the military rarely file complaints. When Air Force security guard Trent Smith did, his life got worse, he says.
By David S. Cloud
December 30, 2013, 9:19 p.m.

TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. — Shortly after he arrived at Ramstein Air Base in Germany in March 2012, Air Force security guard Trent Smith was at an off-base apartment when, he says, a male sergeant touched him and pressed him to go into the bedroom for sex.

“I said, ‘No, I don’t want to spend the night,'” Smith recalled. But Smith, 20, says he felt he had no choice. “I went along with it.”

For Smith, the encounter — which he reported up the chain of command three days later — began an emotional ordeal. As the months passed, his doctors say, the trim, polite airman with an engaging smile suffered bouts of anger, guilt and depression so severe that he contemplated suicide several times.

More disturbing for a Pentagon struggling to gain control of a seeming epidemic of charges concerning rape and unwanted sexual advances in the ranks, Smith’s attempts to get help only worsened his troubles. After a lengthy investigation, the military decided that no crime had occurred, and it later moved to discharge Smith on medical grounds.

The case highlights a little-recognized reality for the male-dominated military. Although members of Congress have focused their outrage on abuse of women in uniform, the Pentagon reported in May that 53% of the estimated 26,000 troops who were raped or forced into sex last year were men.

Although women are proportionally more likely to be the victim of a sexual assault — the Defense Department estimates that 6.1% of women and 1.2% of men are victims of sexual assaults — the fact that men so vastly outnumber women in the military means that the problem affects more men than women.

Only a fraction of those alleging rape or sexual assault file complaints with military police or prosecutors, as a rule, so the Pentagon’s most recent estimates are based on a confidential survey of service members. Smith was among those who did file an official report.

After a six-month criminal investigation, Brig. Gen. Charles K. Hyde, then commander of the 86th Airlift Wing at Ramstein, decided the sex was consensual, according to case records. The sergeant was admonished for an “unprofessional relationship” with a lower-ranking airman, the lightest punishment possible.

The Times is not naming the sergeant because he was not charged. He declined an interview request through a base spokesman at Ramstein. The spokesman, Maj. Tony Wickman, said the sergeant was considered an “above-average airman.”

As usual, of course, I turn out to be completely correct in my predictions from 2010:

In my “day” in the Army, soldiers in the infantry that I served in just would not have tolerated openly homosexual soldiers.  There would have been blanket parties galore, until the gay-berets got the message that they were most definitely not wanted.  I don’t know that that will happen today, but I just can’t imagine the mindset has changed that much in the years I’ve been out (by which I mean out of the military, and not, you know, “out”).

I heard a Democrat representative today say that the military is having a hard time keeping up its recruiting goals, and so therefore it’s stupid to deny thousands of gay men and women the opportunity to serve.  What that omits is the fact that there are a lot of heterosexual men and women who don’t want to be forced to shower and sleep right next to same-sex soldiers who may well want nothing more than to have “relations” with them.  There are also a lot of young men who continue to have something of that Judeo-Christian worldview who rightly believe that homosexuality is a serious moral issue, and these young men aren’t going to want to be forced to trust people that they don’t trust with their lives.

“Missile defense” is about to take on a whole new meaning.

And lo and behold, or for you French-surrender-monkey-loving liberals,  voilà.  Missile defense has taken on a whole new meaning under Obama just as I TOLD YOU SO.

Not only a  majority but a whopping majority – as in an even slightly larger majority that constituted a “landslide” for Obama in 2008 – of the rape cases involve some poor bastard who didn’t have adequate “missile defense” against some homosexual sodomy soldier (or sailor, because after all the openly homosexual Village People did sing that song, “In the Navy”).  Fully 53% of the rape cases in the military are men getting raped by other men.

