cialis weniger 20 mg
ZION'S TRUMPET
1Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand; Joel 2:1
Show MenuHide Menu

I Hear Ya Ron!

July 9, 2014

Found at RBA: http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/

Hump Day Funny

July 9, 2014

Found this at IAHW: http://itaintholywater.blogspot.com/

“Communitarianism”, “Intersectionalism”, and Other Totally Worthless Shit Taught at our Universities

July 9, 2014

Crazy: #RadFem Announces ‘Major Shift or Breakthrough in My Feminism’

Posted on | July 8, 2014

Regular readers remember Witchwind, the radical feminist that commenters have nicknamed “Windy.” She’s a wacky man-hating disciple of Mary Daly and Dee Graham, and inspired worldwide laughter with her anti-intercourse rant: “PIV is always rape, OK?”

Last week, Witchwind made an announcement:

After a succession of intense and mind-blowing discussions with friends, recent events and several weeks of trying to get to the bottom of why I find radical lesbianism so misogynist, I’ve just experienced a major shift or breakthrough in my feminism. One thing led to another, and I realise that the essential problem i’m trying to talk about is much larger than radical lesbianism, and relates to separatist communitarianism as a liberation strategy — the idea we should form a small, elitist community separate from women as much as from men, rather than focus on our potential to bond with all women and on all women’s potential to wake up to our reality. . . . I do have the impression of having having found a missing link which now helps me to see the whole picture with much more clarity and depth. Therefore my focus will no longer be on radical lesbianism and identity politics as such, but on the wider phenomenon of separatist communitarianism, whether it be radical lesbian, lesbian feminist, radical feminist, “intersectionalist”, etc. When our bonding with women is based on the exclusion of other women, then we aren’t really bonding with women but erecting a fictitious shield of “us” vs “them” to protect ourselves from persecution (a threat in which we include women), but which prevents the spreading of feminism to other women by preventing our contact and bonding with such women. . . .

If that makes sense to you, seek psychiatric help immediately.

You can read the entire 2,500-word excursion into lunatic gibberish, but it doesn’t become any more coherent. Insofar as it is “about” anything, it is about Windy trying to find an anti-male ideology that, while understanding female heterosexuality as women’s brainwashed cooperation with their own oppression, does not have the effect of blaming/shaming women for their heterosexuality.

To-may-to, to-mah-to.

Having spent the past six months plowing through the radical feminist syllabus (“Fun With #RadFem: ‘You Magnificent Lesbians — I Read Your Books!’“), I could imagine an effective manifesto/agenda for their movement, and might even be worried about their potential for success — if they weren’t so hopelessly batshit crazy.

This has been an impediment to feminism for decades: It is a movement organized around the grievances of neurotic misfits, and has attracted to its banner every type of kook, weirdo and nutjob imaginable.

In this sense, a mentally ill Women’s Studies professor is simply following in the insane footsteps of Women’s Liberation pioneer Shulamith Firestone, who suffered a nervous breakdown after publishing the 1970 feminist classic The Dialectic of Sex and eventually died alone as a 67-year-old schizophrenic.

Majoring in Crazy Studies

One of the reasons that radical feminism is so influential on university campuses, but generally disdained outside academia, is that the campus environment is a consequence-free unreality. Tenured professors can (and do) preach all manner of impractical nonsense and, on campuses that are home to thousands or tens of thousands of impressionable young women, it is fairly easy for the tenured radicals to attract scores or hundreds of misfit followers.

For example, there are nearly 30,000 women enrolled at Ohio State University’s Columbus campus. How many of those students are majoring or minoring in Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies, or pursuing graduate degrees in that department? Suppose that the WGSS department enrolls just 2% — one in 50 — of women at OSU. That’s almost 600 students, a drop in the bucket relative to the total enrollment, but still a substantial force, if they can be organized and deployed as activist “shock troops” in protests, etc.

