Archive for the ‘Moral Values’ Category

Dave Brat’s Moral Values Victory

by Cliff Kincaid on Tuesday, June 17th, 2014

This is article 41 of 41 in the topic Moral Values

Dave Brat’s victory over Eric Cantor (R-VA) was attributed to his Tea Party backing, when national groups like the Tea Party Patriots gave him no financial assistance at all. What the media ignored was his campaigning in local churches and emphasis on family values.

In addition to opposing illegal immigration, Brat’s platform declared that “the most important factor in our nation’s success is the strength of the family unit.” It said that Brat would “protect the rights of the unborn and the sanctity of marriage, and will oppose any governmental intrusion upon the conscience of people of faith.”

“A man of deep faith,” his bio says, “Dave attends St. Mary’s Catholic Church with his wife Laura and their two children: Jonathan, 15 and Sophia, 11.” It says he went to Princeton where he obtained a Masters in Divinity and on to American University where he earned a Ph.D. in Economics.

During the campaign he also repeatedly emphasized a national security policy of “peace through strength.”

As they played down his pro-moral values message, in a victory that is continuing to send shock waves through the political establishment, our media have failed to report on how President Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America has been working out in a process that can only be described as the homosexualization of the Armed Forces.

It is a topic that some Republicans, eager to sound like Democrats on social issues, want to avoid. But Brat’s victory—and the fact that his pro-traditional values message struck a chord—may cause them to start paying attention.

Many have been amazed at the lengths to which the Obama administration went to get Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl out of enemy hands, by exchanging him for five top terrorists. But consider the extraordinary June 5th Department of Defense “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month Ceremony,” which featured “the highest ranking transgendered civilian appointment in the Department,” a “woman” named Amanda Simpson who used to be a man named Mitchell Simpson.

Simpson introduced the event and proudly identified herself/himself as transgender, generating a round of applause.

We reported on Simpson in 2010, when he/she became the first openly transgendered appointee to the federal bureaucracy. Simpson has since moved from the Commerce Department to the Defense Department.

Simpson reflects the aggressive infiltration of the federal government, even the Pentagon, by the George Soros-funded transgender movement. The Executive Director of something called the “Army Energy Initiatives Task Force,” Simpson served as a board member of the National Center for Transgender Equality from 2007 to 2009. George Soros has been a backer of the group, giving them $150,000 through his Open Society Foundations in 2011 alone.

You may recall that former Army soldier Bradley Manning had listed the National Center for Transgender Equality among his “likes and interests.” Manning, who was sentenced to 35 years in prison for violating the Espionage Act, theft of government property, and other offenses, has now said, “I am Chelsea Manning. I am female.” He wants the taxpayers to pay for his sex-change operation and the Pentagon seems willing to oblige him/her.

At the Pentagon event, Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work delivered the keynote address, saying, “We honor the service and sacrifices of our gay and lesbian service members…” Clearly, Manning is not somebody the Pentagon is necessarily “proud” of.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Twilight of the Family

by Daniel Greenfield on Monday, June 2nd, 2014

This is article 40 of 41 in the topic Moral Values

For most of human history the family was the basic social unit of the species. Family was a way of passing down genes, beliefs and wealth. It was a retirement plan that you paid into by keeping your children alive long enough for them to grow up and support you. It allowed the individual to pass on his ideas to people who would care about them because they were part of their heritage. Family was a collective endeavor, small enough to reflect the individual. It was a practical and philosophical aim that made life beautiful and meaningful.

But who really needs it anymore?

The basic practical functions of the family have been replaced by the nanny state. It is the nanny that takes over the care and teaching of the child as soon as possible. And when their parents grow old, it is that same nanny that oversees their care and death.

Governments have come to serve as undying guardians of human society, ushering new life into the world and ushering old life out of it. New parents are as likely to turn to the government for help as they are to their extended family. When their child is old enough to look around for a career, it is the government that they expect to provide the education and the jobs. And when they grow old, the child can keep on working at his government job and paying off his student loans knowing that the government will be there to make all the difficult and expensive decisions about their care.

With all that taken care of, who needs parents or children anyway?

