EPA: Out of Control

Quote of the Day: “What Civilized Society Destroys Its Own Food Source for a Three-Inch Fish?”

Although leftists will try to spin the California drought as proof of global warming, there is far more to this crisis than the climate — which in the Southwest has been dry since long before Americans lived here. Californians are paying the price for succumbing to liberal rule:

Republican Assemblywoman Shannon Grove — who represents part of Kern County, the second largest agricultural sector in the country — has been trying to get the word out about how Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations apparently are literally draining water into the sea all for the sake of a three-inch fish.

“I put together this short video to explain the real cause of California’s water shortage problems, which everyone is paying attention to now that the Governor has imposed water restrictions on the entire state,” Grove wrote on her Facebook page on April 3, the day she reposted the video she first published back in September.

“Share it with your friends who need to know the truth,” Grove wrote.

Here you go, friends:

Here’s why the water problems caused by ecofascists in California are everybody’s problem:

“All in all, California farmers fallowed about 500,000 acres of land this year,” the Wall Street Journal reported in June 2014. “But here’s the thing: much of this land could have been productive had the state stored up more water from wet years and not flushed 800,000 acre-feet into the San Francisco Bay last winter and an additional 445,000 acre-feet this spring to safeguard the endangered delta smelt.”

That drives up the price of food for everybody. Eventually, if real resistance does not emerge to our leftist ruling class, there will be food shortages.

Grove asks,

“What civilized society destroys its own food source for a three-inch fish?”

The answer: the same civilized society that puts an anti-American radical in the White House. A society that has lost its will to live. We had better get it back quickly or our future will be short — and hungry.

On tips from Artfldgr and Petterssonp.

From MB: http://moonbattery.com/

Signs of the Great Falling Away

Chris-lam?

(Before It’s News)

Chrislam is the merging of apostate christianity and the ideology of Islam, and it is truly a pit of serpents and devils. One of the main founders of Chrislam and one of it’s main drivers is Rick Warren from Saddleback Church in Southern California. Warren at the same time passionately denies his connection with Chrislam while at the same time promoting it through his many ministries and outlets.

To understand where it all started, journey back with us to 2009 where Rick Warren addressed a the annual meeting of the Islamic Society of North America. He opened by telling the audience how much he had in common with Muslims and the ideology of Islam. He preached a pro-globalization message of uniting together at any cost by laying down our differences.

Where Chrislam Was Born: Rick Warren at the ISNA 2009 Conference from Now The End Begins on Vimeo.

He quoted no scripture from the bible, and only mentioned the Name of Jesus Christ once in passing. But what he did repeat over and over was how Muslims and Christians needed to “band together” and start work right away on “interfaith projects”. Warren poured out his interfaith slop, and the Muslims ate it up.

Chrislam Starts To Spread In America
Why does John Hagee’s son use the Muslim crescent moon and christian cross in his logo? That’s Chrislam!

By the time he was done speaking, Chrislam was born. But Warren was only just getting started. The Yale Covenant was right around the corner.

A Common Word Between Us and You

Around this same time, Rick Warren was instrumental in the creation and signing of the Yale Covenant Between Islam and Christianity. This is the preamble to that covenant:

As members of the worldwide Christian community, we were deeply encouraged and challenged by the recent historic open letter signed by 138 leading Muslim scholars, clerics, and intellectuals from around the world. “A Common Word Between Us and You” identifies some core common ground between Christianity and Islam which lies at the heart of our respective faiths as well as at the heart of the most ancient Abrahamic faith, Judaism. Jesus Christ’s call to love God and neighbor was rooted in the divine revelation to the people of Israel embodied in the Torah (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18). We receive the open letter as a Muslim hand of conviviality and cooperation extended to Christians worldwide. In this response we extend our own Christian hand in return, so that together with all other human beings we may live in peace and justice as we seek to love God and our neighbors.

Muslims and Christians have not always shaken hands in friendship; their relations have sometimes been tense, even characterized by outright hostility. Since Jesus Christ says, “First take the log out your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye” (Matthew 7:5), we want to begin by acknowledging that in the past (e.g. in the Crusades) and in the present (e.g. in excesses of the “war on terror”) many Christians have been guilty of sinning against our Muslim neighbors. Before we “shake your hand” in responding to your letter, we ask forgiveness of the All-Merciful One and of the Muslim community around the world. Yale Covenant

You will note that the Yale Covenant preamble ends with this esteemed board of Laodicean apostates asking for “forgiviness from the All-Merciful One, Allah”. They have placed the Muslim moon god on the same playing field as the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob from the bible. This Covenant was signed by hundreds of religious leaders from all across America.

So though Rick Warren issues a constant stream of denials about his role in Chrislam, everywhere you look there he is. All the evidence always leads back to him. And he has recruited many others to join him.

Spreading Rapidly

Today in 2013, Chrislam is rising rapidly. John Hagee’s son Matthew has a ministry that uses the crescent moon of Islam and the christian cross as a logo.

Glenn Beck went to Israel and made a video promoting a universal religion with Christianity and Islam as its core. Note how he equates the God of the bible as the same as the moon god of Islam, this is the essence of what Chrislam is all about.

Beck’s universalist message is in perfect harmony with Rick Warren’s global interfaith vision of Chrislam. We are seeing more and more pastors getting in line behind Warren’s demonic vision.