Anyone who questioned the legitimacy of Women’s Studies as an academic discipline would be shouted down as a misogynistic Neanderthal, and so this department is protected from outside criticism by a sort of force-field of political correctness. Within that protective cocoon, fanatical ideologues are permitted to promulgate the most astonishing radical nonsense. Consider, for example, the freshman-level course “Gender, Sex and Power” (WGSST 1110), which is the prerequisite to all other courses in Ohio State’s Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies department. A recent section of WGSST 1110, taught by Varsha Chitnis (a graduate student pursuing her Ph.D.) included in the course syllabus Andrea Smith’s article “Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy”:

Heteropatriarchy is the building block of US empire. In fact, it is the building block of the nation-state form of governance. . . . As I have argued elsewhere, in order to colonize peoples whose societies are not based on social hierarchy, colonizers must first naturalize hierarchy through instituting patriarchy. In turn, patriarchy rests on a gender binary system in which only two genders exist, one dominating the other. . . . Just as the patriarchs rule the family, the elites of the nation-state rule their citizens. Any liberation struggle that does not challenge heteronormativity cannot substantially challenge colonialism or white supremacy.

From there, Smith goes on to complain about “the family being conceived of in capitalist and heteropatriarchal terms,” so that rhetoric about protecting the family leads to “increased homophobia.” Smith argues for challenging “the concept of the family itself,” in order to “reconstitute alternative ways of living together.” In case you were wondering about Andrea Smith, she is on the faculty of the University of California-Riverside, having received a Ph.D. from the infamous “History of Consciousness” program at UC-Santa Cruz (“The Worst School in America”). So, through the content of this Women’s Studies course, the crackpot radicalism of a fringe figure (Smith was denied tenure at the University of Michigan) is imported from California to Ohio, at taxpayer expense.

Lest any reader think that I have cherry-picked an isolated and anomalous example, let’s look at the syllabus for another recent section of WGSST 1110, this one taught by graduate student Sonnet Gabbard, who awards 15% her course grade for students’ “Transgressive Digital Art Project,” whatever that means. Among the assigned readings is “Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism” by lesbian activist Suzanne Pharr, and “Desire for the Future: Radical Hope in Passion and Pleasure,” by Amber Hollinbaugh, who is (I’m not kidding) Executive Director of Queers for Economic Justice.

Paying the Radical Tax

Keep in mind that we are discussing the freshman level introductory c0urse, taught to 17- and 18-year-olds, and required — a mandatory prerequisite — for any Ohio State student who wishes to major or minor in Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies. Examine the syllabus for any section of this OSU course, and you will find it crammed with the writings of radical lesbians, inspiring any outside observer to wonder if any heterosexual woman has ever gotten a Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies degree from OSU.

Yet within the force-field of political correctness that surrounds this academic cocoon, there is no one who finds this radicalism unusual. The lesbian inmates are running the feminist asylum, and the fact that taxpayers are footing the bill for all this is something that apparently no one at OSU — nor anyone in the Ohio state legislature — can be bothered to notice. So it is nearly everywhere. When the Women’s Studies program at a state university in South Carolina was abolished after hosting a conference  that featured the performance of a one-woman play called “How to Be a Lesbian in 10 Days of Less,” everyone was shocked because this had never happened anywhere else before.

In case anyone wondered why Ohio State University was singled out for scrutiny, the answer is: My choice was entirely random. Pick any major university, look up their Women’s Studies program and look up the syllabus for the introductory course, and compare your findings. This kind of radicalism is ubiquitous in Women’s Studies curricula, and it is no surprise that the most popular anthology of feminist writings — Feminist Frontiers, widely used as a standard textbook — is edited by radical lesbians.

Inside their taxpayer-funded campus sinecures, then, Women’s Studies professors are handsomely rewarded for promoting an ideology that strikes most people as fringe extremism. Yet the supply of Women’s Studies majors vastly exceeds the demand and, outside the elite circle of tenured professors and celebrity feminist authors, those who have spent their collegiate careers soaking up “gender theory” nonsense find themselves marginally employable, even as they are confronted with a reality harshly at odds with the worldview into which they were propagandized as undergraduates.

From this clash between academic theory and the reality of ordinary life emerges the ranting lunacy of radicals like Witchwind. What kind of jobs can these intellectual cripples find outside academia, if they can’t find some non-profit “activist” group to hire them? One imagines such women, disheveled and ill-groomed, standing at intersections and holding up crudely lettered cardboard signs:

“Gender Studies Major: Will Criticize Patriarchy for Food”

The saddest part is that this miserable man-hating madness is funded by taxpayers who have no idea what is being taught inside the Crazy Factories of the Feminist-Industrial Complex.

If the heteronormative patriarchy were as all-powerful as feminists claim, then surely there would Republican legislators calling attention to how tax dollars are being used to subsidize this nonsense at state universities across the country. There would be hearings to investigate this and committee reports to expose the truth: What is cost and what are the benefits of Women’s Studies programs? For example, what is the annual cost to Texas taxpayers of The Center for Women’s & Gender Studies at the University of Texas at Austin? What is being taught in this program, and what kind of careers are pursued by alumni of the program? I’d be willing to bet the average Texan doesn’t have the slightest clue what’s going on in Austin.

When we see occasional eruptions of madness — not just insane pronouncements by bloggers, but radical feminists unleashing anarchy in state capitols — there is no need to wonder where this craziness originates: It is acquired in the classroom, where it is taught by academic kooks who would be locked up in insane asylum if they weren’t tenured university faculty members.

From TOMC: http://theothermccain.com/

Only Death

July 8, 2014

Islam

From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/

Shit for Brains Demonrat Voters

July 8, 2014

Blindly

Brave ENough

From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/

Angry Retard

July 8, 2014

From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/

Hell NO.

July 8, 2014

You Think

From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/

With This Guy In Charge of DOJ, What Else do You Expect?

July 8, 2014

Persecute

From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/

The National Anthem by The Gaither Vocal Band

July 8, 2014

Found at The Feral Irishman: http://theferalirishman.blogspot.com/

Obama Regime Won’t Be Sending Anyone Back.

July 8, 2014

Obama Regime Delivering 290,000 Illegal Aliens To Relatives In U.S.

Border Meltdown: Obama Delivering 290,000 Illegals To U.S. Homes – Daily Caller

.

. The vast majority of 50,000 unaccompanied youths and children who have illegally crossed the Texas border during the last few months have been successfully delivered by federal agencies to their relatives living in the United States, according to a New York Times article.

A second New York Times article report revealed that officials have caught an additional 240,000 Central American migrants since April, and are transporting many of them to their destinations throughout the United States.

The 290,000 illegals – so far – are exploiting legal loopholes that allow them to get temporary permits to stay in the United States.

Experts say that President Barack Obama’s administration has failed to close the loopholes and is unlikely to deport more than a small percentage of the illegals, despite the high unemployment rates among American Latino, African-American and white youths, and the strapped budgets of many cities and towns.

The president’s policy has caused protests by frightened citizens in towns such as Murrieta. But Obama’s allies – such as La Raza, an ethnic lobby for Latinos – are eager to escalate the conflict and to paint the protestors as racists. Those protests may escalate before the November elections.

The Central American parents of the 50,000 youths and children are using a 2008 law to ensure their children are transported to them for free by a relay of border patrol and Department of Health and Human Services officials. The youths are delivered to the border patrol by smugglers, dubbed coyotes, in exchange for several thousand dollars.

Half of the 50,000 Central American youths were delivered by taxpayer-funded employees directly to their parents now living in the United States, and another third were delivered to people who said they were close relatives, said the July 3 article.

That new data was included in the 19th paragraph of a 20-paragraph July 3 article.

Top immigration officials choose to not check if the relatives or parents who pick up the children are in the country legally.

Both New York Times articles described the border-crossing illegal aliens as “immigrants.” In fact, “immigrants” is the term for people who legally migrate into the United States.

The 240,000 strong-group largely consists of many mothers and young children, most of whom are now being flown and bussed to destinations near where they wish to settle. That new 240,000 number was included in the seventh paragraph of a 24-paragraph article.

Few of the illegal immigrants are high-school graduates, or have skills that would allow them to earn more than they cost to federal, state and local taxpayers.

Officials have not said where they’ve delivered the adults or youth illegals, but pro-American activists are keeping track of some locations, including San Diego, Calif.

Officials have defended the administration’s catch-and-release policy, which critics say is inviting more Central Americans to cross the border in the hope of being arrested by the border patrol.

“When you have a noncriminal [border-crossing ] mother, they are going to be released,” David Jennings, the head of the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency in southern California. “The most humane way to deal with this is to find out where they are going and get them there,” he said at a town meeting held in Murrieta, Calif., according to the New York Times.

From TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/

Hobby Lobby Hysteria from Leftist Loonies

July 8, 2014

Oh, here we go again. Another hateful Leftist hiding behind “satire”

I have a firm belief that some people richly deserve to be punched in the face for their behavior. Such a case might be made for this douche bag that Stacy McCain writes about

We are now in Day Six of the Hobby Lobby hysteria, and the Democrat Party propaganda claim that this Supreme Court decision is a theocratic right-wing assault on women’s rights is so firmly embedded in liberals’ minds that responding to them with facts and logic is a waste of time. Deliberate provocation is more fun, and the liberal reaction to Holly Fisher’s provocation was memorable. A young Floridian named Patrick Ryan Kasprik sent Fisher these Twitter messages:

“Idgaf how patriotic you think you are – you’re a sham of an American who would strip rights from others in the name of God.

“Hey @HollyRFisher so I was hoping you could fly on down to Florida so we could stone you to death? You know, religious fundamentalism…”

“But seriously @HollyRFisher come on down. I would love to let a jackass rape you beforehand, you know, religious fundamentalism.”

As might be imagined, Kasprik’s rhetoric inspired a lot of blowback, to which Kasprik responded: “Like most satire, the people on the receiving end really don’t get it.” This is the familiar Liberal Satire Defense:“Hahaha! Stupid wingnuts are too ignorant to comprehend the enlightened nuance of my progressive humor.”

Except (a) we understand it perfectly and (b) it’s not funny.

Now, Patrick can hide behind the “satire” barricade all he likes, he has, BTW deleted his Twitter account because, like most Leftists he cannot take the heat. See, Patrick, Stacy McCain is correct, we get your “satire”, and it is not funny, it is not even mildly amusing frankly. What you posted was vile, cowardly, and shows your level of moral retardation Patrick. Take my opening paragraph for example Patrick. I suggested people like you deserve to get punched in the face. Did that offend you Patrick? Well, silly boy, you just missed my “satire” didn’t you? See, Patrick, you are a delusional little man who typifies Leftist thinking. You believe you are morally justified in wishing a woman was raped, or stoned to death because she dares holds a differing view than you do on abortion. So, you launch into nasty attacks on not only that person but people of faith as well. You might, Patrick, stop and think about the irony of that, but I doubt it, like most Leftists, you are so consumed with rage, and spite that you are incapable of coherent thought. People like you Patrick, are the lowest common denominator aren’t you? You hear something you disagree with and you launch into emotional overdrive. There is no room in your world for critical think Patrick. In fact, you are far more like the Taliban than the young lady you verbally assaulted.

From TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/

What Difference Does it Make?

July 8, 2014

Found at Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/

Right Now the Ambassador is F#*king a Sheep…

July 8, 2014

Kerry: ‘I’m Working Hard to … Have Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Ambassadors’

Wonderful. America is going to be represented abroad by a freak show.

The country is going to hell, sissified neocon Tamerlanes in panties bankrupt us with brainless wars they don´t understand, the schools make us an international joke, but the Secretary of State rushes to fill the consulates with sexual abnormalities. Washington begins to make a Weimar bordello look like Mormon Sunday school. I picture myself showing up at some embassy for an interview and being told, “The ambassador will be with you in a moment. Just now, he’s fucking a sheep.”

Fred On Everything

Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/

Political Correctness is Killing Comedy

July 8, 2014

Imagine if the most brilliant comedians in history were working today.

They’d never stop apologizing. Charlie Chaplin would have to apologize to all the homeless people he belittled with his Little Tramp character.

W.C. Fields and Dean Martin would both have to apologize to alcoholics. The Marx brothers would have to apologize to Italians, mutes and uptight British ladies. Comedy has been around for a long, long time, and there have been a lot of impolite, unpleasant and jaw-droppingly politically incorrect jokes. Blacks were shuffling slaves, Italians were gangsters, Jews were cheap, gays were queens, white people couldn’t dance and fat people didn’t have dignity. You went up there as a comic and joked about it all and nothing was off-limits. And to this day, nobody has died from a single joke.

Comedian Gilbert Gottfried on Handling Internet Outrage | Playboy

Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/

What the…?

July 8, 2014

The country is merging with Mexico, as hard as it can.

It is an astonishing thing to do for no particular reason.

Nobody can quite explain why. At the highest level, it makes sense: We have a black president and attorney general who do not like white people, whom they believe to have mistreated blacks. What sweeter revenge than to turn their country a nice mahogany color? And businessmen want cheap labor. But to drastically changes the nature and prospects of what was the world’s leading nation so that McDonald’s can have its burgers flipped at lesser cost—here is a marvel new under the sun. Countries deserve what they tolerate, and this one will tolerate anything. Except freedom of association or expression, or civilized levels of schooling.

Fred On Everything

From AD: http://americandigest.org/

Lukewarm Christianity in America

July 7, 2014

The Search for Religious Relevance (or How I Missed my First Anniversary)

Written by

In May of 1990, I was away from my wife on the first anniversary of our marriage. I had, or so it seemed at the time, more important things to do. A group of “leading men” from our little country church were traveling to Barrington, Illinois for a church growth conference at Willow Creek Community Church, which had been founded 15 years earlier by Bill Hybels. La Wik hints at the psychological roots of Willow Creek’s founding:

After 300 youth waited in line to be led to Christ in a service in May 1974, Hybels and other leaders began dreaming of forming a new church. They surveyed the community to find out why people weren’t coming to church. Common answers included: “church is boring”, “they’re always asking for money”, or “I don’t like being preached down to.” These answers shaped the group’s approach to the new church.

If you want to sell more product, then giving your customers what they want is bound to be a successful strategy. And if you’re selling Jesus, why let accidental aspects of Christianity get in the way of his essence? Our small, introverted, and pietistic Bible Fellowship church was about to undergo a massive transformation in the direction of seeker sensitivity. Twenty-four years later, the results of this transformation live on in one of the most hip and relevant churches Lynchburg, Virginia has to offer. And in the evangelical Mecca of Lynchburg, home of Liberty University, becoming that is no small achievement.

A Brief History

The search for relevance did not begin in 1974 with Bill Hybels and his fellow “youth group” leaders. Evangelical Christianity has never not been a search for relevance—a way of taking the Gospel message of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, uncluttered by cultural baggage, directly to the people—often anti-intellectual, embarrassing, and decidedly unprogressive cultural baggage. There is a reason that the 95-year-old Billy Graham, confidant of many Presidents, remains one of most admired, well-respected figures down to this day, whereas the name “Bob Jones” is an epithet: He never let political controversy get in the way of the message of Jesus. Graham was an anti-communist when it was popular to be one, and he was a social justice warrior when it was popular to be one.

Another way to put that would be: Billy Graham never let the message of Jesus get in the way of political controversy. And if getting folks to “accept Jesus into their heart as personal Lord and Savior” really is tantamount to the Great Commission—Jesus final command to his disciples to go and teach all nations—then there’s not a thing in the world wrong with it: Jesus… with no strings, no Church, no culture, no normative practice attached.

Religion has been historically a cultural anchor. Yet the Evangelical form of Christianity denies this. Not really so much denies it, as it deems cultural anchorage as unimportant relative to the weight of carrying out the Great Commission. In simplifying the Gospel Message down to a core of propositions to believe, in making the process of conversion as simple as responding to an altar call and praying the Sinner’s Prayer “Just give me Jesus” is a profoundly invigorating principle for church growth. It is immediately and almost infinitely adaptable. If “Christian Rap” is going to fill the pews, so you can give them Jesus, why should some old fuddy-duddies stand in the way? If pews are too old-school, why not “do church” in a comfy movie theater instead?

The formula works. America is among the most “church-going” first world nations, and it leads the first world in moral and cultural bankruptcy.

About that cultural anchor…

Evangelicals and Mindedness

As Mark Knoll noted almost 20 years ago, “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” Knoll was wondering why Evangelicals contribute so little to intellectual scholarship and high culture and how his Evangelical brethren might turn that trend around.

I think the problem goes deeper than Mark Knoll wished to probe: There really isn’t much of a single, univocal Evangelical Mind. It isn’t that Evangelicals are stupid. It is that their system of religious thought doesn’t lead to many broader cultural implications. What clear implications does “leading people to accept Jesus into their heart and pray the sinners prayer” have upon the role of women in society? Upon traditional family structure? Upon free trade? College education? Suburban sprawl? Media Influence? Foreign Aid? Immigration? Support for Israel? Revolution in the Ukraine? The Role of Religion in Public Life?