People once had children to pass on wealth, genes and beliefs. But wealth is now thought to be the collective property of society, which is taxed to death or often just given away on some quixotic quest to stamp out disease in Africa or illiteracy in Antarctica. The thought of passing on genes carries with it a tinge of racism for the European and European-descended populations whose birth rates are dropping, but raises no such concerns for minority groups with high birth rates. That only leaves beliefs, which are also thought to be the collective property of the society and the state. Public education, mandatory in some countries, means that the best way to reproduce your beliefs is not to have children, but to get a job as a teacher.

The family has been displaced and replaced. In some places it is even repressed. Like an old station wagon, it idles by the side of the road, while its former owners drive away in their new sleek electric government compact car built for two or a micro-car built for one into a wonderful childless future of unfunded pensions, social collapse and death panels.

Marriage rates have dropped sharply. Not only is divorce more commonplace, but many couples aren’t even bothering to marry at all. And many of those who do marry don’t bother having children. Childfree is the new Zero Population Growth, not on behalf of the planet, but on behalf of the self. Modern society has made the price of children extremely expensive and many couples have found it easier to end the family with their own deaths.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

The “You Didn’t Do That” Society

by Daniel Greenfield on Friday, May 30th, 2014

This is article 327 of 327 in the topic Criminal Activity

First Elliot Rodger murdered his three roommates with a knife, hammer and machete. Then he shot eight people, three of them fatally, and tried to run over several others in his car.

After the bodies were taken away, everyone on television agreed that it was the fault of the guns.

Rodger had been in therapy since he was eight and was seeing therapists every day in high school. He had a history of making violent threats and the police had already gotten involved. He was on multiple prescription medications and had therapists whom he alerted to his plans by sending them his manifesto.

A therapist reacted by notifying his mother who drove out personally. By then even more people were dead.

In a country where a little boy with a pop tart chewed in the shape of a gun triggers immediate action, the professionals who cashed in on the killer’s wealthy family were in no hurry to call the police. One even reassured his mother while the shootings were going on that it wasn’t him.

So it was clearly the fault of the guns. Guns that Elliot Rodger bought with $5,000 from his family. The BMW he used to commit some of the attacks was given to him by his mother.

Jenni Rodger, his British aunt, blamed America and guns for her nephew’s massacre. “What kind of a society allows this? How can this be allowed to happen? I want to appeal to Americans to do something about this horrific problem.”

Somehow the parenting failure of her brother is now the fault of an entire foreign country.

Rodger’s father issued a statement through his lawyer in support of gun control and “staunchly against guns.” It might have been a bit more useful if Peter Rodger, instead of opposing a category of manual instruments, had spent more time dealing with his son’s problems.

Guns did not kill six people. His son did.

Maybe Elliot Rodger’s family would not have been able to change anything, but it’s likely that they could have at least prevented the massacre if they had become more involved instead of delegating the problem that their son had become to therapists and medications. It’s the height of cynicism for his father and aunt to take refuge in abstractions about gun control.

When a teenager stabbed twenty people at a Pittsburgh-area high school there were no easy answers about gun control to take refuge in. If Rodger had stuck to his knife, hammer and machete, his relatives who coddled him all these years wouldn’t be able to shift the blame to an abstract policy. They wouldn’t be able to politicize the crime and snip their own involvement out of the picture.

Elliot Rodger’s parents, communicating through a lawyer and a talent agent, find it convenient to put up another layer of abstraction between themselves and the actions of their son. And the easiest way to do that is to transform it into a widespread social problem. The more that the smiling people on television talk about gun control, the less likely they are to talk about them.

Even mental illness reduces a specific crime to the abstraction of a social problem. Expanding an individual act into a social problem manufactures a collective responsibility.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Why Do We Obey?

by Dr. Robert Owens on Sunday, May 25th, 2014

This is article 134 of 135 in the topic History

How can a law be illegitimate?  Isn’t this an oxymoronic question?  It is a question that brings us to the concept that there can be a difference between what is legal and what is right.  This is the debate between those who believe in Legal Positivism and those who believe in Natural Rights. 

Legal positivists “believe that the only legitimate sources of law are those written rules, regulations, and principles that have been expressly enacted, adopted, or recognized by a governmental entity or political institution, including administrative, executive, legislative, and judicial bodies.”  In other words whatever the government says is legal is right. 

