The Incoherence of Anti-anti-abortionism

I'm not "pro-life" -- that designation is the sort of "non-judgmental" pap cooked up on Madison Ave to appeal to a certain sort of woman -- I'm anti-murder, and thus I'm anti-abortion.

Earlier today, Jeremy at "The Quartering" uploaded a YouTube video in which he expresses his dismay, and even revulsion, about a recent trend on TikTok of "celebrating" the baby-murders one has commissioned.

Now, Jeremy's problem (as with Megyn Kelly) is wanting to have it both ways: wanting abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare" as the utterly immoral Clintons formulated it. But, this is incoherent, it is self-contradictory.

If an abortion is the murder of a helpless and innocent human being (and it is), then only a demon wants it to be "safe, legal"; and a moral person wants abortion to be not merely "rare" but illegal and prosecuted and punished, just as with any other method of murder.

But, if an abortion is of no more moral consequence than an appendectomy, then "safe, legal, and rare" is still incoherent and self-contradictory. Now, of a truth, all moral persons want appendectomies to be "safe, legal", but ""rare"!? No, a moral person wants appendectomies to be as numerous as they need to be.

I have had an inguinal hernia repaired, as had my father and also a great-nephew; I have had an appendectomy, as has one sister. The other sister has had her gall bladder removed, as had our mother.  Certainly, it would be odd and strange were any of us to be talking about these surgeries for no specific and relevant reason, much less to be boasting about them. But, would it really be "creepy"? Would these surgeries really be something to be ashamed of?  Of course not! They have no moral content of themselves. In contrast, and except for the super-rare case of "saving the life of the mother", abortion *is* immoral, utterly and always; for the *point* of all abortions except that super-rare case is to kill a baby.

The flood of lawlessness and degeneracy which is destroying America has many streams feeding it; two of the most important are: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Abortion Regime.  Either of those alone would have been enough to destroy the nation within just a generation or two -- and remember, both of those were set up within the lifetimes of millions of Americans now living. Do you *really* think that things can go on as they are for another 50 or 60 years?

It is not that "God is Gonna Get Us Because of Drag-Queen Story Hour", rather, Drag Queen Story Hour -- the deliberate grooming of children (*) into sexual perversion -- and much horror beside, IS the judgement of God upon this nation for its rejection of true morality and true law.

(*) You may have noticed that Drag Queen Story Hour is never held at Ye Olde Folkes Home.

The Quartering: "TikTok Abortion Vlogs Are Now A Popular Thing"

Matt Christiansen: "Whistleblower on Teen Gender Transitions, AZ Abortion Ban"

When is a "Deadbeat Parent" Not a "Deadbeat Parent"?

... when she is the mother.

Do listen to the linked video.

Personal Anecdote: Back in 2000-2001, I worked as a contractor for the Ohio "Dept of Job and Family Services" -- it was an "open secret" that the "child support" collection/enforcement division was charging the "non-custodial parents" (i.e. fathers) a "service charge" (called "poundage") even though it was against federal law at the time to do so. When the State of Ohio was finally prosecuted for breaking the law on the matter, the recently installed top bureaucrat of the "Dept of Job and Family Services" took the fall ... even though Gov. Taft knew about this illegality the whole time.

Also, and as stated at some point in this video, it was common knowledge that among those few instances in which "child support" was ordered to be paid by the mother to the father, the incidence of "dead-beat mothers" was significantly higher than that of "dead-beat fathers".

You never hear about "deadbeat mothers" in the media, do you?

If you want to learn more about how it is government policy to destroy the lives of fathers, look up "Duluth Protocol".

Podcast of the Lotus Eaters: How American Family Courts Destroy Fathers’ Lives

When is a Person Not a Person?

 ... when the Powers That Be do not wish that person to be treated in law as a person.

Quote from linked YT video: =="Abortion (like a Clinton witness' cause of death) is homicide. And *like* homicide, it's a matter for the States to prosecute (ahem, unlike the Clintons)."==

Indeed, abortion *is* homicide, and like other acts of homicide, it is for the States to prosecute.

Yet, there is the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, which states that: =="No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."==

Now, imagine that some State were to enact a law to deny some class of persons "the equal protection of the laws". Say, for instance, that New York State, whether by explicit statute or by prosecutorial action in some instances and inaction in other instances, were to deny "straight white males" having "the equal protection of the laws": Say, if a "straight white male" were to kill a black person while in the act of protecting other persons in public from the violent threats of that black person, the killing were to be prosecuted as murder, yet at the same time, some "persons of color" who assisted that "straight white male" in subduing the now-deceased violent black person were not prosecuted at all.

How, one might ask, could such a thing happen, even hypothetically? Why, in practice, it does happen in the very same way that abortion -- murder of pre-born (and sometimes in Current Year post-birth) babies -- is winked at: by denying the personhood of the persons whom powerful political interests wish to exclude from "the equal protection of the laws."