From BIN: http://beforeitsnews.com/religion/2013/11/rick-warrens-chrislam-becomes-one-of-the-fastest-growing-religions-in-america-videos-2458484.html

The Liberal Mind, Evil, Demonic, Death, and allah

Holy Saturday

By David Warren

“Security questions” were the reason so many Christian students were massacred in Kenya this week. This analysis dominates the headlines, as I write, of the BBC, CNN, and so forth.  Owing to “security questions,” Christian students were separated from Muslim students at the Garissa university campus (many of the former identified because they were praying). By some strange and unaccountable coincidence, only the former were slaughtered. But wait, but wait, there were Muslim victims, too! At least four of them: wearing suicide vests, who blew themselves up at the end.

All the dead died because of these “security questions,” which are raised by liberal journalists to deflect attention from the Muslim killers to the Kenyan government. In extenuation, it must be remembered that the typical liberal journalist is also, thanks partly to environmental influences beyond his immediate control, a malicious idiot. He has no clear idea what he is doing. In this case he probably thinks he is promoting multicultural harmony. He is not: Western Christians know perfectly well who is killing whom around the “bloody borders” of the Dar al-Islam, but do not habitually retaliate against harmless and defenceless Muslims in the West.

The truth is that the “liberal” mind (I am using the term in its current sense; or if gentle reader prefers, “progressive” means the same thing) spontaneously identifies more with the perpetrator than the victim, and thus devotes most of its cruelly limited wattage, like the criminal himself, to finding someone innocent or uninvolved to blame.

Of course the Kenyan security agencies are “incompetent.” So are all security agencies, by the standard of Omniscience. They had not yet increased the number of armed guards on that particular university campus, even though they had received intelligence (mostly in the form of threats) that there would be more attacks on Christians in Kenya. As intelligence of this nature is received constantly, today, and the attacks also continue, one may pretend that the security agencies are always to blame. Constant repetition of this vicious lie has conditioned much of the public to react in that way: to blame, without thinking, anyone but the perpetrator.

The secondary level, in the media analysis — that this hit was “payback” for Kenyan government attacks on Muslim terrorists in Somalia — notably cancels the first. For the Kenyan “security questions” are indeed doing what they can. They are tracing their problem of Muslim terrorism to its root cause, which is Muslim terrorists — in this case coming mostly from Somalia.

Godspeed to them in their task, which requires courage from the least of them, along with skill in the use of firearms.

Then we get to the third and most abstract level of this analysis, which takes us out of the direct news reporting, to the cloud cuckooland of liberal pundits and White House flacks. “Poverty and unemployment” accounts for this terrorism. This is fatuous to an extreme that beggars comprehension. It is opposite to the truth at so many points that I’m tempted to write an Idlepost simply listing them. Suffice to say, terrorists seldom come from impoverished families, and even if they did this would not explain why the impoverished, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, so seldom become terrorists. Or, why the ones who do are almost always Muslim.

I find this “media selectivity” — which is to say, constant semi-conscious lying and misrepresentation — almost annoying. Honest reporting in this case would shine light on al-Shabaab, and the explicitly Muslim ideology which accounts entirely for their choice of targets. But I’ve been a journalist myself, and have many years of aggregate experience in newsrooms, and I have observed the root cause of this problem. It is the liberal ideology, or in a word, liberals. They long for destruction of what remains of Western civilization in the same way al-Shabaab and al-Qaeda long for it, but being pant-wetted cowards they restrict their activity to what is within current law. Notwithstanding, at a deeper level, they share with the murderous an allegiance to the “culture of death,” and peristent opposition to the “culture of life.”

The liberal mind naturally identifies with the criminal. This is why, for liberals, freedom of speech and press means licence for pornographers, and human rights reduce invariably to permission for “the transgressive” against civilized norms. They instinctively identify with Muslim fanatics because they share a common enemy: Christians. But when the terrorists do things so utterly repulsive that even they are appalled, they do not attack the motivating Muslim ideology, or a Shariah which is simply a rotation of their own political correctness, but instead “religious fundamentalism” — intending to tar all faithful Christians with the same stinking brush.

We are not dealing here with “another point of view.” We are dealing instead with the satanic. It takes many forms, but when “Allah” is deemed to have commanded massacres of the harmless and defenceless, it may be seen that devil-worship is directly in play. For the poisonously befogged liberal mind, demonic service is less conscious. The liberal is not so much the Devil’s worshipper, as the Devil’s plaything. But this may be rationally demonstrated, by the consistency of his support for the more evil of any two rival causes — for whichever side promises the greater reduction of human life, up to the stage where it becomes so visibly icky that natural mechanisms are triggered, and he throws up.

Jesus was not a conservative, incidentally. He was, and He remains, very purposefully, off the political chart. The true opposite of liberalism is not conservatism, but instead the apolitical — the taking personal responsibility instead of assigning it to others. The trap of liberalism is that only through politics can the political agenda be fought.

And as for Jesus: He is dead at this liturgical moment, the Nietzschean position in the Christian calendar, when one might even say that, “God is dead.” This gives us a chance to consider what is implicit in that proposition. We are in mourning for a Christ who has been judicially murdered. But, too, for a Christ who caught even His own Apostles by surprise, as we will recollect tonight.

If liberals did not love death, they would not so consistently encourage it.

If God did not hate death, He would not have defeated it.

Remember that, and remember that the latest Christian martyrs in Kenya are not dead, despite the terrorists’ best efforts. Like the good thief, they will rise with Our Lord.

From David Warren: http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/2015/04/04/holy-saturday/

Freedom of Association

The Struggles of Conservative Inc.

The war on Christian pizza makers has the professional Right sorely vexed. I think most of their outrage is legitimate. They truly are offended by this latest assault on normal Americans. The fund raising by the pizza joint in Indiana suggests normal Americans are growing weary of the lunatics and their causes. Still, I think a part of what vexes the professional Right is their fear of stating the obvious conclusion.

