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