=====
Isn't it odd that when the Democratic Party were explicitly (*) the party of slavery, even they didn't go so far as their intellectual descendants do with respect to the murder of babies? The Democrats of 1860 didn't deny that slaves were persons, they merely denied that slaves were citizens. -- even in the deepest of the Old South, killing a slave could get one prosecuted for murder.

(*) In Current Year, the Democrats are implicitly the party of slavery -- the Democrats *never* gave up on wanting to enslave some persons: all that changes is the who and the whom.

The Rageaholic: Arizona BOOFS Baby Murder - Razör Rants

=====

EDIT (2024/04/14): I much doubt that Tim Pool reads this dusty little blog. Nonetheless, he recently had a segment in which he brings up the conflict I pointed out above between the 14th Amendment and abortion.

IF a pre-born human being is a person (and they are), THEN abortion is murder (and it is), AND thus the US Constitution *requires* the States to prosecute for murder: the abortionist, the abortionist's aides and office workers and financiers and any other persons connected to the abortion-mill, the woman who contracted the murder, and any persons who aided in the procuring of the murder.

BUT, IF a pre-born human being is NOT a person, THEN it is irrational and indeed unconstitutional to prosecute a person who murders a pregnant woman for *two* murders. In fact, IF a pre-born human being is NOT a person, THEN it is irrational and indeed unconstitutional to even prosecute a person who causes a pregnant woman to miscarriage.

TimcastIRL: SCOTUS Must Rule On 14th Amendment For Abortion, Otherwise CIVIL WAR

On Cat-Calling

There is a certain class of woman who is always bitching that men are always cat-calling her ... her specifically -- this sort always claim that *they* get cat-called constantly.

I don't recall how, but somehow this subject came up last week when one of my sisters was visiting. Now, I've never cat-called anyone, nor have I ever seen anyone cat-called. Well, other than myself (*); I've been cat-called more than once in my life. My sister has also witnessed men being cat-called by women.

Sure, it's true that I have lived most on my 66 years in smallish towns in Indiana and Ohio. Years ago, for work, I had spent at least a week at a time in NYC/Newark, Boston, Atlantic City, Chicago, and KC. Perhaps had I spent more time in these major cities, I might have finally seen a woman being cat-called.

(*) EDIT: I spoke too soon. When I was in college, I was home for a spell while the roof was being replaced. The (trashy) women in the house next door were cat-calling, and worse, at some of the men up on our roof, especially one who was a good-looking blond. One of these women came outside in her bra and underwear and called up to the blond, "Does it bother you to see me like this?" Thank God they moved or were evicted soon after that.

On "Christ Is King" is Anti-Semitic

My take on the Daily Wire / Candace Owens "Saying 'Christ Is King is anti-Semitic" brouhaha --

Shorter version: "A pox on both their houses!"

Longer version:

I think that Candace Owens is a grifter. EDIT (as I wasn't clear on this): I do believe that Candace Owens was attempting a more genteel version of what Fani Willis did in standing in the pulpit of that (black-church) and trying to wrap herself in the Bible and in the cloak of martyrdom.

I think that Ben Shapiro and Jeremy Boreing are grifters.

I think that Matt Walsh has auctioned off his balls to DW. EDIT: Of course, he had that stupid tattoo (seeking recognition by decorating your body with "art" reflects an immature, and decidedly non-manly, mindset) even before he joined DW, so there is that.

I think that Michael Knowles too much plays the "Isn't it cute how I intentionally give off this ghey-vibe, even though I'm not. Tee-hee!" card.

I think that Andrew Klavan doesn't understand the Christianity he professes to embrace: it's one thing to love your son who has made the perverse things he does with his dick into his identity, it's quite another thing to joke about it as though it is no big deal, as though there were no eternal consequence to treating any sin as one's identity.

I think that the purpose of Daily Wire is:

1) to hoover up money from "conservative-ish" people into the pockets of Shapiro and Boreing;

2) (and, as with Dave Rubin) to act as a fifth-columnist to insinuate the Ghey Agenda into conservatism.

=====

On the "Jew thing" --

As I have mentioned more than once, I am a Christian, and I have Jewish ancestry. Specifically, my paternal grandmother's grandmother was a Jew. My Jewish great-great-grandmother's first husband was also a Jew, and they had Jewish children. After she was widowed, she married my non-Jewish great-great-grandfather, and they had children, their son being my grandmother's father.. Also, one of the Jewish descendants of my Jewish great-great-grandmother married my paternal grandfather's non-Jewish half-sister. Mind you, this was in the rural South -- everyone amongst my father's "people" (i.e. kith and kin) knew these things about our family.

I tell you those things because:

1) I am in no wise ashamed to have Jewish ancestry;

2) to give the anti-Christian Jew-haters the excuse they need to play the "Motivation Game" about my philo-Semitism;

3) to inform the Christianity-hating leftist-atheists-with-Jewish-grandmothers that I don't give a damn about the accusations they will inevitably toss at me.

SO --

Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be God-Among-Us. This claim is true, or it is false.

Jesus of Nazareth claimed that "No man comes to the Father, but by me." This claim is true, or it is false.