That conclusion is you cannot have freedom of any sort without freedom of association. If you must get permission from the state to associate or disassociate from others, you have no freedom. The state may allow you some options, but everything you do must come with a permission slip. Otherwise, putting two people who hate one another in the same room ends up with blood on the walls.

Here’s a recent screed from National Review struggling to avoid stating the obvious.

Policies come to us with principles attached to them, and when debating public policy we should consider the principles not only of legislation that has passed but also of legislation that has been rejected. No one to my knowledge is discussing where the principles implied in the Left’s rejection of the RFRA lead. Responsible statecraft entails an examination of a principle’s logical conclusion. In the case of liberalism, the conclusions to which its principles lead help us see just how deeply opposed those principles are to the constitutional order we’ve inherited.

When the Left rejects the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it invites compelled speech. When photographers are forced under threat of fines to shoot weddings or religious services that they believe are immoral, the assumption is that we are sometimes legally bound to participate in certain kinds of speech, and the state becomes the arbiter of what that speech is in specific instances.

Well, no. Forcing someone to work for someone else is not forcing them speak. It is forcing them to participate. Put another way, it is compulsory association. The state is saying to the photographer, “We really don’t care about your opinions of these people. You must do what we say, act as we say or else.”

Of course, the reason Andrew Walker of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the guy who wrote the piece in question, must fetishize speech is he cannot mention association. To do so, to draw the obvious conclusion from the events in Indiana and elsewhere, would risk his job and career. Rand Paul almost saw his career come to end in 2012 because he dared utter this conclusion.

The reason, ostensibly, is that letting stores refuse service to homos would lead to stores not serving blacks. That has things exactly backwards. Separate public accommodations in the South were falling apart on their own. Basic economics makes such practices self-limiting and self-destructive. The reason Progressives pushed through laws against private discrimination was to eliminate private association.

It’s rather amazing how easily Americans were willing to surrender their liberty, but there it is. Now, there’s no reason to think things like Christianity, private clubs, fraternities, etc will hold up much longer. After all, if you cannot deny admissions based on your own peculiar criteria, why have an organization at all?

The thing I think is vexing to the professional Right is the mounting proof that they were wrong about the Left. They were convinced that the “other side” (as if there are only two sides) was acting in good faith, but just need convincing. Recent events show that to be nonsense, but Conservative Inc. can’t bring itself to admit it.

Which leads to my final point. When the Left rejects the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it invites the imposition of state-enforced morality. The Left requires obedience and punishes dissent. It insists that all citizens must, against their will, act only in a manner that liberalism judges to be accommodating and politic. Anyone acquainted with progressive thought knows that it is founded on unexamined assumptions, but seldom until now have we seen its unhinged hostility unmasked, as the Left reacts to our defense of a cherished freedom written into our Constitution.

There’s no evidence from Progressives that they see any of this as a flaw or even unintentional. Yes, they fully expect to impose their morality – at gunpoint if necessary – on the rest of us. That’s how political cults operate. Hell, it’s how Christianity operated for over 1,000 years. But, admitting this is the case would point out that Conservative Inc has been wrong for thirty years now.

From Z Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

In case You Haven’t Noticed? Shit done Got Real up in Here.

The Contrived Indiana RFRA Controversy and the Transition to Hard Tyranny

Only when totalitarians have consolidated control of the government can they use it to the full extent to impose their ideology. In the meantime, they rely on independent thugs, who engage in political violence and intimidation on an unofficial basis. Three examples are Nazi Brownshirts, Islamic terrorists in countries where Muslims have not yet achieved a majority, and Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana. The latter has incurred the wrath of liberals whipped into a frenzy over the contrived RFRA controversy, thanks to false information disseminated by the “mainstream” media for political purposes:

Memories Pizza in Walkerton, In., has found itself the target of intense online criticism after an ABC News affiliate falsely accused the family-owned business of denying all service to gays and lesbians, a claim that was soon repeated widely by reporters at national outlets.

Screeching pieces have been published

based on an ABC57 article, which was published late Tuesday night, that stated in its original headline, “RFRA: First Michiana business to publicly deny same-sex service.”

Like most everything liberals have to say relating to religious freedom and homosexuality, the headline was misleading:

[T]he story’s own reporting, by ABC57’s Alyssa Marino, states, “the O’Connor family said that if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came in to the restaurant to eat, they would never deny them service.”

The pizzeria owners said, “they just don’t agree with gay marriages and wouldn’t cater them if asked to,” Marino reported.

Pizza is rarely served at weddings.

Rather than denying all service to gays and lesbians, the O’Connors say they just don’t want to participate in a ceremony that violates their religious convictions.

Even that stance is unacceptable to the mob of thugs cultural Marxists have mobilized.

The O’Connors were never asked to cater a homosexual parody of a wedding ceremony. Their opinion came to light when ABC57 went out searching for a business owner who holds the same opinion on marriage that virtually everyone in human history — including even Barack Obama — did until a few years ago.

A victim having been found, the mob attacked:

The nine-year-old pizzeria’s Yelp page, which had just two reviews earlier this week, has been flooded with a deluge of insults directed at the O’Connor family as well as several pornographic images of men engaged in sex acts with other men.

If only that were the extent of the malice. Jess Dooley, a girl’s golf coach at Concord High School in Elkhart, Indiana, took to Twitter to urge someone to burn down the pizzeria. The business wasforced to close:

Owner Kevin O’Connor said vitriol toward his restaurant was so intense it was closed until further notice. The eatery began receiving threatening phone calls and social media postings after revealing its support for the law earlier this week.