While those who believe in Natural Law believe “all written laws must be informed by, or made to comport with, universal principles of morality, religion, and justice, such that a law that is not fair and just may not rightly be called law.”  Any law which is contrary to Natural Law is not a legitimate law. For example a law that says it is legal to murder others would be seen by all to be illegitimate in a moral sense even though it would be technically legal.  
 
That this is the concept under which the United States was first formulated is self-evident when we read that incomparable document which was issued by the Continental Congress as a justification for its war and its purpose: the Declaration of Independence.  In its opening paragraph, the preamble which all school children once memorized, this document explains itself thusly: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” 

This brings us to the first debate of this essay. Is God supreme and consequently His laws binding upon all people and all nations?  Or is man supreme and all nations amendable to his will and purpose and all his laws supreme until they are changed?  

When they decided to adopt the phrase “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” the fifty six signers of the Declaration based the foundation of our country on a legal standard of freedom.  They sought to impress this mold into all the various forms of government to follow. This legal standard of freedom they adopted was that God’s law was supreme and that this law inherently gives man freedom. The phrase “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” referred to the laws that God as the Creator of the universe established for the governance of people, nations, and nature. Throughout History these laws have been described as the laws of Creation, God’s Creation laws, or as the Founders of our nation chose to call them, the laws of nature and of nature’s God.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Kicking Cats and Killing Kids

by Daniel Greenfield on Friday, May 9th, 2014

This is article 39 of 41 in the topic Moral Values

We live in a highly moral society. And we know this is true because our guardians of public morality, our politicians, professors and professional entertainers remind us of this at every possible occasion. Just like the guardians of public morality in Iran, China and Pakistan assure their people that they are the very best and most moral people in the world.

Once upon a time we used to have benchmarks for that sort of thing. We were the best people in the world because we would be willing to die to defend those who disagree with us. We were the best people in the world because we cured Polio. We were the best people in the world because we tolerated religious dissent. We were the best people in the world because we embraced knowledge. We were the best people in the world because we wouldn’t let any government push us around.

Now we don’t have benchmarks anymore. Certainly not those benchmarks. We would be willing to die to silence those who disagree with us. We don’t cure anything, we provide research grants to studies on the rates of alcoholism among Lesbians. We criminalize religious dissent. We mock knowledge and we urge government to take over every aspect of our lives.

We know that we are good people because we are trying to be post-racial. We know that we are good people because we let the people who claim to be good people tell us what to do. We know that we are being good people when we worry about racism, the environment, hunger abroad, income inequality at home and a thousand other things.

Mainly we know we’re being good people when we get outraged at the things that the media wants us to be outraged by. We know we’re good people when we can drag a bad person out of his home and lynch him in the strange virtual space occupied by the convergence of the internet and the media. Somehow only membership in an affirmative action post-racial lynch mob reassures us of our morals.

That and the occasional viral outrage.

In a Brooklyn housing project, Andre Robinson, a typical denizen, was caught kicking a cat. Robinson had a string of previous offenses, including a knife point robbery, but that didn’t outrage anyone. Viral videos of the Knockout Game being played were ignored or denounced as a racist hoax. Andre’s video was mild by the standards of World Star Hip Hop which is crammed full of videos chronicling violence against human beings.

If Andre Robinson had been taped kicking a man, no one would have thought about it twice. But he was filmed kicking a cat. And “the internet”, a term which sites specializing in viral videos use refractively to refer to themselves, sprang into action to track him down. And track him down they did. Robinson will probably serve more time for kicking a cat, which is okay, than he did for his knife point robbery. Because we are a moral society. We are the best people in the world.

Around the same time another viral video was making its rounds.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Wrong is the New Right

by Daniel Greenfield on Monday, April 21st, 2014

This is article 29 of 30 in the topic Marriage

Others have already pointed out the absurdity that gay marriage is becoming a right in places where plastic bags and large sodas are becoming against the law. This sort of next wave civil rights step is only an expansion of freedom if you aren’t paying attention.

All the arguments over the differences between civil unions and marriage are largely meaningless. Once gay marriage is recognized, then marriage becomes nothing more than a civil union. The real casualty is the destruction of the word “marriage”, but the left is adept as destroying language and replacing meaningful words with meaningless words.