Now, if these claims are false, then:

1) according to the New Testament, my faith in Jesus is worthless, and I am still trapped in my sin;

2) according to the Old Testament, I am an idolater, or worse.

But, if these claims are true, then:

1) persons who *actively* reject Jesus *as* Christ are almost certainly still trapped in their sin (*);

2) persons who *actively* work to prevent others from accepting Jesus *as* Christ are assuredly still trapped in their sin. This applies to almost every Rabbi (**), for the main concern of most Rabbis is to keep their flocks ignorant about and fearing Christ (***).

(*) To say that "No man comes to the Father, but by me" is not the same as to say "No man comes to the Father, but by joining a human bureaucracy". What I mean is that Christ's own words inform us that some people who claimed to be Christians will be among the Damned, and that some people who did not claim to be Christians will be among the Redeemed.

(**) A person of Jewish ancestry can be a Buddhist -- no problem, the Rabbis still accept him as a Jew.

A person of Jewish ancestry can be wholly indifferent to the reality of God -- no problem, the Rabbis still accept him as a Jew.

A person of Jewish ancestry can be a demon-dabbling occultist -- no problem, the Rabbis still accept him as a Jew.

A person of Jewish ancestry can be a pornographer -- no problem, the Rabbis still accept him as a Jew.

A person of Jewish ancestry can be a rabid, fire-breathing, Judaism-hating atheist -- no problem, the Rabbis still accept him as a Jew.

But, let a person of Jewish ancestry be a Christian -- Whoa! That is a bridge too far!.

(***) A certain sort of "Jew" -- typically, they are leftist atheists, and they claim Jewishness only for the "victim points" -- like to gas on about the Jews being forced into ghettos in European cities. BUT, the truth is that it was the Jewish leaders themselves who demanded the setting aside of ghettos when they negotiated with non-Jewish rulers and magnates to establish a new Jewish settlement in one of the cities they ruled. And the day-to-day reason -- which is to say, the most important reason -- that the Jewish leaders wanted to segregate their fellow "common" Jews from the "common" Christians is that Christianity has always been appealing to Jews who want their worship of God to be deeper than ritual.

You May Not Be Interested in the Culture War, But the Culture War is Interested in You

Some thoughts on the Planet Fitness genderism madness --

0) Better late than never, I suppose. What I mean is, PF has been allowing perverted men into the women's rooms for years and has been cancelling the memberships of women who object;
1) This is the world that *women* demanded;
2) Until women as a whole culturally reject the constant demands of 'feminists' to invade "men's spaces" -- including not only men's social organizations, but also the police and fire-fighting forces and the military -- this sort of thing cannot really be ended: perverted men invading women's spaces is just the flip side of perverted women invading men's spaces;
3) Thus, until *women* reject feminism -- really reject it, rather than merely saying, "I'm not a feminist", while simultaneously using the fruits of feminism against men when it suits them -- I don't really see this as a fight in which I have a dog;
4) That said, if I did have a PF membership, I'd cancel it, out of intellectual and moral honesty. I think it would be great if PF goes bankrupt.

5) The fellow whose video I've linked is still too "conciliatory" about genderism madness. Toward the end of the video, his "solution" is for gyms to create "family changing rooms" (similar to his "solution" for sporting events: creating a third, or even fourth, category of competition). No, the only solution to genderism is to *refuse* to go along with *any* of it.
6) I once had a membership at a local gym, over 35 years ago. I let it lapse partly because I was busy working on my house, partly because the building wasn't well maintained and cleaned, and partly because I was tired of perverted men trying to hit on me. So, I think I have an inkling of how these innocent women feel at having this sort of perverted men invading their spaces.

The Quarting: Planet Fitness BOYCOTT Gets WORSE As NEW Pictures Shock & BACKLASH Costs 500 Million In 5 Days!

Matt Walsh and "GamerGate 2.0"

You, Gentle Reader, may not have heard of the current outrage among "Gamers" directed at Matt Walsh over his recent video remarks (at Daily Wire) concerning "GamerGate 2.0" For that matter, you almost certainly never heard of "GamerGate 1.0", which was about 10 years ago.

Here is my take on the outrage of the "Gamers" --
1) They are reacting like spoiled children throwing a tantrum, even though many of them (possibly even a majority) are in their 30s and 40s;
2) They are acting like "toxic" women, in that they didn't *listen* to what he said, and, to the limited extent that they are saying anything of more substance than "How dare you criticize how I waste my time!", they are not addressing what he said;
3) Most of their "offense" at what Walsh did (or did not) say is aimed at Walsh's Catholicism and/or his "religious conservatism". Which is to say, at root this "outrage" is anti-Christian and thus anti-Western Civilization;
3a) It isn't really the Wokies (*) who are turning our western societies into shit; rather, it is "normal people" who want to have it both ways -- among which are the majority of these ranting "Gamers" -- they want to have "just a little bit of sin, just the fun parts", while denying that any of the individual and social consequences of that sin matter; the most important consequence being that it is impossible to limit winking at sin to "just a little bit".