The law referred to is of course the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is essentially the same as a federal law signed by Bill Clinton and the law in 19 other states, including liberal Illinois, where State Senator Barack Obama voted in its favor (although Obama now officially regards the law as “unthinkable”).

Indiana’s law is utterly uncontroversial. However, we have reached the point in our deterioration into tyranny where fascists can mobilize a vicious mob on the thinnest pretext, thanks to eager media collaboration.

The O’Connors are currently in hiding, terrified for their safety. Until only recently, Americans would never have believed we could be reduced to this.

But maybe this won’t be a win for the fascists after all. If we still have any cultural will to live, there will come a backlash. Encouragingly, a Go Fund Me drive to raise money in support of Memories Pizza has already raised over $150,000.

You would never guess it from watching TV, but decent Americans still outnumber militant perverts and those who exploit them to attack Christianity and freedom.

Gay Swastika
Getting serious.

On tips from Petterssonp, Bodhisattva, Jester, Dean D, and Rob E.

From MB: http://moonbattery.com/

Why aren’t LGBTs Up in Arms Because muslims Won’t Bake Wedding Cakes for Homo’s?

Muslim Bakers Asked to Bake Gay Wedding Cake

Militant homosexuals have made a sport of using our tyrannically politically correct system to destroy Christian bakers who are not willing to betray their faith (example 1, example 2). The complicit media has even extended a variation this game to pizzerias. But neither the Gaystapo nor the governmedia has any interest in whether politically privileged Muslims would be willing to prepare a cake for a Sodomite parody of marriage. So it was left to Steven Crowder to find out:

Are you on this, gay militants? How about you, “mainstream” media? Discrimination is taking place, right in Dearborn, Michigan. Somebody needs to tell Eric Holder.

From MB: http://moonbattery.com/

What the…???

Gender Insanity for $45,078 a Year

Posted on | March 31, 2015

Caroline Narby is “five feet tall and pudgy,” she tells us at the beginning ofher article “My Butchness,” a rather solipsistic 2,000-word discussion of her sexual identity. Of course, I graduated from a third-tier state university in Alabama, where using a fancy word like “solipsistic” would be considered kind of a show-off move, but Caroline Narby is an alumna of Wellesley College, ranked No. 4 among liberal arts colleges by U.S. News & World Report. Annual tuition at Wellesley is $45,078, so when Carolina Narby (Class of 2011) gets solipsistic, buddy, she goes whole-hog. Among other things, she informs us that Wellesley has “a vibrant and visible LGBT community on campus,” and her first semester she took a course entitled “Gay Writing from Sappho to Stonewall.”

This is some high-class intellectual navel-gazing, y’all:

After agonizing over the matter and consulting and commiserating with other butch women, I’ve come to realize that butchness doesn’t need to be understood as “masculinity” at all. Its form and substance don’t have to be defined by its opposition to femininity.
Sometimes I like to think of butchness as a kind of satire. Not as a parody — not as a clownish imitation of manhood–but as part of a purposeful endeavor to dismantle the popular conception of masculinity and the hegemony that it represents. . . . [B]utchness works to deconstruct maleness and masculinity by co-opting behaviors and aesthetics that men have tried to monopolize. Butch is a trickster gender — and so, in a similar way, is femme. Lesbian gender expressions do not emulate heteropatriarchy, they subvert it. Femme removes femininity from the discursive shadow of masculinity and thereby strips from it any connotation of subordination or inferiority. Butch takes markers of “masculinity” and divests them of their association with maleness or manhood. Butchness works against the gender binary — the masculine/feminine paradigm — and reclaims for women the full breadth of possibilities when it comes to gender expression.
Other times, honestly, I just don’t like to think about my gender as a conscious political undertaking at all. I know that “the personal is political.” I know that no action or belief can possibly be apolitical because every social institution on every scale is steeped in ideology. But sometimes I just get so tired. Sometimes I want to justbe. (What the hell did she just say? ZTW)

You probably want to read the whole thing, complete with her description of Girl Scout Camp “where it seemed as though 99% of the staff were lesbians.” But you knew that, right?

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, Caroline Narby is the blogger we met earlier, complaining of the “dehumanizing” nature of “sexuality under heteropatriarchy.” She now has a master’s degree in Gender and Cultural Studies and is “currently finishing up a second master’s in public policy,” because I guess after paying $45,078 a year to get your bachelor’s degree at Wellesley, you need two master’s degrees before you can be bothered to get an actual job. Meanwhile, she’s a blogger, and you might want to read her contributions at Bitch magazine:

The aim of this blog is to explore and interrogate popular representations of autistic sexuality and gender performance from a queer, autistic perspective.

Let’s don’t and say we did.

Nevertheless, there’s “Erasure and Asexuality”:

In my previous post, I remarked that an examination of cultural representations of queer autistic sexuality will inevitably end up as a discussion about lack and absence, because so few representations exist. . . . This reflects and reinforces the presumption that autistic people are too “childlike” or socially stunted to comprehend the idea of sexuality, let alone to actually have sex. The result of prevailing cultural attitudes is that autistic people are perceived as inherently non-sexual. . . .
What popular culture tends to do is to deny that autistic people possess the agency and self-awareness to think about and establish sexual identities. Ableism combines with the general erasure of asexuality, and the assumption that a lack of interest in sex equates to naïveté, to produce the idea that asexual-identified autists must be asexual because they are autistic. They are asexual not because they are self-aware individuals who happen to express a particular sexuality, but because somehow their autism renders them too naïve, “innocent,” or socially inept for sex. They are not asexual because that’s what they happen to be, they are non-sexual because they have no choice.
This assumption robs asexual autists of all romantic dispositions of agency and recognition.