There was no word in Newspeak for freedom. We can look forward to an English language in which there is no word for marriage. And what does freedom mean anyway in a country where most things are banned, but we are constantly throwing holidays to celebrate how free we are?

But if marriage is no longer refers to a natural social institution, but now means a civil union recognized by the state, then why stop at two? Gay rights advocates insist that there is some magic difference between polygamy and gay marriage. There isn’t any difference except the number. And if we’re not going to be bound by any antiquated notion that marriage is an organic institution between man and woman, then why should we be bound by mere number?

Surely in our enlightened age and time, it can be possible for large groups of consenting adults to tie their confusing knots together in any number from 2 to 2,000.

True marriage equality would completely open up the concept. But it’s not actually equality that we’re talking about. It’s someone’s idea of the social good. And the social good is served by gay marriage, but not by polygamy.

The question is whose social good is it?

Equality and justice are words that the left uses to cloud the question of who advocates the causes and who benefits from them. Who decides that the cause of justice and equality is served by limiting marriage to two gay men, rather than four gay men, three bisexual men, two women and a giraffe?

The rhetoric of equality asserts a just cause while overlooking the social good. Rights are demanded. The demand is absolute and the logic for it remains left behind in a desk drawer on the wrong side of the table. Instead there are calls for empathy. “If you only knew a gay couple.” Hysterical condemnations. “I’m pretty sure you’re the devil”, one recent email to me began. And a whole lot of vague promises about the good things that will follow once we’re all paying for it.

We aren’t truly moving toward anarchy or some libertarian order, but a calculated form of repression in which shrill demands substitute for legal guidelines and those who scream the loudest get the most rights.

The new freedoms are largely random and chaotic. Donate enough money to the right people while helping out the left and a special addition to the marriage split-level house will be carved out for you. Why? Because there will be a lot of yelling. Naturally.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Gay Intolerance versus Corporate Integrity

by Alan Caruba on Tuesday, April 8th, 2014

This is article 60 of 61 in the topic Gay Rights

I am going to draw on decades of having been a public relations counselor to corporations and other organizations for some thoughts about the resignation of Mozilla’s cofounder, Brendan Eich, after his donation to support a California proposition banning gay marriage six years ago became an issue for the company less than two weeks after he became its CEO.

Despite the passage of the ban, voted upon by a majority (52%) of Californians who believe that marriage should be restricted to the union of a man and a woman, the California Supreme Court ruled against it. Same sex marriages in California resumed after the U.S. Supreme Court restored the federal district court’s ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as unconstitutional. Heeding the will of the people is not the California way.

At the end of 2008, same-sex marriages were legal only in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Today seventeen states, including California, allow such marriages. The gay, lesbian and transgender population of America is about three percent, but they are among the most vocal special interest groups in the nation.

From a PR point of view, Eich’s decision was a very bad one. Other corporations have found themselves targeted by the gay community. Chick-fil-A, an Atlanta based company has opposed gay marriage based on its commitment to Christian values, but most corporations regard any vocal opposition with more fear than courage. It has a lot to do with being in the business of selling products and services as well as being answerable to their investors.

It also explains, for example, why most embrace environmental demands in some fashion, including Big Oil and Big Coal. It’s no accident that BP Oil has a television advertising campaign going these days emphasizing the way drilling for oil in Alaska generates thousands of jobs elsewhere in the nation. The Gulf of Mexico oil spill is fading into the past as well it should. Simply said, accidents happen.

I suspect that Eich’s decision was based in part on the fact that its corporate headquarters are located in San Francisco. A Reuters news article noted that “Gay rights are widely embraced in the San Francisco area” described as “long known for its thriving lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. Silicon Valley’s tech culture reflects that sensitivity and its companies rely on their CEOs to set that kind of tone.”

The curious thing is that Eich’s “views about gay marriage had been known within Mozilla for nearly two years…” His appointment as CEO put him in the limelight and a call for a boycott by OkCupid opened the doors to a decision to stand by his views or leave, presumably in the interest of the company. The company chairwoman, Mitchell Baker, said of his resignation that “you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.”

After freedom of religion, free speech is the next one cited in the Constitution’s First Amendment. It’s not hard to stand for it if you have the courage to do so.