(*) "GamerGate 2.0", as with "GamerGate 1.0" ten years ago, is about the gratuitous "wokeness" being injected into "games"

Here is the Matt Walsh video which has the panties of the "Gamers" in a wad -- "The Dark Side To The Video Game Industry"

EDIT: On the bright side, there are claims that a lot of "Gamers" are cancelling their subscriptions to Daily Wire. Wouldn't it be great for DW to go bankrupt and for Matt Walsh to get his balls back?

Comes the Word, Comes the Day

Comment by nihilist2christian:"Some day we are going to look back on this time and these practices the same way we view lobotomy, and those practising it in the same way we see people like Josef Mengele."

The arrival of that day requires, at a minimum, that sane people *refuse* to cooperate with their false language. Non-exhaustively, and in no particular order:

1. NEVER use ‘gender’ to refer to ‘sex’; people do not come in ‘genders’, we come in sexes, and there are precisely two sexes;
2. Refuse to use their made-up pseudo-pronouns;
3. Refuse to use “she/her” to refer to a male, or “he/him” to refer to a female;
4. Refuse to use the made-up words “transman” and “transwoman” and “transkids” and the demeaning and dehumanizing prefix “cis-“. The "cis-" prefix is especially grotesque, as its purpose is to trick you into mentally (and metaphysically) re-defining the true and normal in terms of the false and abnormal;
5. Train yourself to stop saying “they/them” when you are referring to one person;
6. Train yourself to stop saying “biological male” and “biological female” — there are no other kinds. So, using that qualifier is already to bow to the leftists' false language.  In a situation in which you want to make it undeniable that you are distinguishing *real* men and women from the fake, use words like "real", "actual" and "fake", "pretend".

Shadow to Light: Are “Gender Affirming” Procedures Doing Harm?

False Dichotomy: Pelagianism or Calvinism

 Below is my response (with a minor edit or two) to an internet friend's recent blog post: You Are Saved By Your Works

"You Are Saved By Your Works  ... because you're the only variable in the equation."

 The heresy expressed here is call 'Pelagianism'.  While The One True Bureaucracy has *officially* condemned this belief as heresy since the 5th century, it *also* inculcates the heresy in its adherents, even to this day.  If it helps to ease your mind, there are also some so-called Protestants who are actually Pelagians, such as the 'Holiness Movement'.

 "I've never understood the position some Christians take that you can do nothing on your own and you cannot be saved by your own actions. Maybe I'm misunderstanding it, but as far as I can tell, when it comes to salvation, there are only two actors: you and God. Since He is constant and His Universe is a given for all people everywhere, the only variable is you, your decisions and your actions.

…

If we aren't saved by our own actions, then what was the point of free will?"

 Does this help? -- You are reasoning from a dichotomy, false as it turns out, between Pelagianism, on the one hand, and “ultra Calvinism”, on the other.

 The Pelagian position is that one can become righteous-unto-salvation by one’s own works.  Or, put another way, that Christ’s death and resurrection is superfluous to one’s salvation; that if one has made oneself “good enough”, then God *owes* one a spot in Heaven, as it were.

The “ultra Calvinist” position is that human nature is so enslaved to sin that not a one of us can even so much as *regret* that we sin, much less repent of it; and thus that only those few in whom God works some mysterious change-of-nature which over-rides Original Sin can ever repent and be saved.

And, by the way, IF you were to look into the *reasoning* presented to justify the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, you will find that that reasoning is just “ultra Calvinism”, but applied to a single individual only … despite that The One True Bureaucracy *officially* condemns Calvinism as heresy.

The *Biblical* position is that *all* our righteousness is as filthy (menstrual) rags compared to the perfect (i.e. total/complete) righteousness of God.  That is, no matter *how* “good” we are, we can never be “good enough” to escape Sin/Death (Understand, that sin *is* capital-D Death).

The *Biblical* position is that *no one* is good, but only God.  Jesus himself asserts this.

The *Biblical* position is that the only contribution we make to our own salvation is to stop fighting/rebelling against God.  Or, to put it another way, it’s not so much that repentance of our sin causes or leads to our salvation, but rather that repentance of our sin allows the sin to be tossed into Hell without dragging us with it.  Sin is Death, and those who do not repent of their sin clutch their own Death to their breast as being more precious to them than Life Himself.  To truly repent of one’s sin is to stop refusing to be saved from Death.

Accepting a freely-given gift is not even on the same plane as earning a reward, much less on the same axis. 

 

The *Biblical* position is that “good works” are the result of salvation, not its cause.

 

“If we aren't saved by our own actions, then what was the point of free will?" 

The point of free-will is that you are free to open your hands, thereby letting go the Death which you have been heretofore tightly grasping to your breast, so that you are free to receive the Life which has always been there for you to receive.

=====

ADDENDUM: We are not saved by our own works any more than we are damned by our works.  You see, from our origin, we are already damned, we are already carriers of the infection of sin and dearth, we are already dying and headed for Death -- this is merely what the doctrine of Original Sin means.  Much as people misunderstand what 'Immaculate Conception' (which is false) refers to, most people also misunderstand what 'Original Sin' (which is true) refers to.