To repeat: $45,078 a year it costs to learn how to write that stuff.

From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/

Tyranny of Equality

The Tyranny of ‘Equality’

Posted on | April 1, 2015

When people claim to be oppressed and demand equality, what happens after they get it? Tim Carney explains the post-Windsor world:

On one side is the CEO of the world’s largest company, the president of the United States and a growing chunk of the Fortune 500. On the other side is a solo wedding photographer in New Mexico, a 70-year-old grandma florist in Washington and a few bakers.
One side wants the state to conscript the religious businesswomen and men into participating in ceremonies that violate their beliefs. The other side wants to make it possible for religious people to live their own lives according to their consciences. . . .
Tim Cook is the CEO of Apple, the largest corporation in the world. He opposes religious freedom laws, and paints them as a growing scourge. “There’s something very dangerous happening in states across the country,” his Washington Post op-ed darkly began, warning of “A wave of legislation” to protect religious liberty.
This is hokum. Religious Freedom Restoration Acts have existed on the state and federal level for decades. What’s new here — the “wave” that’s actually sweeping over the country — is an emboldened and litigious cultural Left, unsated by its recent culture war victories, trying now to conscript the defeated soldiers at gunpoint. . . .
After millennia of marriage being uncontroversially a union between one man and one woman, and after a decade of electorates in most states (and President Obama in 2008) upholding that traditional definition, the Left has used the courts to redefine the institution. People are fired for having taken the losing side. On college campuses, the current fights are about banning even the articulation of traditional views.

Read the whole thing. What has happened is that people forgot history — or, to be more precise, they never learned history, because our education system doesn’t teach history. In the 1950s and early ’60s, the civil-rights movement, led by Christian ministers like the Rev. Martin Luther King, built a broad biracial coalition that gained widespread support by appealing to America’s basic sense of fairness. However, after the great triumph of 1964 — “Freedom Summer” in Mississippi and the passage of the Civil Rights Act — the movement quickly fractured. In early 1965, radicals asserted their control of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC had led sit-in protests across the South) and whites were purged from the organization’s leadership. In 1966, Stokely Carmichael became SNCC chairman and, declaring that non-violence had been a tactic rather than a principle, raised the slogan “Black Power.” Allying themselves with anti-war radicals, SNCC protesters disrupted draft boards and in July 1967, Carmichael’s successor as SNCC chairman,H. Rap Brown, was arrested for inciting a riot in Cambridge, Maryland. By that time, radicals in Oakland, California, inspired by SNCC’s militancy, had formed the Black Panthers, openly espousing a Marxist-Leninist rhetoric of armed revolution.

Thus, in a span of about five years, the civil rights movement had gone from the idealism of MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech to the explicit advocacy of violent black nationalism. What began as a broad-based democratic movement for racial equality became instead a totalitarian cult of black supremacy, and this was surprising to everyone except a handful of conservatives who had studied history and could point to the example of the French Revolution as having followed a quite similar path of radicalism. Less than four years elapsed between the formation of the National Assembly in June 1789 to the execution of King Louis XVI in January 1793, and by June 1793, the bloody Reign of Terrorhad begun. By 1799, Napoleon was dictator of France.

“The modern Cult of Progress . . . has repeatedly afflicted humanity with enthusiastic schemes for political, social and economic change. Always these innovations require us first to destroy ‘hitherto existing society’ (to quote the Communist Manifesto), and to entrust our future to the control of elites. Always the result is the same. From the Reign of Terror in revolutionary France to the Bolshevik Terror in revolutionary Russia, from Kristallnacht in Germany to the ‘Great Leap Forward’ in China to the ‘Killing Fields’ in Cambodia, the path of ‘progress’ is a trail painted in blood, littered with the corpses of those murdered or starved to death for the sake of political theories.”
Robert Stacy McCain, Jan. 11

“Equality” is arguably the most dangerous word in the world. The deadly tyranny of Communism — which killed between 75 million and 100 million people in the 20th century — ought to have cured us of any illusions about this. Alas, people cannot learn lessons from a history they do not know, and the American public education system has deliberately fostered ignorance while promoting liberal mythology as “history,” and thus we are now Doomed Beyond All Hope of Redemption.

From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/

LGBT Crazies go Crazy over Pizza

TV Reporter’s Cheap ‘Gotcha’ Story Incites Hate Mob Against Indiana Pizza Shop

Posted on | April 1, 2015

“RFRA: Michiana business wouldn’t cater a gay wedding.”
“Restaurant denies some services to same-sex couples.”

That’s how Alyssa Marino “reported” a story Tuesday on ABC affiliate WBND-TV in South Bend, Indiana, with the result that a firestorm of hatred came raining down on a pizza shop:

There were no complaints nor denials of service to anyone ever, but because of their religious beliefs, Memories Pizza stands in ruin and the family who owns it has had their lives threatened countless times. How did the O’Connor family, owners of Memories, find themselves in this situation? They were honest with a reporter in search of a story to fit the media’s narrative.
Alyssa Marino is a reporter with ABC 57 News in South Bend, Indiana. With her state in the center of a hurricane over religious freedom, Marino must’ve thought she’d had a coup – a devout Christian business owner willing to speak on camera about their religious beliefs and how it impacts the operations of that business.
The issue of gay marriage is not one that generally comes up when talking about a pizzeria. Neither is straight marriage, for that matter. Local pizza joints aren’t generally hotbeds of wedding receptions. Yet, Marino found herself wandering into Memories Pizza to get the unsuspecting owners to weigh in on an emotional issue which has never come up in the course of the business’s nearly 10 year existence.
When owner Crystal O’Connor told Marino, “If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” she had to know she’d struck gold.