“Just give me Jesus” is quite indifferent to all of those… “Just give me Jesus” doesn’t even very much care about what type of church you go to… so long as you go… to one that feels right… to you.

So the endless search for religious relevance in America has led to a prevailing religious expression described in 2005 by sociologists Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist as Moralistic Therapeutic Deism—a form of Christianity so devoid of normative content as to be indistinguishable from baptized narcissism.

Oprah Winfrey didn’t become a billionaire by building railroads or cornering the market on crude oil. And Bill Hybels and the host of mega-church pastors like him didn’t build their massive ministries by anchoring the Christian faith in traditional culture.

America is “deeply religious,” yet on-demand abortion and gay “marriage” are the (presumptively settled) Law of the Land. America fills her pews like no other nation on earth, yet the Overton Window glides ever leftward. And lest anyone think I’m picking only on Evangelicals, please understand that this tendency to strip the gospel message down to make it palatable for the broader culture has thoroughly infected the entire social order. Even non-religions like my local public radio station are getting in on the act. Making a message culturally relevant—whether that message be about Jesus or democracy or condom-use or toleration of sexual minorities—has become indistinguishable from plain old American cultural hegemony.

In spite of Evangelicalism’s low-brow status, we’re all Evangelicals now.

So how about that cultural anchor?

Let’s unwind this. That seeker-sensitive church growth ideas work is undeniable… for some values of “work”. But is that the work that Jesus intended the Church “Christian Community” to do when he gave the great commission? Or does “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” mean more than kneeling to pray the Sinners’ Prayer under the maudlin strains of Just As I Am? What is it exactly that we are to “teach all nations”: Be nice and feel good about ourselves?

How Things are Supposed to Work

The 800 pound (363 kg) gorilla in the room is that Christianity is supposed to affect the culture. Christianity admixes with genetics and environment and other memetic residues to produce certain kinds of culture. Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism produce different kinds. Everyone expects this. And what kind of culture is American Christianity producing today? One in which “Gay Marriage” can go from a funny joke to a self-evident sacred right in less than a generation. An entire generation of “Youth Pastors” is quite busy making Jesus look incredibly cool and could not be reached for comment.

Forgive me, but I don’t think that’s how Christianity is supposed to work for meaningful definitions of “work”. Well, why the hell not? The first reason is theological: Go ye therefore and teach all nations presumes a position of cultural superiority. Christianity is not just a propositional gloss that can be painted over an extant, formerly pagan culture, leaving it unchanged (except that now they’ll get to go to Heaven when they die). Certainly Christianity can add local customs to its own nature (cf. pagan winter solstice and spring equinox customs), but it cannot water down its universal call to repentance and holiness and kinship within the Church.

When it does, it ceases to be authentic Christianity. The relevance-minded Christians who imagine Jesus’ Great Commission as being about just getting people to pray certain prayers therefore sell the real gospel short. Conversion is a lifelong result of a lifelong commitment to a lifelong process. The signs of true spiritual conversion may be seen far more clearly in the reduction of various social pathologies than in the number of hands raised “with every head bowed and every eye closed”. Faith without works is dead.

The second reason I believe that Christianity drives culture is historical. Christianity came and changed the course of empires. Kings and princes and emperors once depended upon the Christian Church for their legitimacy. In return for the favor, secular rulers enforced Christian norms in their domains. For example, when the faith spread to England, cousin marriage soon died out and that nation experienced dramatic growth in well-being and collective power. Christianity played a crucial role in establishing science, the university system, modern economic and legal practices—virtually everything we associate with Christendom.

The End Whenever Christians try to make their religion hip and relevant to the wider culture, it reveals instantly a wider culture that wears the pants in the relationship. Christianity adopts the role of the supplicating special pleader. It is not a masculine Christianity. It reduces religious practice to a source of entertainment or therapy–at most a curiosity to place alongside all the accouterments of a life otherwise untouched by its life-giving, culture-bestowing essence. You might get attendance figures or increased donations, but you’ll never get a transformed culture. You’ve already given that up as unnecessary cultural baggage.