Think of it this way: We are not sinners because we commit sins; rather, we commit sins because we are sinners.

 

Not everything that matters can be counted. And not everything that can be counted matters.

 My short response to scientism (i.e. the "I f-ing love science!" variant of atheism) --

How many microangelos are in The Pieta or a just-blossomed rose?

The Charitable-Industrial Complex

 According to the linked page, concerning the MS Society for 2022, the top three officers "earned" --

1) $473,993 compensation + $33,351 other
2) $331,191 compensation + $34,536 other
3) $325,645 compensation + $50,221 other

These, and other similarly "compensated" persons, are those who set the leftist/commie policies by which the organization tossed overboard a 90-year-old woman who had been a volunteer for 60 years ... because she didn't understand Current Year's Pronoun Madness.

One will find similar results for most "charities" -- the Charitable-Industrial Complex is a scam.

ProPublica: National Multiple Sclerosis Society

Anyone Can Weaponize Feminism to Use Against Women

 In the YouTube video linked below, Tim Pool discusses an article by a (female) journalist in which she describes how she was scammed -- blatantly, obviously scammed -- out of $50,000.  

Here are my thoughts --

1) Feminism is -- and always has been -- primarily a tool to convince women to voluntarily offer themselves up as prey to sexually perverted men.  You will have noticed by now that feminists almost always act as political body-guards for the sort of powerful men who do prey upon women; to the point that in Current Year, the vast majority of feminists pretend to be unable to state what the word 'woman' even means ... even as they shriek that killing babies is the most important of "women's rights";

1a) And, as a necessary step toward that end, to convince women to see the men who do have their own best interest at heart -- their fathers, brothers and husbands -- as "the enemy";

1b) And this mindset -- that the men who actually know and love one are not to be trusted -- opens the door to just the sort of scam to which this woman fell prey.

2) This particular woman was successfully scammed in this particular way due to her commitment to feminism: 

2a) Her feminism demanded that she "girl boss" the situation, that she deal the understandable panic induced by this perceived threat all by herself, without turning to or informing to her husband of the call and of the perceived threat;

2b) Thus, she said nothing to her husband about the threatening phone call, and even actively hid from him what she was doing in response to it.

3) Had this been a *man* who had fallen for such an obvious scam and had thereby thrown away $50,000 of the family's savings, you *know* that everyone would be telling the wife to dump him, and more than likely she would have done so even before such "advice" had started rolling in.  This mindset of endless excuses for any woman's failings coupled with no forgiveness whatsoever for any man's failings *also* follows from feminism.

Tim Pool: "Journalist MOCKED For LOSING $50k To A SCAM, HILARIOUS Article Show Journalists ARE NOT SMART People"

99.7% of Agenda-Driven Statistics Are Bogus

 From the linked item at Don Surber's substack -- 
========
ITEM 4: The LA Times reported, “It was a decade ago when California became the first state in the nation to ban single-use plastic bags, ushering in a wave of anti-plastic legislation from coast to coast.”

The story also said, “According to a report by the consumer advocacy group CALPIRG, 157,385 tons of plastic bag waste was discarded in California the year the law was passed. By 2022, however, the tonnage of discarded plastic bags had skyrocketed to 231,072 — a 47% jump. Even accounting for an increase in population, the number rose from 4.08 tons per 1,000 people in 2014 to 5.89 tons per 1,000 people in 2022."

That works out to 11 pounds of plastic bags per person. 200 single-use grocery bags weigh 240 grams — a little more than half a pound. That means the average Californian goes through 4,157 grocery bags a year.

No wonder Californians are weird. They are addicted to grocery bags.
========

Do you *really* believe that even Californians go through 4,157 single-use grocery bags per person per year and/or the equivalent weight in reusable plastic grocery bags (which is where the "environmentalist" claim is headed)?  Is it *really* credible that this "statistic" is even remotely on the same planet as the truth?  Of course not!

Note: Don Surber calculated from "11 pounds of plastic bags per person".  But 5.89 tons per 1000 people is actually 11.78 pounds per person, which, according to the weight per bag that Don Surber used, works out to the weight equivalent of 4453 single-use plastic bags per person in 2022.

Here is the calculation -- 11.78 pounds * 453.592 (i.e. conversion factor) = 5343.31376 grams total weight;  5343.31376 grams / 240 (i.e. the weight of 200 bags) = 22.263807333... "bundles" of 200 bags;  22.263807333... "bundles" of 200 bags * 200 bags = 4452.7614666... individual bags.

Don Surber's link/claim is that a typical single-use plastic grocery bag weighs 1.2 grams (at the link he used, I did't see a weight given for those 200 bags).  Other claims I found on the internet are that a typical single-use plastic grocery bag weighs 5-10 grams.  