You know what would be awesome right now? A fresh hot slice of Indiana pizza, with pepperoni, mushrooms and FREEDOM!

Legalize sodomy, and next thing you know, it’s illegal to disapprove of sodomy. How long until taxpayer-funded compulsory sodomy?

At what point did Americans begin to believe they had a “right” not to be offended?

Liberals always demand “tolerance” until they get enough power to silence their opposition. Then dissent is banned as “hate speech.

In 2015, Democrats are calling in death threats to a pizza shop whose owner agrees with what was Barack Obama’s official position in 2008.

Democrats have succeeded in fostering violent hatred against Christians, capitalists, heterosexuals and fetuses.

(Hat-tip: Moe Lane on Twitter.) The pizza shop was forced to closeWednesday and the owner told Dana Loesch they might not re-openbecause of all the death threats. Ace of Spades:

Death threats are only publicized to the extent they can portray the left as sympathetic victims.
When the left threatens to murder political opponents, the media covers it up.

The Democrat-Media Complex has hyped this Indiana RFRA controversy into an LGBT lynch-mob scenario that compares to nothing I’ve seen since the L.A. riots in 1992. Some people seem to have lost their minds over this:

A Concord High School coach has been suspended after she tweeted about arson in relation to a Walkerton pizzeria whose owners told the media they agree with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Jess Dooley, who is the head coach of the girls golf program and also an assistant coach with the softball and girls basketball programs, took to Twitter Wednesday, April 1, to voice her opinion about the RFRA.
She was adding to the conversation about Memories Pizza, a Walkerton restaurant whose owners announced in a television news segment that they would not cater gay weddings.
Her tweet read: “Who’s going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?”

Hey, arson advocacy, public education, to-MAY-to, to-MAH-to, right?

 

People: Calm down. If your TV is making you crazy, turn off the TV. If the Internet is making you crazy, get off the Internet.

Except this blog, of course.

This blog will continue providing all the high-intensity craziness anybody could ever need. Because we know you need it.

From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/

“Diversity” is Turning Into Slavery

How to make slaves to the state in the name of “diversity”

image

You’ve heard it all by now. Bakers are being forced to bake cakes for gay weddings, photographers are being forced to participate in gay weddings, chapels are being forced to officiate gay weddings, etc. And it’s all being done in the name of “equality.” Liberty, of course, is never mentioned.

This is not a religious issue, it’s a liberty issue.

There are those who would make this a religious issue but I believe that it is both short-sighted and unprincipled to do so. Yes, it’s true that most of the cases that we’ve had thus far have involved religion and religious objection, but it is certainly possible to have a case that doesn’t involve religion. Laws that exclusively exempt religious people from following laws that others must follow, do nothing but give religious people special privileges. This is both unconstitutional and inconsistent. There are any number of reasons that a proprietor might refuse service to a customer — and they don’t all involve religion.

But because we have made it about religion, we now have a false argument that has created a division between religious people and non-religious people. This doesn’t have to be the case. After all, at the heart of all of this, it’s not about religion, it’s about liberty. If we would all stay principled, we can avoid problems like this in the future.

Many have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a right is.

There are those who would say that customers have a right to buy something. And this is absolutely true! But here’s the distinction: They don’t have the right to force someone to sell them something. Gay people, straight people, religious people, non-religious people, rich people, poor people and any other group of people have the right, in the United States of America, to purchase a cake. They don’t, however, have the right to force someone to bake them a cake. This should be obvious.

Forcing people to work against their will is slavery.

There is no other way to describe it. The reason they might not want to do the work is utterly irrelevant. If a baker is forced to bake a cake, or a photographer is forced to take pictures, or a plumber is forced to unclog a drain or a farmer is forced to harvest his crops or if any other person is forced to perform labor against his will, it is slavery plain and simple. You can pretend that it isn’t. You can try to justify it by using words like “equality” or “fairness.” You can even demonize the opposition with ad hominem attacks and demagoguery. But the fact will remain, forcing people to work against their will is slavery. And it’s immoral.

Business owners have first amendment rights too.

The typical response to this is always something to the effect of: “if you advertise a service or product, you must be able to provide it with no exceptions.” But this is ludicrous on it’s face. A person does not give up his first amendment rights just because he started a business. Advertising for a business is not the same thing as entering into a contract. I see Lexus ads all the time but I can guarantee you that the Lexus dealership will not give me a Lexus for the amount of money in my bank account. I am ineligible to purchase a Lexus. I am not a potential customer even though they advertised to me as if I was one. “Yeah! But not having enough money is different!” Why is it different? If you have no *principled* response as to why it’s different, then you have no good argument. Furthermore, as I’ve already stated, a business owner might have any number of reasons to refuse service to a potential customer: Lack of money, unruly behavior, difficult delivery logistics, lack of customer license, product or service disputes, age, appearance, etc. It would be a ridiculous fool’s errand to try to determine which of these things should be “illegal” and which shouldn’t be.

We must remain consistent.

A potential response to the above argument is to suggest that all of the other reasons listed for refusing service directly affect the bottom line of the business and, therefore, should be permitted. But, again, not only is this not true, there are plenty of examples that parallel quite nicely with the current controversy. For example, should the gay owner of a community meeting facility be forced to rent it out to, say, The Westboro cult? Obviously not. Should a Christian web developer be forced by the government to design a pornographic website? The vast majority of people would rightly say “no” (remember, this is an analogy, not a comparison). But if they are to remain consistent, those who use the old “If you advertise, there must be no exceptions” argument, must argue that a developer should be forced to design a pornographic web site. These hypothetical scenarios and the current controversy all involve a refusal of service based on (dare I use the phrase) conscientious objection. These businesses should reserve the right to refuse service if they so choose.