The LA Times wants you to think that the 53% of cases of rape being against men is irrelevant given the ratio of male troops to female troops.  But I hasten to point out that less than 2% of the population is homosexual – and that “10% figure” is a giant load of crap that is merely a bellwether of the insane ideology of everyone reporting this easily refuted statistic as if it were even remotely true.  So we’ve definitely got the “gay military” I described back in 2008.  And if you don’t have kung fu missile defense, you’d better stay the hell out of Obama’s military unless you’re a guy who likes being the girl during your rape.  In which case you’ve come to the right place signing up for a tour of rump ranger duty.

I think of our prison system, where that less-than-2% of our population for some unknown reason (other than the biblical fact that their lifestyle is an “ABOMINATION” and “A DETESTABLE ACT”) constitute a massive percentage of our inmate population.  Go to prison or jail and you’re extremely likely to run into one of these innocent, wonderful homosexuals the media and the Democrat Party are so in love with.  To wit: if you’re entering the military or if you’re entering the prison system and you’re a heterosexual, sorry, dude.  Keep up with that “missile defense” and just do the best you can.  And remember that when they bend you over, you’re sacrificing your “virginity” for Obama’s glory.

This is the funny thing (unless you happen to be a heterosexual serviceman): sexual assaults in the military HAVE SKYROCKETED under the first “gay president” (aforementioned “gay” thing being according to überleftist MSNBC and Newsweek just in case you don’t want to take my word for it).

As an example, military sexual assault cases “skyrocketed” in 2012, according to the news reports.  Their words.  But then “there were more reported sexual assaults in the military in the first nine months of fiscal year 2013 than in all of fiscal year 2012.”  So let’s just say that the rate of the “skyrocketing” has “skyrocketed.”

And yes, that’s “rocket” as in what the poor bastard tries to protect himself from with “missile defense.”

Let me explain why it is that sexual assaults have skyrocketed under “first gay president” Obama.  It’s actually very simple: because Obama has purged “religion and morality” from the military that as “commander-in-chief” he has so much control over.  And without “religion and morality” you have NO MORALITY AT ALL.

I’ve pointed out the following point again and again:

Washington [as in George Washington, the Father of our country] said:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” — George Washington, Farewell Address

If you want your politics to prosper, the two things you will not separate will be religion and morality. If you want your government to work well, if you want American exceptionalism, if you want the government to do right, if you want all this, then you won’t separate religion and morality from political life. And America’s greatest patriot gave a litmus test for patriotism. He says in the very next sentence (immediately continuing from the quote above):

“In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

Washington says, Anyone who would try to remove religion and morality from public life, I won’t allow them to call themselves a patriot. Because they are trying to destroy the country.

George Washington said:

“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” –- George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

John Adams completely agreed:

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

Barack Hussein and the Democrat Party that stinks of all things Hussein are traitors to America and guilty of treason according to the men who fathered America and wrote our Constitution.  PERIOD.

Why were our founding fathers so right and Obama and the entire Democrat Party so treasonously and so wickedly wrong???

I wrote a brief response to a comment this morning that I think does a reasonable job expressing the reason why:

This gets to a far deeper problem with secular humanism: there ARE no grounds for morality.  To wit, if I am an atheist, what do I have to do such that I am not a “good atheist” the way one could easily point out that one is not a “good Christian” by comparing his or her moral behavior to the ethics of the Bible.  THERE IS NOTHING.  Stalin and Hitler and Mao were all “good atheists” even though they are responsible for way, WAY over the murders of 100 million people (and yes, for the official record, Hitler WAS an atheist, having been described as such by key members of his inner circle like Joseph Goebbels in private journals.

As an example of that last, here is the entry into Goebbels’ personal diary, dated 8 April 1941 (Tues):

“The Fuhrer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much nobler and more humane than the Christians’. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, greatness, monumentality. The most wonderful republic in history. We would feel no disappointment, he believes, if we were now suddenly to be transported to this old, eternal city.”

Similarly, in a 1939 diary entry, Goebbels pointed out that Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.”

Hitler said a bunch of things about Christianity, such as that Christianity was the invention of sick minds.  Hitler was an atheist who pointed out to his inner circle that after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow.”