So, just to make the math easier -- and to give all the benefit of the doubt to the "consumer advocacy group" -- let us say that the average single-use plastic grocery bag weighs 12 grams, that is 10 times the weight which Don Surber had used in his calculation; or, in other words, that roughly 38 typical single-use plastic grocery bags weighs a pound.  By that (obviously inflated) weight, the claim of the "consumer advocacy group" *still* works out to the assertion that Californians use the equivalent of 445 single-use plastic grocery bags per person per year.  Is even that number credible?  Is that number credible even given your own personal experience that you yourself end up with more "single-use" plastic grocery bags than you are able to re-use as waste-basket liners and trash-bags, etc?

But, suppose you had only the LA Tines' "reporting" and the "consumer advocacy group" assertions to go by, rather than a per-person break-down of the "statistics" -- you'd almost certainly have said, "Wow!" and believed all the assertions being made, and thus fallen for the agenda being pushed.

Engrave this on your heart as The First Law of Advocacy: Alleged statistics involving very large or very small numbers, made to advance an agenda, are almost always lies; especially when those very large or very small numbers are not put into some relatable context.

Don Surber: "Highlights of the news"

=========================

=========================

Here is another advocacy "statistic" that you have almost certainly encountered: "Every year in the US, 800,000 children 'go missing'" ... with "go missing" left undefined, but implying abducted and not recovered.

But, think about this assertion.

According to the CDC's "Births and Natality" page linked below, there were 3,664,292 births in the US in 2021.  Taking that number as a yearly average of births over the past 18 years (even though it isn't) would give us a total of  65,957,356 children having been born in the US over the last 18 years.  

Now, the advocacy assertion is that *every year in the US alone*, 800,000 children "go missing" -- that is, that during the past 18 years, a total of 14,400,000 children have "gone missing".  In other words, the assertion is that 21.832% of *all* children born in the US over the past 18 years have "gone missing".

Is that *really* credible?  Do you *really* believe that mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, brothers and sisters would not have *noticed* that nearly 22% of their grandchildren, children, and siblings have "gone missing"?

CDC: "Births and Natality"

It Could Be Heaven Or It Could Be Hell

 This is a comment I posted to a resurrected thread (link below) at the 'Shadow To Light' blog --

TFBW (from 2020/01/18): "For the sake of argument, let me concede the point that God could make his omniscience, omnipotence, infinity, eternal nature, holiness, and other divine characteristics fully apparent to you in such a way that they would all be immediately recognisable for what they are. What makes you think that this would be a survivable experience? We humans get traumatised by fairly trivial events when considered at the cosmic scale. What makes you think you could survive a raw, unfiltered glimpse of God in his glory?"

One of the sillier complaints/condemnations which the common internet 'atheist' likes to level at Christianity is that it is "immoral" that Christ says that those who reject him will be eternally damned, that they will "go to Hell" (as people commonly phrase it).  Why, just two days ago in this revived thread, "Yurek H" makes an intellectually dishonest variation on the theme: "You would think a narcissistic being who demands worship and subservience would have no problem with doing something that would bring attention to it."

So, what we see is that the common internet 'atheist' demands to be welcomed to "go to Heaven" (as people commonly phrase it), despite their own despite for the King of Heaven and their own refusal to let go their own unrighteousness, which they clutch to their breast as being dearer than life itself.

But, what does it mean to "go to Heaven"?  Well, at a minimum, it means to live/exist in the direct presence of God: it means to see him face to face, as it were; to experience his infinite righteousness "full strength", without the mediating distraction of the material world.  For the unrighteous soul, for he who clutches his sin to his breast as more dear than life, for he whose sin *is* his identity, will not "being in Heaven" be experienced as "being in Hell"?  Will it not be easier for a mortal man to walk on the "surface" of the Sun than for a God-hater to directly behold the full righteousness of God?

To paraphrase C S Lewis: "The Redeemed shall say, 'I have always been in Heaven.' But, the Damned shall say, 'I have always been in Hell.'"

Shadow To Light: How to Defeat Modern Day Atheism With Three Easy Questions

Leftist Hatred For "Blond Blue-Eyed Jesus" Is Just Hatred For Jesus ... And For White People

Leftists *hate* Jesus.  And, while they do indeed hate white people, they hate Jesus far more.  Though they do sometimes find it useful to their goal of enslaving everyone else to engage in "God talk".

One of the ways leftists love to express their hatred of Jesus, and of white people, is to mock the "Blond Blue-Eyed Jesus" whom Europeans have allegedly foist upon the world, along with pretending that we Christians of European cultural descent are not fully aware that Jesus was a Jew, of deep Jewish ancestry, and that he would have looked like a 1st Century Jew.  That is to say, he would have looked like a person of broadly Mediterranean ancestry, rather like a modern Greek or Syrian, not like a person of northern European ancestry.  In the linked clip, the lying leftist Sonny Hostin even trots out the perennial leftist lie that "... and most people don't know that."

In this clip (from about the 1:20 mark), when the lying leftist Sonny Hostin says that at her "black Catholic" church, "Jesus is brown", what do you think the odds are that in that church, Jesus is depicted as a Negro? And further, what do you think the odds are that this depiction is for leftist political reasons, rather than for organic cultural reasons?

The nation of Ethiopia -- a nation of black people, in Africa -- have been Christian for 1700 years or more (And for a good 1000 years of that time, they were forcibly isolated from the rest of Christianity by the Moslem incursions and conquests). When Ethiopians depict Jesus, or any other Biblical character, they depict them as Ethiopians.  Are they wrong to do so? Are they vile racists to do so?  Are they foisting a lie upon the world when they to do so? Of course not!

Will the vile harridans of 'The View' attack the Ethiopians for their "lying" depiction of Jesus as an Ethiopian, rather than as a 1st Century Middle-Eastern Jew? Of course not!

Some years ago, I saw an image of a painting from China, depicting the Holy Family's flight into Egypt. It was a thoroughly Chinese painting; not only the landscape depicted in the traditional Chinese style, but also the Holy Family depicted as Chinese persons.  Was that artist wrong to do so? Was he a vile racist to do so?  Was he foisting a lie upon the world when he did so? Of course not!

Will the vile, hypocritical harridans of 'The View' attack Chinese persons for their "lying" depiction of Jesus as an Chinese man, rather than as a 1st Century Middle-Eastern Jew? Of course not!  

There are cultural and historical reasons (specifically, centuries-long Moslem piratical depredation on the Mediterranean Sea which isolated Northern and Western European Christians from other Christians and from the world at large) that persons of European cultures depict Jesus in a manner derived from European cultures, just as there are cultural and historical reasons that persons of Ethiopian culture depict Jesus in a manner derived from Ethiopian culture, and Chinese likewise.  And there is nothing wrong with this!

Jesus has not only the title, "Son of God", but also the title "Son of Man".  As "Son of God", he is the God and savior of *all* men. As "Son of Man", he is a man of men, he is the representative of *all* men. *All* men are invited to come to Christ and to find their fulfillment and completion as men in him, and their salvation in him.

What Do You Meme??: "They Tried to Trap Him on Jesus (Instantly Backfires!)"

The Problem of Too Many "Elites"

One major reason that we have so many "Champaign socialists" in our society has to do with the present-day overproduction of elite wannabes due to the manner of the restructuring of "higher education" following WWII.

Not everyone born into the "elite class", as the discussed Hasan Piker was, is competent enough on his own merits to maintain the status to which he was born, nor as is even more difficult, to rise in status.  This also applies to the vast majority of "educated" persons presently churned out by "higher education".

In a capitalistic society, such as ours, the best way to rise in status, much less to achieve or maintain "elite" status, is to serve one's fellow man: supply a good or service that other persons are willing freely to purchase from you, and you have it made.

But, the most common moral flaw in human beings is the desire to be served by others, rather than to serve others.  This immoral and perverted desire to live off the sweat of another man's brow is the root of slavery ... and of slavery's current manifestation: socialism.

Socialists are *always* either the more incompetent children of the existing elites or the more incompetent of the uplifted wannabe elites. Since such persons are not competent enough to achieve or maintain truly elite status by their own efforts, they embrace socialism as a means to attempt to cynically use the "proles", whom they despise, as a tool to supplant the competent elites, against whom they cannot directly compete.

The Quartering: "Hasan Piker BUSTED & Has MELTDOWN! Fake Twitch Socialist Grew Up SUPER RICH & His Fans BLAST HIM"

When is a Constitution "unconstitutional?"

The ongoing left-right political battle in the US is at root a battle between two conflicting and contradictory moral systems, as mediated by a battle between two conflicting and contradictory constitutions: the written US Constitution of 1787, on the one hand, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (*) and its penumbras and emanations, on the other hand.

When the Republicans enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they weren't content simply to overturn the Democrats' various "Jim Crow" violations of the Constitution, which unconstitutionally differentiated citizens by race before the bureaucrats of various of the States and which violated citizens' rights of association by compelling them to differentiate one another by race in private association. Oh, no! The Republicans were too clever by half, imagining that there were going to "pwn" the Democrats, and so they were played by the leftists: they drafted a law which violates citizens' rights of association by compelling them to differentiate one another by race in private association (but in the opposite direction to what the Democrats had been doing theretofore) and laid the groundwork for future legislative acts and court rulings which unconstitutionally differentiate citizens by race, and eventually by "identification", before the bureaucrats of the totalizing administrative state.

"Woke culture" is the natural and inevitable out-working of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the subsequent additions to it.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- much of which is actually unconstitutional -- is being used by the leftists as the means to destroy the legitimacy of our Constitution and thus to destroy our Republic.

For example -- In 2008, the citizens of California passed Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to overrule a state-court imposition of "gay marriage" on the citizens of that State. A federal court later ruled that this legally-enacted provision of California's Constitution was "unconstitutional".

One might ask, "On what grounds was this amendment to the California Constitution decreed to be unconstitutional?" Why, on the grounds of the judge's interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Mind you, this was years before the US supreme court imposed "gay marriage" on the citizens of the entire nation, in contravention of the written US Constitution.

For example -- You may be aware of a Turkish-born rabid leftist by the name of Cenk Uygur, who claims (or claimed) to be running for the Democratic nomination to the US Presidency.