Who gets to decide what kind of objection is acceptable?

Whenever analogies like the one above are used, the response often meanders around to the notion that only certain types of objection should be allowed or that we should have certain “protected classes.” In other words, we should define when a business can refuse service and when it can’t. But is that really what we want? Do we really want an all-powerful government determining the things that are acceptable and things that aren’t? Who wins? The people with the most lobbyists? The largest special interest group? Similarly, do we really want the government defining identity groups and then determining which of them should have special rights? Of course not! But that’s exactly what would be (and is) happening.

Free people should be able to enter into contracts with one another.

Rarely have I heard anyone disagree with the notion that people should be able to enter (or not enter) into contracts freely. When a customer purchases something from a business, the two entities have entered into a private contract. The terms of that contract are nobody else’s business. Similarly, the reasons one might choose not to enter into a contract are also nobody else’s business. This is not a hard concept. Yet, for some reason, this principle goes out the window when the feelings of a member of a so-called victim class are on the line.

As usual, liberty is the solution.

You know, I would complain all day if a company didn’t serve me for some petty reason. I would blog about it. I would alert the media. I would protest. I would call for boycotts, etc. But here’s what I would not do: I would not expect (or want) the government to coerce that business into serving me. After all, I’m free to shop somewhere else. I’m free to start my own business and do what I please with it. I’m free to never interact with the business that rejected me. I’m free to live my life as I see fit. And really, that’s the beauty of liberty. All people are free to make their own decisions. No one owns anyone. No one’s identity is defined by bureaucrats. No one is forced to do something they don’t want to do. Yes, within liberty, someone’s feelings might get hurt but that’s life. Yes, within liberty, there will be people who behave badly. But I would take that liberty over an authoritarian government any day.

From Poor Richard: http://poorrichardsnews.com/#

Christians Will Be forced to Take a Stand

Two Years Later, You’ll Still Be Made to Care

By Erick Erickson

In the last twenty-four hours, much of the mainstream media has shown itself perfectly willing to serve as agents of Satan (or should I use Moloch to make you feel better?). Most of the news anchors, reporters, and opinion writers of the press are perfectly fine forcing you to violate your conscience as long as they do not have to.

They have suddenly discovered Jesus dined with sinners. They just ignore that he said “go and sin no more.” There is no evidence Jesus baked a cake to celebrate sin, but the media wants you to think he did. Just pay no attention to the guy in the Bible who spoke the most about hell fire. Oh wait, that would be the very same Jesus.

Two years ago this week, I coined the phrase “you will be made to care.” The media have long served to push along the leftwing agenda. Their reporting on Indiana is a greater mythological fiction than how they view Jesus. In light of the press’s advocacy, not reporting, in the last twenty-four hours in defense of hypothetical gays shut out of hypothetical businesses, it is worth revisiting the genesis of “You Will Be Made to Care.”

First, you are not loving your neighbor if you are cool with them going to hell. Do you want to go to hell? No? Well then how are you loving your neighbor as yourself if you’re cool with him going to hell? Leading people to Christ requires leading them to ask Christ to forgive them of their sins. It requires a deeper understanding of what is a sin. The Bible is clear. Same sex sexual relations is a sin, as is lying, greed, gluttony, adultery, etc. — no more or less worse than any other sin — and Christ himself is clear that marriage is between one man and one woman.

My church does not treat marriage as a sacrament, but it would be a sin to alter that which God himself ordained and established as an institution. Active sin without repenting, and without even feeling the need to repent, should be a big red flag on anyone’s salvation.

Gay rights advocates on the steady march toward and past gay marriage will make you care. They will not give you room to sit on the fence.

Tim Keller got a lot of heat two years ago for saying that “you can believe homosexuality is a sin and still believe that same-sex marriage should be legal.” He was not talking about himself. He was talking about the compromise many young evangelicals are making.

Some, though, are going the next step to “I. Do. Not. Care.”

The left will allow no fence sitting. You may not believe me. You may think me hyperbolic. But the history of the world shows this. Events ultimately come to a head. They boil to their essence. And at that point you must choose.

That is why so many Christians are fighting. Because we see in Europe and Canada what will happen here. Christianity is a religion of the city square. Christ compels us to “go forth and teach.” It is the Great Commission. We cannot go forth and teach when the left bars us from the town square.

Many people say we should have legal gay marriage, but not have religious gay marriage. The left will not honor the distinction. Look to Canada. Preachers can be brought up for hate crimes charges merely for discussing passages of the Bible that deal with same sex sexual relations. You may not care that it is a sin, but the world surely does. Look at Louie Giglio, who could not honor the President at his inauguration because of his orthodox Christian beliefs on this subject.

In short, you may choose not to care and in so doing sit on the sidelines or give aid and comfort to the open minded and tolerant who want gay marriage so everyone can have equal rights.

But the world will one day make you care. Your church, should it open its doors to all, but refuse to perform a same sex wedding, will be accused of discrimination. In some places, the church will be forced to stop performing weddings. Many churches will lose their tax exempt status. The costs of sharing the gospel will go up.

Already Christians are being harassed by fellow American citizens for not wanting to participate in a gay marriage.

The time will come, more quickly than you can imagine, when you will be made to care.

