So, What's Up With Candace Owens?

I used to catch the Addisons (in the linked video) on the radio when I was driving a lot more than I do now.

Lately, many people (*) are asking, "What has happened to Candace Owens?"

So, what *has* happened to Candace Owens? In a word: Catholicism. To be a bit more precise, much as leftists in general, "right-wing" Catholics tend to imbibe Jew-hatred. Obviously, not all do, but it is a general tendency. Also, as a convert to Catholicism, it's not at all surprising that she is going to start trying to equate Protestantism with Satanism.

(*) Though, Bob Parks is probably not asking that question, as he never trusted her "conversion" from leftism to conservatism was genuine.

Shock: Candace Owens believes Protestantism is rooted in Satanism

Oops!

Bob Parks: Squawk Out On CNBC -- "If the civil rights movement for gays has been successful to the point anyone disagreeing with that movement can be targeted and punished, why would this be an awkward moment?"

Or, to put Mr Parks' question another way, "If homosexual behavior and/or being "gay" (*) really is just like being black, then why would this be an awkward moment?"


(*) Or, even more precisely, leftist identity politics premised on what one chooses to do with one's genitals

Alan Keyes on sexuality and marriage (with natural law reasoning)

Bob Parks: The B&R Tuesday Skim -- see the embedded video (56 minutes)

I've read many things written by Mr Keyes, but I've never watched/listened to him speak at length. Man, he's good.

'Liberal' race-card distraction to protect statism

Bob Parks: Update: Deceptive-Edit Of The Day

Bob Parks: Video Of The Day

Bob Parks: Deceptive-Edit Of The Day



Mark Steyn: How Now White Cowman?


Truth Revolt: Unedited Tape of Bundy Emerges, Sheds Light on 'Racist' Remarks -- "As always, there's more to the story than what the New York Times says."

Look, leftists are liars, *all* leftists are liars (for leftism itself is a murderous lie): even if what they say is narrowly true, they're using it to lie.

Some slopes really are slippery

BobParks: What Gay Marriage (x3) Has Become

Hey, we do that here too!

Dubai sends American to max-security prison for … a YouTube satire video

As Bob Parks noted: Hey, we do that here too!

Gettin' your freak on ... and not

Bob Parks: How To Piss Off Your Wife

'I do not think that word means what you think it means'

Bob Parks: Boneheads Of The Day -- Notice the sign a person in the picture is holding -- as Inigo Montoya might say, "I do not think that word means what you think it means". For, after all, what they are demanding for 'Juan' is the opposite of justice.

Fun with 'life expectancy' comparisons

Bob Parks linked to a supposed news story and commented: Screenshot Of The Day

The US ranks 26th for life expectancy, right behind Slovenia

The left [is] using this to bash American health care while avoiding the daily inner city crime contributions

I commented --

"Life expectancy" rankings between polities using different metrics are inherently dishonest -- and the US uses a different set of metrics than European countries do (hint: ours is more honest, and lowers our "score" in comparison to theirs).

For instance, infant mortality rates -- and how they are counted and then computed into the "life expectancy" number -- has a significant impact on the "score" being used to compare countries. The US counts *all* live births, even if the infant dies immediately after its birth. On the other hand, most other countries *don't* count all live births, but rathe count only those infants who survive some arbitrary cut-off period -- days or weeks, even as much as a full year. The majority of infant mortality occurs within the first few days of birth, and unless a society is a total hell-hole, if an infant survives the first year, he's generally going to make it to adulthood.

Consider:
If there are 98 people -- and just to make the math simple -- all of whom live exactly 70 years, then the average life-span of that group of people was obviously 70 years [i.e. (70 * 98) / 98].

But, add to the group a ninety-nineth person who died at birth, and the average life-span of the group drops to 69.29 years [i.e. ((70 * 98) + 0) / 99].

Now, add a one-hundredth person who died at birth, and the average life-span of the group drops to 68.6 years [i.e. ((70 * 98) + 0 + 0) / 100]

In the US, we count those two persons who died at birth; most European countries don't.

Who wouldn't want to live in the hypothetical polity with an average life-span "score" of 70 years as compared to the one with a "score" of 68.6 years -- and yet, these two hypothetical polities are the exact same place! The only difference between them is *how* the average life-span is being calculated.

Also, keep in mind, in calculating these "average life-spans", I *know* exactly how long the persons being counted actually lived. In contrast, in "calculating" "average life expectancy", no one yet knows how long the persons being counted actually will live: "average life expectancy" is derived via actualial computations, not from computations of actual lives lived.

As Mr Parks said: The left [is] using this to bash American health care while avoiding the daily inner city crime contributions ... because leftists don't give a damn about truth, and they will use *any* excuse they can get you to swallow to get you to give up your liberty and so increase their power over your life.

... and no one noticed

The world ended yesterday ... and no one noticed! (*)

Kristor: The Wilderness of Liberty

(*) I wonder, what do the Democrats and other leftists think they're going to do once the taxpayers grasp that the world didn't end just because the federal government "shut down"?

At the same time, even "the end of the world" cannot keep the federales from doing the really important things, like erecting the 'Barry-cades'

Laura Rosen Cohen on the 'Barry-cades': "Remember folks, there have been more people assigned to upset and disrespect WWII vets than there were to [protect US personnel in] Benghazi."

When The Bleeding Heart Becomes The Iron Fist

Names of Democrats on House Oversight Committee who walked out on Benghazi victim family members

Names of Democrats on House Oversight Committee who walked out on Benghazi victim family members

h/t Bob Parks

'She sure shouldn't be going to the press.'

Can you believe the arrogance of these assholes?

Laura Rosen Cohen: The Militarization of American Police

... From the officer:

“I feel bad for her,” Wiggins conceded, finally.

“But at the same time, I had to reasonably believe the bad guy was in her house based on what they were doing.”

"(Louise) Goldsberry wasn't arrested or shot despite pointing a gun at a cop, so Wiggins said, “She sure shouldn't be going to the press.”

Really?

This is where:
   a) militarizing the police;
   b) and letting the police get away with arresting citizens for filming them as they arrest (and/or abuse) other people;
leads, and must lead. But, this isn't the end-point.


edit:
At the same time, while these days far too many police officers have Rambo complexes, far too many police departments see themselves as revenue generators (*). And the individual cop who alerts the public to the quota system in place in *their* town for tickets and/or arrests *always* pays a price.

Here is Bob Parks' take on a recent instance of governmental abuse of the policing power: Police State -- "Now we know why the 911 response times have grown longer over the years. Not just because there may be a spike in crime [Ilíon: if we can trust the statistics put out by various levels of government, the crime rate has been going down for many years] but because more cops are cruising the roads, mining license plates and looking for any reason to hand out tickets."

This particular abuse of government power (I like that, "mining license plates") is the natural working-out of the conjunction of bureaucracy and unionism and "liberalism".

(*) Though, I expect that most of the revenue so generated is plowed back into the police department. Probably to pay for even more unneeded military hardware

On 'Liberal' white-guilt condescension towards blacks

Bob Parks: Pundits Lament 'Profiling of Blacks,' But Don't Some of Us Kinda Invite It? -- Mr Parks takes on the sanctimonious hypocrisy of the "liberals" --

While MSNBC and CNN are both vying for the position of being the new "Black Entertainment Television," giving air time to every black face they can find to give an opinion of the "not guilty" verdict in the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin murder trial, the tone of the conversation is reduced to white-guilt condescension towards blacks.

... The Zimmerman-Martin trial was a media concoction that was done for ratings. Any damage done to race relations in this country makes for potentially profitable sequels. ...

Certainly, the leftist media outlets ginned up the case for ratings; but the primary purpose of ginning up the case was to frighten black Americans into turning out to the polls to vote for that illegal interloper occupying the White House.

Michael Egnor: The Zimmerman acquittal was a massive victory for the [Obamanation] -- "It's almost as if the prosecution didn't want to be successful. ... The [leftists] won this case, by losing. Deliberately. The trial was not about law. It was politics, by other means."

A one-liner from Bob Parks

Bob Parks: The B_and_R Monday Skim

He links to this -- Abortion Rights Community Has Become the NRA of the Left
and comments -- "Guns don’t kill people, abortionists do"


======
Mr Parks also links to this --MSNBC Claims Birther Bombshell; Natural-Born Citizen Issue Not Settled (I'm not at a computer/network which allows me to view it)

Of course the issue is settled ... just not in the way the "liberals" (including all the establishment "conservatives") have been pretending lo these many years -- That man is not, and logically cannot be, a natural born US citizen. THEREFORE, he is not legally the US president.

A Graphic Demonstration

Bob Parks: Pic of the Day -- what this demonstrates is that the "news media" is about anything but news. Of course, anyone actually paying attention already knew that.

Bob Parks on 'gay' 'marriage'

Bob Parks: In Gay Marriage Debate, Neither Side Is Without Sin

I made two responses:

Bob Parks: "... but from what I’ve read I’m not sure Jesus would’ve refer to gays as “abominations”, shun and condemn them to eternal hellfire. I believe he’d show them love and try to find a way to work with them."
No one is calling "gays" abominations -- however, the behavior (that no one seems to want to talk about) is an abomination.

An unrepentant homosexual has *chosen* eternal death ... you know, the same as an unrepentant "player" has or an unrepentant slut has.

How does one "work with" those who insist that their abominable behavior must not only be tolerated, but must be publically celebrated ... and that they must be given access to groom children ... other than by shunning them?

and

No one is stopping "gays" from marrying. No law prevents it; no one even asks about the sexual preferences the man and woman applying for the marriage license.

The laws on marriage simply require that:
1) there be exactly two and only two parties involved;
2) the two parties be of opposite sex;
3) the two parties be of at least a certain age;
4) the two parties not be related to a prohibited degree.

That's all. And these conditions apply to *everyone* -- thus, the "civil rights" angle is fundamentally and deliberately dishonest.

If requirement 2) can be thrown away for the dishonest rationales being advanced by the "gay" activists, then so can any of the other requirements, and for the same rationales.

"Gay" "marriage" isn't about "equal rights", it's about allowing the leftists to destroy marriage.

Edit 2013/03/27:
Bob Parks: "And for those who say gay marriage degrades the “sanctity of marriage”, tell ya what: if any gay marriage has the power to degrade what you have with the person you’ve wed, your marriage has issues. Should I ever get married again, no gay couple will ever have that kind of power over us."

This is incorrect -- it's also a favorite (dishonest) leftist takling point. And conservatives really need to free their minds of the leftist indoctrination in which we all have been marinated from birth.

Contrary to the claims of the "gay" activists, "gay" "marriage" isn't at all about equality before the law -- I've shown the falseness of that in my prior post. Rather, "gay" "marriage" is about redefining what marriage is. Ultimately, as with so much else of the leftist agenda, "gay" "marriage" is about *destroying* marriage, but that point is what I mean to explore here.

"Gay" "marriage" certainly will have "the power to degrade what you have with the person you’ve wed"; this is because the imposition of it changes what marriage is and means.

At one time, and not all that long ago, it was very difficult to formally end a marriage. This is because, whereas now there are four legal requirements for contracting a marriage, before "no fault" divorce, marriage really was a legally binding contract, of which the requirements for entrance were:
1) there be exactly two and only two parties involved;
2) the two parties be of opposite sex;
3) the two parties be of at least a mimimum age;
4) the two parties not be related to a prohibited degree;
5a) the two parties agree that the marriage relationship is sexually exclusive
5b) and life-long.

With the imposition of "no fault" divorce, everyone's marriage was affected, everyone's marriage changed, everyone's marriage was "degraded".

How can any thinking and honest man imagine that "gay" "marriage" won't "degrade" everyone's marriages, and in wholly unforseen ways?

When the same emotive "arguments" being advanced to justify the fiat imposition of "gay" "marriage" upon society are advanced to justify polygamous "marriages", will you also claim that polygamous "marriages" cannot "degrade" your own hypothetical marriage?

When the same emotive "arguments" being advanced to justify the fiat imposition of "gay" "marriage" upon society are advanced to justify polyamorous "marriages", will you also claim that polyamorous "marriages" cannot "degrade" your own hypothetical marriage?

When the same emotive "arguments" being advanced to justify the fiat imposition of "gay" "marriage" upon society are advanced to justify incestuous "marriages", will you also claim that incestuous "marriages" cannot "degrade" your own hypothetical marriage?

When the same emotive "arguments" being advanced to justify the fiat imposition of "gay" "marriage" upon society are advanced to justify beastiality "marriages", will you also claim that beastiality "marriages" cannot "degrade" your own hypothetical marriage?

How To 'Outreach' To Minorities

Bob Parks: How To 'Outreach' To Minorities: Treat Them Like Adults -- "Conservatives are always complaining about identity politics. Yet, we hear all this talk about how they need to reach out to blacks and Latinos, just like the liberals do - because, if they don't, they're doomed. Maybe, the reason conservatives don't have a viable outreach strategy is that they really shouldn't have one. ..."

Of course, there is a difference between 'conservatives' and 'Republicans', and the people who run the GOP tend not to be, and certainly those who are always trying to make Republicans into Mini-Me Democrats are not, conservatives.

‘The Democrat Race Lie’

A righteous take-down of a "liberal" partisan (*) -- Bob Parks: An Academic Response To ‘The Democrat Race Lie'

(*) which is to say, an intellectually dishonest person who will lie about anything, including asserting both 'A' and 'not-A' simultaneously.

As I asked

As I asked a few days ago, over at Bob Parks' blog, 'So, will the hot toy for this Christmas be the “Down Low Elmo”?'

I hear that the “Down Low Elmo” is facing stiff competition from the “Don't Tickle Me, Elmo”.

Kathy Shaidle: If only Romney had gone after Elmo instead of Big Bird

'All In' ... but crickets for Benghazi

Via Bob Parks: Glenn Beck on the Petraeus distraction