Category Archives: Political Correctness

Establishment Hack Republicans in Georgia Legislature Attack Liberty Minded Republican

This story is a couple of days old now, but someohow I was asleep at the wheel and missed it. Once I started hearing about it I looked into the details and was outraged, but I wasn’t outraged at the naivete of an newly elected and obviously green Paulesq Campaign for Liberty backed Georgia House member. I was outraged by the calculated attack by Establishment hack Republicans who staged a piece of grand political theater to attack their right flank and put in his place a upstart who threatened to upset their old boys club.

In brief, Rep. Sam Moore submitted a bill to the Georgia legislature that was intended to decrease the authority of the police to  arrest people based on vague anti-loitering laws. It contained language that would have loosened some restrictions on sex offenders and the hacks saw their chance to pounce on an uppity new House member whose focus on liberty threatens their reason for being. Whether that particular language was good law or not, what is at issue here is not a particular piece of legislation. What is at issue is the fact that a bunch of shameless hacks chose to grandstand rather than attempt to govern rightly. If the language was bad, either from an actual legislative standpoint or from a looks bad politically standpoint, then just calmly suggest to Rep. Moore that he might want to make some changes. For several House members to take to the floor to publically express outrage reeks of an orchestrated political hit job.

Here is some commentary on this travesty that gets it right.

And here.

And here is one that gets it wrong.

I include this particular example, among many that get it wrong, because I posted a comment below it. My comment is a bit harsh, but hardball from hacks begets hardball back.

Give me a break Jason. The Establishment Republicans deliberately used this opportunity to attack someone they see as a threat and not part of the old boys club and YOU KNOW IT! To pretend like this was all a legitimate uprising because of some truly awful offense is a deliberate sham. Any issues with the bills, whether actual or just potential opportunities for grandstanders to make rhetorical political hay, could have been addressed in a measured sensible way in a back room somewhere as is usually the case. More senior members of the party who were actually interested in right governing instead of striking a blow against their right flank would have quietly made suggestions to Rep. Moore with an eye toward protecting a new member rather than grandstand like a bunch of shameless peacocks. They have taken a page stright from the PC Cultural Marxist rightthink enforcement playbook with their “point and sputter” and feigned outrage game playing. Pretending not to recognize this does not make you a “statist” or a “patsy.” It makes you a co-conspirator. And I dare you to forever sacrifice your credibility as a political commentator to here for all the world to see pretend that you don’t realize that this was about political game playing and not about the merits or lack thereof of any piece of legislation.

I hate it when the left uses these tactics, but I expect it from them. It’s what mindless morally stunted leftists do, but when supposed conservatives do it to their right flank, it makes my blood boil.

Update: Here is an article that gives an explanation of the background of the bill.

Thomas Fleming Takes Aim at Left and Right

This is how Thomas Fleming announced his new column on FaceBook:

I’ve posted a deliberately provocative piece on our website.  It should offend all respectable people.  https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/kansas-bleeds-again/

Well, provocative it is, but he is right. Take a look. The right in America is so whipped by its fear of being called bad names, that they can’t make logical arguments. The arguments they need to make are inherently illiberal, but they are afraid to make them. Partially because they have absorbed so much of the ambient liberalism that they believe it, and partially because they fear reprisal. So they often end up making convoluted liberal arguments toward an illiberal end. The argument against gay “marriage” for example, is inherently illiberal because it is based on the rejection of absolute equalism and the defense of righteous discrimination. Reading this you can just see some movement con getting his back up. “I don’t want to discriminate! How dare you!” But yes he does and rightfully so.

Is that constitutional?

Once upon a time, the meaning of the term “constitutional” was understood as “what powers the federal government is given.” But thanks largely to the legacy of the president whose birthday it is today, that term now means “what subjects of the United States are permitted to do.”

Think I’m wrong? Check out this story on yet another DC power grab:

A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that North Carolina’s attempt to offer a “Choose Life” license plate and not provide an abortion-rights alternative was unconstitutional.