Largely unknown to most Americans is the growing matrix of laws at the state level that grant a special status to the GLBT community. This is particularly true in Massachusetts.

Click to continue reading “Gay Intolerance versus Corporate Integrity”
Go straight to Post

America: Plunging Headlong into Reprobation?

by Rev. Michael Bresciani on Thursday, March 20th, 2014

This is article 38 of 41 in the topic Moral Values

The dictionary definition pales against the Biblical definition of reprobation. The Bible says God gives men over to a state of reprobation, as we collectively approach the last days of time before the second coming of Christ. The definition given in Romans 1: 28 is one of the most frightening prophetic statements in all of scripture.

Speaking of conditions preceding the last days the Apostle Paul declared, “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient”

The phrase ‘God gave them over’ is enough to make us shudder when considering that if God gives us up, redemption and any chance of recovery is literally impossible.

The most basic sense of reprobation in the bible refers to something far more than simple immorality, it is the inability to hear, understand and implement any truth or morality. Right and wrong are impossible to discern with a reprobate mind.

Oddly, most dictionary definitions include a rendering of the word that clearly indicates that people don’t just fall into reprobation, but they willfully labor to get into this state.

Often words like: ban, forbid, prohibit, rebuff, repel, spurn, check, constrain, curb, repress, restrain, restrict; balk (at), hinder, impede, obstruct are also included as synonyms. But, what is being impeded, or obstructed by the collective minds and hearts of the last day’s crowd?

In the simplest terms, all that pertains to God, righteousness and basic morality is shunned in an atmosphere of self-indulgence and lawlessness.

Before reprobation sets in on a generation, they may be found acknowledging and repenting of their sins. After reprobation begins to take root, they are found affirming and celebrating their sins.

Now, anyone calling out the sin seems like a hater of the sinner. The lawless then turn to the law to force acceptance of their lawlessness, it is a vicious cycle that leads to destruction.

If you want to lust for those of your own gender you must be protected by the law to do so and even the idea of someone counseling you to avoid the temptation must be silenced. Several states have adopted laws to stop counseling to change the minds of younsters who are inclined toward their own sex.

The laws of God has been sidestepped by popular trends, PC notions of diversity and the ‘new morality’ which is only amorality (disregard of all morality) passing itself off under a new name.

Changing the laws is a means of changing definitions to fit the new drive for life with no borders or parameters to define good and evil.

When all of this reaches its peak we will be ready for the world’s last dictator. A ruler long prophesied to come in the last days. He will be called the “lawless one” (2Thess 2: 8 NAS) according to the Apostle Paul.

A ruler who lives without laws may seem like the perfect non-sequitur until it is revealed that the antichrist changes the laws to fit his own view of right and wrong. Being the incarnation of the Devil himself means that his view is always the exact opposite of Gods and is always wrong. A perfect type of the antichrist is Barack Obama.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Cop: I’d Love to “Bang down Your Door and Come for Your Gun”

by Selwyn Duke on Tuesday, March 18th, 2014

This is article 516 of 531 in the topic Gun Rights

How would you feel if a police officer you knew for 20 years told you that if an order was issued to confiscate your guns, he wouldn’t hesitate to “kick your door in”? This was the precisely the experience Connecticut resident, Navy veteran and former firefighter John Cinque had after commenting on his state’s 2013 violation of the Second Amendment.

The law in question criminalizes the sale of magazines holding more than 10 rounds and also certain semi-automatic rifles, and mandates that all grandfathered weapons and magazines must be registered with the state. As for Cinque and the exchange with his “old friend” — Branford Police Officer Joseph Peterson — which occurred on Facebook, Mikael Thalen at Infowars.com writes:

“I’ve had contact with a police officer in my home town, I live in Branford, and his words straight out were, ‘I cannot wait to get the order to kick your door in,’” Cinque said.

…In multiple [Facebook] screenshots captured from the lengthy conversation, Peterson continually argued that law enforcement were not obligated to defy unconstitutional laws. Instead, Peterson stated that he would follow any order given, even if it meant confiscating firearms from close friends.