Now, Cenk Uygur is a naturalized US citizen; which is to say, the US Constitution expressly forbids him to occupy the office of the US Presidency. And what do you think is Mr Uygur's strategy to get around this encumbrance? Why, and of course, it is to try to get a federal judge to rule that the US Constitution itself is "unconstitutional" ... on the grounds that by the Civil Rights Act it is "unfair" for the US Constitution and US law to distinguish between a naturalized citizen and a natural born citizen, wedded to the false assertion that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution erases the distinctions between classes of citizenship.

(*) A deep dive examination of these conflicting constitutions will take us from the false constitution's rancid fruiting in Current Year's "Woke culture", to its flowering in Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society", to its growth in Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal", to its cultivation in Woodrow Wilson's and Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Movement, and will ultimately find the seed of the false constitution in Abraham Lincoln's violations of the written Constitution ... in the name of "preserving" that Constitution and the Union therewith established.

Auron MacIntyre: "Civil Rights Law Is a Problem"

Auron MacIntyre: "Why We're No Longer Governed by the Constitution"

The Nexus of Language and Politics -- "Native American"

Other than his use of the leftist delegitimizing term, "Native American",  Matt Walsh is spot on in the linked video.

The leftists invented the term "Native American" as a step toward denying that you and I are Americans at all.  This is merely a similar delegitimizing tactic to the leftist assertion that we Americans cannot call ourselves "Americans" because the USA is not the totality of the American continents.

Historically, the American Aborigines (i.e. the Indians (*) ) were not native Americans, because they were not members of the American society in the first place.  Even today, after the Federal government has made them US citizens, whether they wanted to be or not, many Indians don't want to be called "Americans"; they tend to reserve that term for *us*, not for themselves.

I am a "native American", not because I have a bit of Indian ancestry, though I do, but because I am a born member of the American civilization.  Likely, you too are a born member of the American civilization and thus are a "native American", even if you don't have a single American Indian ancestor.

(*) We all need to get over the ignorant myth that we call the American Aborigines "Indians" because Columbus was either ignorant or stupid.  The reason we call them "Indians" is because from ancient times until just a couple of centuries ago, Europeans used the terms 'India' and/or 'the Indias' to refer to all the lands of "the East"; 'India' and "the East" were pretty much synonyms.  When Columbus discovered the islands we now call the West Indies, he thought he had found some outlying islands of Chipango, the easternmost land of 'the Indies' of which the Europeans had knowledge; or, as we now call that land, Japan.  Thus, since from the European frame of reference, these newly-discovered peoples were inhabitants of "India", he (and other Europeans) referred to the inhabitants of those islands, and later of the mainland, as "Indians", as we have continued to do for the past 500 years.  And indeed as the US Constitution refers to them.

The narrowing of the term "India" to refer to a specific geographic region in the late 18th and 19th centuries, and to a specific, and recently created, nation-state in the 20th and 21st centuries, is a modern innovation.  

And, by the way, the current Hinduist government of India is trying to dictate that we English speakers may no longer refer to that country as "India".

Matt Walsh: "These Museum Exhibits Were Just Closed For The Dumbest Reason"

Orphaned By Divorce

No matter how old you are, if your parents divorce, you eventually end up being orphaned twice! And the first orphaning feels like surviving a loved one's suicide.

Why Is America Doomed?

 This image, or rather the mindset that prompts people to post and re-post it, illustrates *why* America is doomed -- 

In case the image isn't enough to get my point across, I shall spell it out -- "America is doomed because even the 'conservatives' are fools."

Recently, on GAB, someone posted that image.  I replied with: "The alleged soon-coming "military tribunals" would be unConstitutional."

Within minutes, a couple of people with whom I'd never had the least interaction "informed" me of my "ignorance", gloated that I'd soon find out (apparently, to my woe) how wrong I am (*), appealed to Lindsay Graham as "proof" that "military tribunals" are coming, called me a "troll" ... and blocked me.

Read again the simple sentence (and fact) I'd written in response to that image.  Is not the reaction I have described *exactly* how the "woke" mob reacts when they encounter a statement they don't like?

Here are some things to keep in mind about these long-promised "military tribunals":

1) The idea is 'copium' -- 

1a) People have been banging on this silly drum for the past four years: "Military Tribunals are just around the corner!"

1b) The top brass of the US military has *always* been mostly time-servers, and since the illegitimate Obama administration, the leftists have been purging the brass (and most recently, the troops themselves) of anyone who is not on-board with the leftist "woke" agenda;

1c) No one is coming to save us.  If we are to be saved politically, we must do it ourselves ... starting with submitting to Christ; BUT, submitting to Christ is the one thing that most people in the world, including most Americans, will continue to refuse to do;

1b) Any "military tribunals" that may ever happen will be initiated and conducted by leftists. So, they won't be targeting pedophiles as per the promise of the tweet captured in the image;

2) In the American system, the military is subordinate to the civilian authority, and so if the "military tribunals" these fools keep going on about ever were to happen, that would prove that America no longer exists.

(*) And ending that with "Maranatha!!!" of all things!