The ruling is the third time one of the Republican-led General Assembly’s abortion laws has been struck down over the past three years.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in a 3-0 opinion written by Judge James Wynn of North Carolina.

“Chief amongst the evils the First Amendment prohibits are government ‘restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others,’” Wynn wrote.

Now there are certain extremists (me, for example) who think the First Amendment, like all the Bill of Rights, defined clear limitations to federal power. Those dangerous extremists would argue the sovereign State of North Carolina not only has the final say on what it puts on the license tags it issues, but would go on to say that North Carolina can adopt any slogan it wants, no matter who in DC disapproves. These days, however, all reasonable and moderate people know the Constitution makes DC sovereign. So it’s only natural that DC tells the people of the States what they can and cannot do.

Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, a private Catholic school is being sued by a cafeteria worker claiming he should be allowed to work at that school despite his homosexuality. He’s in a “same-sex marriage,” and the school, which upholds traditional Catholic values, does not want to be seen as endorsing that man’s lifestyle.

But as NPR reporter Tovia Smith observes in her story, “Ultimately the question of how much leeway religious organizations have in hiring will be answered by the Supreme Court.”

Get that? We must look to the federal government to learn “how much leeway” will be permitted.

Notice that the political doctrine being enforced here is that DC views “rights” as belonging to the individual, not to the States or religious institutions.

So when libertarians claim their ideology is the best weapon in resisting an authoritarian federal government, ask how that is possible when they hold the same central belief that justifies that government’s endless expansion into our lives.

Tom Woods Defends Walter Block from his PC Inquisitors

Apparently the faculty at Layola University, including the University President, has their panties in a bunch again because Walter Block won’t play by their PC rules. Of course, this is, as usual, entirely feigned outrage. They know good and well that an anarchist libertarian doesn’t think slavery is peachy, and if they don’t know that then they are too ignorant to be teaching at the local elementary school, much less at a respected university. They are just jumping on an opportunity to do the PC “point and sputter” because Block is clearly not a PC rightthinker otherwise.

To address the Presidents’ childish letter (I guess they don’t make Jesuits like they used to) specifically, since Block is a libertarian it logically follows that he doesn’t support anti-discrimination laws such as the Civil Rights Act because he supports the right of private individuals and entities to discriminate, whether he agrees with it morally or not. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t be a consistent libertarian. You know, like the cosmotarians at Reason. So again, spare me the feigned outrage that’s obviously calculated to protect you and your institution from charges of wrongthink from the PC though cops, rather than make a sound argument. And spare me the claim that you would fail Block for illogic, when you just wrote a whiny letter to the school paper that is full of its own illogic as I point out above.

Here is the faculty letter which is a little more substantive than the President’s, but still a classic example of “point and sputter” feigned PC outrage. Just to address one point, the letter rants “Block not only attacks the legitimacy and constitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act…” Well yeah … because the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional and from a libertarian perspective was illegitimate for the reason I explained above. (For the record, I consider myself more of a paleocon than a libertarian, but you don’t have to be one to understand logical consistency.) If he didn’t think it was illegitimate then he wouldn’t be a proper libertarian now would he? As for it being unconstitutional, you have to understand that not everyone turns off their intellect and genuflects before the determinations of a modern Court. I assume Block is speaking from an originalist perspective, which would argue that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional because there is no constitutionally delegated power to prohibit private discrimination. If these PC cloistered academics would actually educate themselves instead of just repeating approved platitudes, they would know that such a thing as originalism exists, and then they might actually be able to attempt to counter it rather than run to the student newspaper saying essentially “Mommy, Mommy, Mr. Block uttered wrongthink! Please make him stop!” like a bunch of kindergarteners.

Tom Woods explains the situation below:

Here is the Walter Block resource page Woods speaks of.

Here is Woods’ blog post containing the above video.

The only slavery the faculty and President of Layola University should be concerned about is their own PC thoughtslavery.

Coke Relents on its America the Beautiful Commercial – Sort of

Coke’s America the Beautiful ad has been praised by the boosters of multiculturalism, but it has also been harshly criticized by many flyover country yahoos who know a dis when they see it. Coke has apparently heard the criticism and is modifying the ad slightly to include the phrase E Pluribus Unum in Latin and English.

The ad is self-contradictory, as any person willing to look can tell. It features Jews and Muslims who based on attire seem to be at least somewhat observant. Well I have news for Coke, those groups have a history of not getting along. It has what has been widely assumed to be a gay couple. It shouldn’t be news to Coke that observant Jews and Muslims don’t have much use for homosexuals. So it could be argued that what the ad actually suggests is not so much the tired mantra that “diversity is our strength,” as “come to America and we’ll liberalize the diversity out of you and make you into a good little amorphous consumers just like the rest of us.” They’re won’t be any conflict if everyone is taught that their ethnicity, culture, religion, etc. are largely irrelevant or at least not worth differing about.

While I don’t think the addition of E Pluribus Unum helps that much if at all, it’s encouraging that Coke has heard the criticism and that many were willing to speak out despite being called names by the promoters of multiculturalism.

Group Opposes Amnesty Supporter Dr. Russell Moore

We would like to direct your attention to a group dedicated to opposing the amnesty supporting antics of Dr. Russell Moore and his Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention. The group is ERLC Watch.

Their website is here.

Follow them on Twitter here.

They have been giving Dr. Moore a much deserved hard time of late, especially on Twitter.

Rod Dreher Has Invoked the Wrath of the PC Crowd

Rod Dreher, who is normally pretty squemish regarding un-PC topics, has stirred up a hornets nest with a recent post about evolution and the culture wars. His blog post has 348 comments at the time of this writing. Brad Delong has responded with typical PC outrage. I don’t know how many comments his post has because I can’t see where they are numbered, but Steve Sailer says there are 250+.

I have not read the comments at either site yet. I wasn’t even aware that there was a raging Dreher post at TAC until I read the Sailer article above. I’m just passing along the controversy for now. I’ll try to wade through some of the hysteria when I have time.

Dreher has replied here.

New York Times Attacks Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Mises Institute, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods etc.

The New York Times recently ran a front page hit piece against Rand Paul and the usual cast of boogeymen the centrists and liberals trot out every time they have one of their periodic spasms about alleged extremism. They attack a lot of different people and groups, but Rand Paul is the obvious target. He must have them running scared. It would probably blow their poor little pristine mainstream minds to know that some of us don’t think Rand Paul is extreme enough.

Lew Rockwell responds here

Tom Woods responds here (on FaceBook so I’m not sure everyone will be able to see it)

Tom DiLorenzo responds here and here

Bob Wenzel (Economic Policy Journal) responds here and here

Ralph Raico here

Chris Rossini here

Update: Walter Block replies here

Tom Woods replies here on YouTube

ADL Attacks Ron Unz

The ADL has published a hit piece on Ron Unz. The article is dated Jan 20, 2014. My attention was drawn to it by this condensed version which appeared on their blog today (Jan 23, 2014). The article refrains from calling Unz personally anti-Semitic, but  states “he pro­vides sup­port to extreme anti-Israel ide­o­logues and his writ­ings res­onate with and are reg­u­larly cited by anti-Semites.” Curiously, the article does not mention that UNZ IS JEWISH, which seems a relevant piece of information in an article accusing him of giving safe harbor to anti-Semites. Of note, the article does outright call Paul Craig Roberts an anti-Semite.

Will the Real Jordan Bloom Please Stand Up

Walter has already commented below on Mark Shea’s recent PC rant against the Dark Enlightenment. Shea’s post is a virtually content free denunciation of wrongthink, but I want to comment on one of the comments. That comment is by Jordan Bloom, and is an eminently sensible response to Shea’s rant. What stands out about it is that Jordan Bloom (or J. Arthur Bloom) is the same guy who recently wrote a hit piece against Richard Spencer and the National Policy Institute for the Daily Caller. We discussed that hit piece here. I replied to Jordan in the comments. I should have replied specifically to his comment, but I wasn’t thinking at the time and just commented in general, so who knows if I he has seen it. So what gives? Does Jordan oppose PC denunciations of wrongthink, or does he engage in them? Will the real Jordan Bloom please stand up.

Whites Only Laundry

On a related topic: I was recently shocked to discover D. W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation on Netflix Instant Video. Funny how that movie makes the cut, but we’ll never see Gone With the Wind, It’s a Joke, Son!, and Song of the South on Instant Video. Netflix founder and CEO Reed Hastings backs mass illegal immigration after all.

Similarly, each year Barnes and Noble shocks us with a display of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, but we’ll never see James Edwards’s Racism Schmacism nor James Kalb’s The Tyranny of Liberalism.

HT: “Sam” from James Edwards’s blog comments for video.

For the 1000th Time … Martin Luther King Was Not a Conservative

Every year in the days leading up to the MLK Holiday, we are subjected to the absurd spectacle of mainstream and other neutered conservatives attempting to claim that MLK was one of our own. This rant is occasioned by several such posts I have seen today on FaceBook. I don’t know whether this is more pathetic or transparent, but it is clearly both. Anyone with any intellectual honesty at all should be able to see through this foolish narrative. It is rank historical revisionism, and I highly suspect that most of the people who do it know this. It certainly does not fool liberals who mock us for it. The only people it seems to fool is the mainstream conservative masses who lap it up. “See, we’re not the racists. It’s those evil Democrats who are the racists.” But I’m not convinced that even most of those folks believe it. It is simply a narrative thay can latch on to to innoculate themselves against charges of wrongthink, and think they can get the better of liberals in a debate.

MLK was a man of the left. This is not debatable. It is a fact. King is sometimes accused of being a communist (either big C or little c) by his opponents who have yet to sell out. While King was never, as far as we know, a Communist, he surrounded himself with Communists, addressed Communist front organizations, and attended a Communist front training facility (the Highlander Folk School). As I said with regard to Nelson Mandela, I don’t really like communist (big C or little c) as an epithet so I don’ necessarily hold his associations against him per se. MLK was a far leftist by the standards of his day and such people were bound to interact with Communists because that was the far left milieu at the time. But his associations with Communists and other radical leftists does contextualize who he was in his time. He is never accused of being a secret McCarthyite, for example, because that is not the milieu he traveled in. This was obvious and taken for granted by people at the time. Conservative voices like National Review and Human Events had no problem placing King on the left in his day. Attempts by conservatives striving to prove they are not politically incorrect to appropriate King and his legacy is a relatively recent phenomenon, and only passes the laugh test because enough time has passed and people forget their history.

The narrative goes something like this: King was allegedly a Republican. It was Republicans who were largely responsible for the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and mean nasty ol’ Southern Democrats who opposed it. If they’re really laying it on thick, they’ll cite Lincoln freeing the slaves and how blacks voted Republican during Reconstruction and for decades beyond. Since the Republican Party is supposedly the conservative party today, ipso facto, King was a conservative. While this is all technically true up to the assertion at the end, it is meaningless.

First of all, it is not even true that King was a Republican even thought this is widely asserted by the craven cons. See here for example. For the sake of brevity, I’ll let the link speak for itself, which it does, although I’ll take up Kings’ opposition to Barry Goldwater below.

That said, yes, it was Southern Democrats along with self-identified conservative (that should tell you something) Republicans like Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley who opposed the Civil Rights Acts, but Southern Democrats and self-consciously conservative Republicans were the conservative element of the day. It was liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans who supported it. Some free-market and small government conservatives will protest that Southern Democrats couldn’t have been the conservative element of the time because they openly loved their pork, which is true, but again largely irrelevant to the point at hand. (A lot of modern conservative Republicans love their pork too, despite their rhetoric to the contrary, but that is for another post.) The two parties have not always been aligned as they are today. The division of the two parties along perceived left vs. right lines was just beginning in King’s day as was the transformation of both parties, which is what makes this all more confusing than it ought to be.

Historically we have traditionally had two parties that were organized around the perceived commonality of interests of a rather diverse coalition of forces. The Republicans were the Court Party and the Democrats were the Country Party, so to speak, and whatever ideological considerations there were were primarily a pretext for self-interest. Since the 60′s, the parties have largely switched roles and taken on the left vs. right dichotomy. White Southerners have migrated to the GOP and blacks have migrated to the Democrat Party, the latter a phenomenon that started with FDR and the New Deal. Now why and how this happened deserves a discussion of its own, but happen it did and racial issues clearly had a lot to do with it. To pretend otherwise, as the PC cons do, is to be willfully ignorant.

The PC preening conservatives sit on their high horses and bash those bad ol’ Southern Democrats, but demographically speaking those old Southern Democrats and their progeny are the modern base of the GOP and they know it, although they may pretend not to. Five Deep South states, including my own state of Georgia, broke the strangle hold that Democrats had had on the “Solid South” when they voted for Goldwater in ’64, largely based on Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Did, the alleged Mr. Republican Martin Luther King support Goldwater in ’64? Inconveniently for the PC cons’ tidy little narrative, no he did not. See the link in paragraph 4 above. Most of those same states, again including my own state of Georgia, voted for George Wallace four years later in 1968. This gradual transition of the South from a Democrat to a Republican bastion was seen up through the Clinton elections. That transition is now complete. (And potentially being reversed again due to other demographic forces.)

Do the PC grandstanders assert that all these suddenly enlightened white Southerners who now dutifully pull the lever for Republicans are actually all transplants from the North and Midwest who have demographically displaced those mean nasty ol’ racist Southern Democrats who continue to remain a small remnant of the Democrat Party? In fact, the opposite is the case. It is the migration of liberal whites (along with immigrants) into the South that has made states like North Carolina turn purple. Who were the whites in North Carolina who pulled the lever for Obama in 2008 that gave the state to him? Was it the old Southern Democrat remnant? That is absurd on its face, and again the grandstanders know it. When they bash those mean ol’ racist Southern Democrats, they are bashing their own demographic base. But I guess scoring PC brownie points is more important to them than honor and intellectual honesty.

Regardless of what someone may think about Martin Luther King and his legacy, he was not a man of the right and to argue that he was is intellectually discrediting. The PC cons should just be honest and admit that they have turned over their intellectual man card to the Cultural Marxist Division of PC Rightthink Enforcement, and spare us all, left and right, their farcical historical revisionism.

Addendum: I understand why some conservatives might want to sit out the MLK debate in order to not bring the PC rightthink enforcement apparatus down on their heads. I think it’s weak, but I can understand it. But it is one thing to sit the debate out cautiously and another thing to join in the debate on the side of the Cultural Marxists. Even though their revisionism is obviously inaccurate, their regurgitation of it still feeds into the PC narrative and empowers the PC Beast. As I have said repeatedly, conservatives who feed the PC Beast are fools. They will never keep it from attempting to devour them and the civilization they say they want to conserve. They are contributing to their own demise. This is ultimately what I am decrying even more than the specifics of their MLK retelling.

Did Phil Robertson Dis the Confederate Flag?

Here is a NY Post article that alleges that Phil Robertson isn’t too fond of the Confederate Battle Flag. In the typical PC manner, it suggests that this is somehow evidence that Robertson is not a “racist.” You see, according to PC rightthink, respect for the Confederate Battle Flag is  prima facia evidence that someone is a racist. The story is from 30 Dec, but I didn’t hear about it until a comment about it appeared recently on my FaceBook feed. And interestingly, when I Googled to find some more commentary on the issue not much came up. This mention from a blog called The “Right” Scoop seems to accept the PC association in a “See, we told you Phil Robertson wasn’t a racist!” type of manner. (This is so typical of mainstream conservatives to accept the leftists’ PC framing of an issue.)

First of all, proud Southerners should be careful not to get too carried away just yet. This is an account of someone relating what he thinks he saw and heard. These are not Robertson’s own words, and as far as I know he has not commented on the issue. It is possible that he was bemoaning the fact that certain unsavory elements have used the flag for their own purposes, but this is not the conclusion the senario the witness recounts suggests. Mr. Robertson needs to publically clarify his true feelings.

That said, if this is a true recounting of the event, then it is very disappointing. Robertson is old enough to know better, so he doesn’t have the excuse of youth. The modern demonization of the Confederate Battle Flag (CBF) is a relatively recent phenomenon, and Mr. Robertson should know this. The Duke boys proudly sported a CBF on the roof of their car, named the General Lee, on prime time TV in the 80′s. Until fairly recently it was assumed that Southerners would be proud of their heritage. This relentless PC/Cultural Marxist attack on all things Southern is of relatively recent vintage. For some perspective on this, this artcle by Prof. Clyde Wilson should be read again and again. I wish Phil Robertson would read it.

There is a lesson here that conservative (and especially conservative Christian) Southerners who wish to distance themselves from the CBF lest they be tainted desperately need to learn. The PC beast is monolithic in it’s desire to eradicate every stray unegalitarian thought or at least the public expression thereof. (It is my belief that the mind of the typical PC stormtrooper is besieged by unegalitarian thoughts, and their PC shock troop role playing is a form of reaction formation, but that is for another post.). The PC beast is without nuance or subtlety. It doesn’t matter to it that Mr. Robertson’s thoughts on homosexuality are  based on his acceptance of the long held historic teachings of the Christian faith and his belief that God has explicitly condemned the act in His Holy Word. Nope. The senior Robertson has committed wrongthink and must be condemned and re-educated. The same article that says Robertson might not be a racist, begins by saying “Phil Robertson may be homophobic…,” whatever that means. (A more absurdly silly term than homo”phobia” is hard to imagine.)

Conservative (as in traditional/orthodox [small o] more so than political) Christians who wish to maintain the inherently unegalitarian teachings of their faith such as the condemnation of homosexuality and various other sexual practices, the endorsement of gender roles, Jesus as the only means of salvation, etc. need to resist the PC beast with every fiber of their being.  It can not be placated by throwing it sops such as distancing yourself from the CBF. Robertson, if this was his motive, whether thought out or visceral, for his comment on the CBF, is woefully niave to believe so.  If you are a wrongthinker on any issue, you are a wrongthinker in toto. There is no middle ground with this mindless beast. The fight for the CBF very much is the fight for a Christian understanding of homosexuality. The two can not be disentangled.

This is not to say that traditionalist Christians should not denounce malice and ill will based on race, which is not a Christian attitude, but racism has long since ceased meaning just malice or ill will based on race if it ever did. It means any unegalitarian thought. Conservative Christians need to understand this and understand it quickly, lest they empower the beast that ends up eating them and the civilization they created alive.

The “Tiger Mom’s” New Book is … You Guessed it … Racist!

The Tiger Mom is coming out with a new book. This should be fun.

Her latest book, “The Triple Package,” deems eight cultural groups in America as being superior to others. And, though the book is not due out until February, Twitter criticisms are already flying, with many calling Chua “racist” and a self-promoter.

But the reality, notes the book, co-written by Chua’s husband and fellow Yale professor Jed Rubenfeld, is that “uncomfortable as it may be to talk about,” some “religious, ethnic, and national-origin groups are starkly more successful than others.” Those groups, according to the authors, are Mormons, Cuban exiles, Nigerian Americans, Indian Americans, Chinese Americans, American Jews, Iranian Americans and Lebanese Americans. And the reasons they excel, the book notes, is because of a basic “triple package” formula: a superiority complex, insecurity and impulse control.