We are not using the state to enforce the commands of Scripture. We are using the state to protect our ability to preach the scripture under the first amendment. If the state has the power to change the definition of an institution that it did not create, but that God himself created, the state can compel and coerce the church to honor that definition or sit on the sidelines and shut up.

A Christian on the sidelines is a Christian not going forth. You can be a sincere Christian and support the idea of gay marriage. But you would also be foolish to ignore what is going to happen to the church once the state decides something is a matter of equal protection. You can dismiss me now, but you are ignoring what’s already happening.

Keep in mind as well that many of those who you may look to for reassurance that I’m wrong are hostile to the church already and will not be on the side of the church as the equal protection arguments against it grow.

The state did not create marriage and it should not now exert the power to change the definition of that which it did not create. Those of you who are Christians who support gay marriage will one day have Archbishop Chaput burning in your ears. He said that evil peddles tolerance until it is dominant then seeks to silence good. That’s why Christians fight on this issue. It is not to force themselves on others, but to protect themselves from others being forced on them.

From Redstate: http://www.redstate.com/2015/04/01/two-years-later-youll-still-be-made-to-care/

Really? Then White People Deserve their Safe Places without Minorities.

Ethnic Minorities Deserve Safe Spaces Without White People

 Last week The Ryersonian reported on an incident that involved two first-year journalism students who were turned away from an event organized by Racialized Students’ Collective because they are white. Since then there has been a lot of commentary on the piece and a lot of debate — a lot of the criticism is valid.

There are two sides to the story: 1) the media has a right to attend public events and report on matters that are in the public interest. The student media needs to cover initiatives that are happening on campus so that we draw attention to them and in turn create awareness (The Ryersonian reported that one student said he was covering the meeting for an assignment). 2) Marginalized groups have a right to claim spaces in the public realm where they can share stories about the discrimination they have faced without judgment and intrusion from anyone else.

I am a person of colour and a journalist and so there are two conflicting voices inside my head. But in this case one voice, that of a person of colour, is louder and my conscience does not allow me to be impartial. I have to take a side.

The organizers of the event, the Racialized Students’ Collective, should have done a better job of labelling this event as a safe space on the Ryerson Students’ Union online calendar. They should label safe spaces clearly and maybe even host events that educate the public on what they mean. Doing so will help the public and the media have a better understanding of the purpose and value of these spaces.

However, the point to note is not that two white students were asked to leave the event, but rather that this was a safe space and that we as a newsroom, as a campus and as a society are not as knowledgeable as we should be about what these spaces mean.

It’s not just important, but it’s essential, for marginalized groups to have safe spaces on campus to engage with people who understand what they go through. Though this group is funded by Ryerson’s student union, it works to serve a particular group and a particular purpose. Many students at Ryerson have encountered racism in their life that is impossible to forget and many are exposed to discrimination on a daily basis. This group and these sort of events allow people of colour to lay bare their experiences and to collectively combat this societal ailment. These spaces are rare places in the world not controlled by individuals who have power, who have privilege.

These spaces, which are forums where minority groups are protected from mainstream stereotypes and marginalization, are crucial to resistance of oppression and we, as a school and as a society, need to respect them.

Earlier in the week a newsroom colleague and I went to an ad-hoc committee meeting on sexual assault policy. When we arrived we were told it was a safe space, and that we would not be able to report on anything that would be discussed in the meeting.

We understood the value of these sorts of events, where people can share their common struggles. Our understanding let us attend and contribute to the conversation, even if we couldn’t report about it.
We understood the people there had a right to privacy. They had a right to collectively work through the challenges society had imposed on them. They had a right to claim parts of the campus, parts of the world, for a few hours in hopes of creating broader social change.

The two students who tried to enter the RSC meeting said that they were embarrassed when they were asked to leave and that the group was being counterproductive in sectioning themselves off. Similarly, some of the comments on the piece written about these students speaks to the idea that excluding certain people from these events, this dialogue, is encouraging racial tension. Their embarrassment isn’t as important as the other issues involved here.

Segregation was imposed on people of colour by people of privilege, not the other way around. The very fact that individuals organizing to help each other get through social barriers and injustices are being attacked and questioned for their peaceful assembly is proof that they were right to exclude those students.

Racialized people experience systemic discrimination on a daily basis, on many levels, and in ways that white people may never encounter. The whole point of these safe spaces is to remove that power dynamic. That’s partly what makes them spaces for healing.

The presence of any kind of privilege puts unnecessary pressure on the people of colour to defend any anger or frustrations they have, to fear the outcome of sharing their stories. The attendees are trying to move forward by supporting each other and they should not have to defend themselves, they should not fear the consequences of raising their voices.

Instead of focusing on why those students were asked to leave, we should be thinking about the history of oppression that makes these kinds of groups and these kinds of places so very important. We should be focusing on how to be aware and respectful of the rights of both the press and marginalized groups. We have to find a way to coexist peacefully.

The West has a history of oppressing people of colour: from Africans who were enslaved and brought to the New World, to native people whose land was stolen by Europeans. This kind of oppression is still witnessed today, in the way the black community is treated in the United States, in the state of African nations trying to recover from the collapse of the previous colonial rule, and in the continuing struggles of indigenous peoples.

White people may experience occasional and unacceptable prejudice, but not racism. They do not experience the systemic racism that makes it hard for them to find jobs, housing, health care and justice in the legal system.

Racism is not personal, it is structural. Unlike the arena of mainstream media, the educational system, religious institutions and judicial systems that reinforce hurtful stereotypes, these spaces remind the oppressed that they are human, that they deserve respect.

From: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/aeman-ansari/ethnic-safe-spaces_b_6897176.html?

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