Liberals are fascists who believe what Hitler said to the masses because Hitler spoke as the Führer of Big Government Socialism (NAZI standing for “National Socialist German Workers Party”) and to them Government is God.  The morality of God must be supplanted and replaced with the “morality” of the State.  They ignore the fact that Hitler was a demon-possessed LIAR who told the people one thing and told his trusted inner circle something very different (the truth).

So what does one have to do to be a “bad atheist”???  What IS morality to these people???  And the answer is as chilling as the worst of Stalinism: it is whatever the hell they SAY it is at any given moment.

So Obama was a “good liberal” when he said that marriage was the union between one man and one woman in 2008, and he was a good liberal for saying the exact OPPOSITE the moment political expediency enabled him to do so.  Because ultimately the “morality” of liberalism is dishonesty and abject personal hypocrisy.

I like the morality of the Bible better.  Because “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God stands forever,” whereas the “morality” of liberalism is a constantly shifting thing that always and only benefits liberals and their perversions.

The reason that morality is irrelevant to liberal Democrats is the reason that Obama could swear in 2008 that “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman” [and in fact said it on the very eve of the 2008 election to make sure we all heard him lying] and then said the EXACT OPPOSITE THING when it was convenient for him to do so.  Because liberalism stands for NOTHING but more liberalism.  It’s the same reason that your NEXT Democrat candidate for president, Hillary Clinton, did the same damn stinking lying dishonest depraved thing.

I repeat the moral lecture from a liberal to me, who said:

surely you cannot be so ignorant as to believe the eight mentions of homosexuality in the Bible are appropriate for total guidance in modern situations.

Because he prefers Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s constantly shifting stand and just as constantly self-centered and self-serving “morality” to the eternal morality of God and His Word.

“Morality” to a liberal is whatever the hell he or she wants it to be at any constantly shifting moment in time.  And of course every single time it shifts it will reinforce the ideology of liberalism.  And every single time it shifts it will agree with Satan and his depraved world and disagree with God and His Word.

If secular humanist liberals tell us not to rape, what does it matter???  Tomorrow they’ll tell us something very different, for one thing.  And give that liberals believe in evolution, aren’t they contradicting themselves???   Because after all:

The males of most species—including humans—are usually more eager to mate than the females, and this enables females to choose among males who are competing with one another for access to them. But getting chosen is not the only way to gain sexual access to females. In rape, the male circumvents the female’s choice [p. 53, A Natural History of Rape, MIT Press, 2000,  Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer].

These evolutionists make it very clear that we’re rapists by evolutionary biology:

“Human rape arises from men’s evolved machinery for obtaining a high number of mates in an environment where females choose mates” (p. 190, emp. added). They further state that “[e]volutionary theory applies to rape, as it does to other areas of human affairs, on both logical and evidentiary grounds. There is no legitimate scientific reason not to apply evolutionary or ultimate hypotheses to rape” (p. 55). In their proposed “scientific” evolutionary reasons why men rape women, they suggest that in some cases heavy metals such as lead “disrupt psychological adaptations of impulse control,” which may lead to a “higher rate of criminality” (p. 58). They state, “[l]ead may account for certain cases of rape, just as mutations may” (p. 58).

Of course, in our new gay military, the male circumvents the [politically unprotected] male’s choice, too.

No lesser evolutionary authority than William Provine pointed out that atheism and evolution equals zero morality or ethics:

“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”

So the facts are (according to secular humanist liberal Democrats) that: 1) there is no God and that therefore 2) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists which means that 3) Human rape arises from men’s evolved machinery.  and of course 4) the facts may change tomorrow when liberals say they changed 5) in order to suit liberals.  Oh, and 6) people vote “Democrat” because they are mindless and soulless meat puppets devoid of anything resembling free will.

And you seriously wonder why sexual assaults are flourishing in the age of Obama???

I just wonder when Newsweek will rightly put Obama on the cover as “the first buttrape president.”  I know that’s a truly crude term, but as ObamaCare rears its massively intrusive governmental ding dong and starts pushing it up their rears, that’s precisely how a lot of people who AREN’T either in the military or the prison system will feel…