So the question really never was how to make religion relevant to culture, but how to make culture relevant to religion. If people cannot make themselves relevant to religion, then the problem lies with them… and, by the way, they know it. Whosoever is the coolest doesn’t need to qualify himself to others. If you are tempted to attend a church growth conference that conflicts with your first wedding anniversary, just say “No”. Please stay home and cherish the company of your wife instead.

From Social Matter: http://www.socialmatter.net/2014/07/04/search-religious-relevance-missed-first-anniversary/

Goodbye Former “Great” Britain

June 27, 2014

More Than Half of British Households Take More in Government Benefits Than They Pay in Taxes

It’s unsustainable.
At Telegraph UK, “More than half of homes take more than they contribute: Official figures reveal record numbers of people who receive more in benefits and public services than they pay in tax“:

In March the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned forcing Britain’s highest earners to foot a greater share of the tax bill is putting the long term finances at risk.
“Lumping more taxes on the rich” is not a sustainable strategy because the ability and willingness of high earners to pay more could eventually run out, the IFS suggested.
Just 300,000 high earners now pay 30 per cent of all income tax and 7.5 per cent of all tax, official figures show. Households with an average income of £104,000 paid £30,000 more in tax than they received from the state last year, ONS figures show.
The top ten per cent of earners contributed £26,984 in income and council tax, plus £10,303 in indirect taxes such as alcohol duty and VAT – a contribution to the public purse of £37,287. They received £2,284 in state cash benefits, which include child benefit, maternity pay and pensions.
The cost of educating their children came to £1,274, while they used NHS treatment worth £3,410 – meaning their total cost to the Exchequer was £7,264.
By contrast, a family with the national median income of £23,069 received £3,798 more in benefits and services than they paid in taxes last year.
They paid £4,620 in direct tax and £5,029 in indirect taxes, but received £6622 in cash benefits. They received schooling worth £2623 and NHS services worth £4,202. In total, they paid in £9,649 and received £13,477. It means for every £1 they paid in, they got £1.40 back.
The poorest ten per cent of families, with wages of £3,875 a year, paid £4,611 in direct and indirect taxes and received £13,559 in cash benefits and services. It means they received £2.94 in state support for every £1 they paid in tax.
The figures also show middle class families have seen the steepest fall in living standards since the financial crisis.

Also at the Daily Express UK, “Most households in Britain get more in benefits than they pay out in tax, new figures show,” and London’s Daily Mail, “Half of families receive more from the state than they pay in taxes but income equality widens as rich get richer.”

From APB: http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/

Obama: An Evil Parasite. Black Death.

June 27, 2014

President Parasite

We also agree with Thomas Sowell that Obama is not a lame duck but an infectious, plague-carrying rodent.

No, I take that back. He’s the parasite that rides the rodent. Wait. He’s the bacillus inside the rodent-riding flea. The federal government is the rodent, liberals are the parasitic fleas, and Obama is the bacterium, while the rest of us simply hope to avoid the resultant intellectual-econo-socio-politio-pneumatic Black Death.

One Cʘsmos: The Leftist Circle of Death

From AD: http://americandigest.org/

If Hillary Was Really Broke…

June 27, 2014

Found at Theo: http://www.theospark.net/

Obama Irony.

June 27, 2014

WHile

From mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/

Is Anyone Listening?

June 27, 2014

Lessons

From mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/

Finally Speaks a Smidgen of Truth

June 27, 2014

Bankrupt

Found at MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/

You got That Right!

June 27, 2014

Dont Ever

Found at mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/

Amazon Never Forgets!

June 27, 2014

From 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/

Lies with Impunity

June 27, 2014

obamadawn:</p>
<p>American Thinker …. Now Playing…<br />

From RBA: http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/

Not the Only Thing this Evil-O-Ass-hole Man is.

June 27, 2014

image

From RBA: http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/

The World is Batshit Crazy. Ad Absurdum. Boys aren’t Really Boys and Girls Aren’t Really Girls? These People need a Straight Jacket.

June 27, 2014

You do not have to be Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs to write for Slate

Slate is the MSNBS of online magazines, and, here is the latest outrageous outrage they have discovered. Beware Infant Gender Assignment!

Obstetricians, doctors, and midwives commit this procedure on infants every single day, in every single country. In reality, this treatment is performed almost universally without even asking for the parents’ consent, making this practice all the more insidious. It’s called infant gender assignment: When the doctor holds your child up to the harsh light of the delivery room, looks between its legs, and declares his opinion: It’s a boy or a girl, based on nothing more than a cursory assessment of your offspring’s genitals.

Declares his opinion? And you say this “opinion” is based on something as flimsy as genitals? SHOCKING! I mean, yes, in fact gender IS defined by genitals, just as writing for Slate is defined on absurdity. I am trying to conger up how the “evil” gender assignment goes. The doctor, holds up a child, peers at the genitals, and calmly calls the nurse over.

“Excuse me nurse, but this baby appears to have a penis, do you concur?”

“Why yes doctor, that looks like a penis to me”

“So, this baby then, must be a boy”

“Why yes doctor, yes”

See, this is OUTRAGEOUS! And thankfully, we have an outraged American to expose this shockingly shocking outrageously outrageous outrage! I know I am outraged! and we all should be. I mean think about where this might lead! The Slate piece continues

We tell our children, “You can be anything you want to be.” We say, “A girl can be a doctor, a boy can be a nurse,” but why in the first place must this person be a boy and that person be a girl? Your infant is an infant. Your baby knows nothing of dresses and ties, of makeup and aftershave, of the contemporary social implications of pink and blue. As a newborn, your child’s potential is limitless. The world is full of possibilities that every person deserves to be able to explore freely, receiving equal respect and human dignity while maximizing happiness through individual expression.

Wait, what? How dare this Slate writer call that infant an infant? Who the Hell are they to place that kind of label on that baby? I mean, yes, the fact IS that it is an infant, but facts do not matter. I mean, if a penis or vagina do not have anything to do with gender, then how does a baby actually being a baby mean anything either? But, this is important stuff, it MUST BE because only really important topics are covered in Slate right? Either that or this writer is as crazy as they come

With infant gender assignment, in a single moment your baby’s life is instantly and brutally reduced from such infinite potentials down to one concrete set of expectations and stereotypes, and any behavioral deviation from that will be severely punished—both intentionally through bigotry, and unintentionally through ignorance. That doctor (and the power structure behind him) plays a pivotal role in imposing those limits on helpless infants, without their consent, and without your informed consent as a parent. This issue deserves serious consideration by every parent, because no matter what gender identity your child ultimately adopts, infant gender assignment has effects that will last through their whole life.

See! Your child’s life will be RUINED, R-U-I-N-E-D RUINED if a doctor is allowed to say it is a boy, or it is a girl! Oh there are several layers of KRAZY here folks I mean this MUST be a hoax right? No one could possibly believe the absurdities uttered here right? I mean even Slate must no allow this level of KRAZY right? Wrong!

Why must we force this on kids at birth? What is achieved, besides reinforcing tradition? What could be the harm in letting a child wait to declare for themself who they are, once they’re old enough (which is generally believed to happen around age 2 or 3)?

What insanity is this? When was the last time you, as a parent, grandparent, or uncle as I a witnessed a 2 or 3-year-old “declare themselves”? I doubt anyone has, but what would it sound like? Let us think here.

Think of a family gathering. As the adults are drinking their coffees, here comes young Patrick, age 3. “Excuse me everyone” Patrick says, clinking a fork on a water glass. “I am glad I have you all hear, I have something I need to say. I am, in fact, a girl, or rather a woman, trapped in a little boy’s body. Yes, yes, I do have a penis, but do not label me because of that you genderist bastards! I am woman, hear me roar! So, I have a list of demands here, call them my Gender Justice List if you will.” I have more here, but you will have to wait for the book to be published. it is called “My fight for Gender Justice: How My Inner Vagina and I beat Genderism!”

Of course, that is a bit of absurdity to illustrate how wrong, foolish, inane, insane, BATSHIT CRAZY this writer really is. Yes, Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs!

From TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/

Mooslims: Go Back to Your Shithole Country

June 26, 2014

You Say

From mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/

Way More Than a “Smidgen”

June 26, 2014

Smidgen

From mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/

That’s Obama.

June 26, 2014

Perfidious

From mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/