Read more…

I’m not totally down with the whole Tiger Mom thing. Some of it seems to me driven by the mother’s or parents’ own needs as much as concern for the kids. (Like the frustrated athlete father who pushes his kid in Little League or the cliched gym/dance/beauty pageant/piano/etc. moms.) But in moderation, the Tiger Moms are probably on to something. But love ‘em or hate ‘em, you knew the racist charge was coming. Whenever you deal with differential performance between groups, the haters will always start flinging the r word.

Update: Wow. Tiger Mom is trending on Yahoo, and it’s all stories about how her new book is racist.

Tortious interference has consequences

Great news from Oklahoma! The self-appointed censors who shut down the American Renaissance 2010 conference just got their knuckles rapped:

On August 8, 2011, David Yeagley of Oklahoma filed suit against Jeffrey Imm and Daryle Lamont Jenkins in the District Court of Oklahoma County of Oklahoma for allegedly civilly conspiring and tortiously interfering with his contract to speak at the New Century Foundation’s American Renaissance February 2010 conference. …

Yeagley’s motion for summary judgment was filed on December 3, 2013, and Jenkins did not file a responsive brief to it. During the morning of January 3, 2014, a hearing on the motion occurred, and the judge granted it: Jenkins has been ordered by a court of law to pay Yeagley $50,000.00 for shutting down the 2010 American Renaissance conference.

Hurrah for David Yeagley! Check out his website here.

More Phil Robertson Reaction

Jim Goad at TakiMag is his usual irreverent self.

Clearly the Christian Bible preaches that “men who have sex with men” will not go to heaven. Despite what the Lavender Lobby and the Gay Mafia and the Homo Militia and their rainbow coalition of allies and enablers and apologists would have you believe, homosexuality is explicitly condemned in the Old Testament, New Testament, and the Quran. None of the three major Western monotheistic religions is down with the idea of men going down on other men. So you can either be a faithful adherent to one of these religions, or you can have sex with persons of your own gender—pick one and stick to it. But you can’t have both. Hey, I don’t make the rules—I only report them.

Kid Rock crudely but concisely says political correctness is out of control.

I support Phil Robertson and his choice to express his faith and beliefs. Shame on A&E. I hope all my friends, straight or gay, will stop this bulls**t a** PC game being played by ALL of these stupid a** coalitions, groups and idiots…

MERRY CHRISTMAS – F**K HAPPY HOLIDAYS…. and F**k PC!! Keep it real.

Read more…

Doug Wilson says conservative religious leaders need to get down off their high horse and join the battle that the rank and file are already fighting.

The contrast must not be between how unsophisticated Christians fight and how sophisticated Christians . . . what do they do? At most, they demur, with a throat-clearing caveat or two. Theologians and ecclesiastical eggheads can make merry over this kind of pop culture melee if they like. The material is there — “look at those rubes, standing against the principalities and powers with their duck calls, zz top beards, and chicken sammich haute cuisine, hold the mayo.”

But the lack of self-awareness in this criticism is staggering. These are shepherds who feed only themselves (Ezek. 34:2). When shepherds have neglected the flock for so long, and the wolves are ravaging them, and the sheep come up with some kind of strategy to defend themselves, and the shepherds sit up on the ridge, laughing at the tactical inadequacy of what the sheep are attempting, what shall we call that?

So what do we need? We don’t need generals. We have that. We need generals who fight. We don’t need leadership councils. We have those. We need national leaders who fight. We don’t need pretty boy preachers. We have those. We need preachers who fight. We don’t need evangelical regiments of pajamaboys. We have that. We need fight, and we need to fight with everything we have — heart, strength, and brains. All in.

Show me your forearms. Unless there are scars all over them, then I honestly don’t want to hear your views of the inadequacy of these cultural clashes (Gal. 6:17). When the barbarians are throwing their scaling ladders against the city walls, if the only defenders at the top of those walls are Chick Fil A employees in paper hats and hot grease from the deep fryer, and rednecks with their beards and shotguns, and nobody at all there from Red Brick Memorial Reformed, Rev. Forsythe P. Snodgrass, D.Min, minister, then let us be frank. We shouldn’t blame the folks who are there.

Read more…