In the same vein, Peterson said to another participant in the Facebook conversation, Cameron Smith, “I [sic] give my left n** to bang down your door and come for your gun.” More shocking still, however, Smith penned me an email and reported (edited for punctuation):

A lot of news articles are putting my quote in of me saying he [Peterson] would put Jews in Ghettos as the reason he went off. He actually went off well before that. I literally asked him if a law was passed to put Jews in the Ghettos, would you?  He literally said, “Now you are being silly…but if it’s the law, I enforce it; I don’t make them.”

To me THAT was the quote of the story that everyone is missing.

Of course, the conversation had become heated, perhaps preventing Peterson from fully processing what was being asked prior to answering and maybe causing him speak a bit more rashly than he would otherwise. Regardless, there is an oft-used “good soldier” cop argument stating that theirs is not to wonder why, theirs is but to do or die (even if it isn’t applied to genocide and just kills constitutional rights). Hey, “I don’t make the laws,” says the dutiful constable, “I just enforce them.” Thus, I want to give you, my friends in law enforcement, the reasoned, moral argument for “policeman nullification.”

Even good people can live lives of contradiction and entertain ideas that simply aren’t true. For instance, if you’re a cop, it’s easy to justify an action by saying that your job is only to enforce the law, especially since, on paper, this is certainly so. But the implication that you enforce every law, across the board, every time, without discretion is absolutely untrue and you, I and everyone else knows it. You don’t ticket everyone driving 31 in a 30 zone, and many times even more egregious law-breakers get off with a warning. Some laws aren’t applied at all, such as a parking law in my town an officer told me was on the books but that “we don’t enforce.” You use discretion all the time.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Killing Christianity with Sex

by Selwyn Duke on Sunday, March 16th, 2014

This is article 231 of 240 in the topic Religion

1746135_lowIn recent times, there has been a development quite odd and unprecedented in the annals of the sexual “revolution.” When America’s traditional sexual mores started to break down, it always took the form of slouching toward “tolerance.” For example, consider fornication. Two unmarried opposite-sex individuals cohabitating was once known as “living in sin” and was not something any couple could do in their community. But as pedophile Alfred Kinsey’s fraudulent science and the phenomenon whereby, as Confucius said, no one likes “virtue as much as sex” eroded moral barriers, this started to change. And then one thing led to another, people did their thing, and, over time, tolerance resulted as a matter of course (I’m not implying this is a good thing).

Now, notable here — notable only because of the aforementioned development — is that fornicators never called for government benefits; they never beat the drum for civil unions. They never started lobbying groups. And the worst those objecting to their practices were called was prudes or Puritans; no one ever thought to brand them bigots or make “Forniphobe” a repeated-to-staleness neologism. And, of course, anyone who hasn’t been asleep for the last 20 years knows exactly what I’m analogizing here.

This brings me to an article in The Week by Damon Linker. He writes that while he supports faux marriage, he is also troubled by the equally stunning lack of charity, magnanimity, and tolerance displayed by many gay marriage advocates.

They don’t just want most Americans to recognize and affirm the equal dignity of their relationships. They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life.

That is an unacceptable, illiberal demand.

Linker’s surprise indicates that he doesn’t know his fellow leftists very well. He also then, by complaining that he isn’t happy with the “sloppy way the most strident gay-marriage proponents have been throwing around the term ‘bigotry,’” reveals his status: nice useful idiot. There are only two other categories of leftists, by the way, and they constitute the majority of the passionate. One would be the users.

The other group is mean useful idiots.

Speaking of which, there are only two reasons why the homosexual lobby spews the bigot charge.

One is hatred.

Disparaging another with damaging names not even remotely correlative to what the person is, and thus not the product of reason, is an emotion-driven practice. And that emotion isn’t love. It is a deep-seated animosity driving one to want to hurt his target with “verbal violence,” which, though I reject the designation in law and social code, would make it “hate speech.”

The second reason the bigot label is applied is simple.

It works.

It’s a rhetorical device used to silence opposition.

This is why Barack Obama was never called a bigot, even though he opposed faux marriage less than two years ago. You see, homosexual activists didn’t hate Obama. They also knew something: Obama’s upholding of marriage was poorly acted political theater (note that, as a supporter of faux marriage in 1996, Obama was for it before he was against it before he was for it). It was always clear he would atavistically “evolve” as the culture devolved.

Speaking of cultural devolution brings us to my main point. G.K.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin