Certain individuals ― it doesn't matter what part of the political spectrum they are on ― seem to have a pattern of thought that is obsessively binary, and sadly, it's not just a left-wing problem either at this point. This example is just the latest in a series of cases in which willful ignorance of nuances and wrongful dismissal of valid reasons as excuses reigns supreme. Yes, I'm talking about someone from Virginia who has the nerve to use the very same "anyone who disagrees with me on X is Y" logic that the left uses by pushing the "anyone who disagrees with him on living at home is a loser" and "anyone who disagrees with him on living at home is a grown child" false dichotomies. There are at least 3 legitimate reasons THAT ARE NOT EXCUSES why these dichotomies are false and if you say that they are excuses anyway then you prove yourself an idiot.
The first reason does seem like a California-specific one but it can apply to other places that receive all of their revenue this way, and that's property taxes being used for nefarious purposes, something I touched a little bit on in this video a minute or two in. See, California's sales taxes are all local, as crazy as that may seem. State income tax accounts for maybe 10% of Sacramento's income. The other 90%? Property tax. So how do you boycott property tax? By not buying a home and not renting from landlords who use the rent that you pay them to pay property taxes until Sacramento changes for the better. I was hoping Travis Allen would make it; John Cox does have many flaws, but he got in anyway, so we have to make do with what's available at this point. Boycotting California property taxes is the only way to make the message clear enough to Sacramento that they WILL NOT use our property tax money to harbor criminals with a known history of committing crimes against property, and also, lest we forget, that they will NOT use taxes on private property to indoctrinate students into believing in abolishing the very private property that they are taxing, something that Sacramento is definitely doing given how many taxpayer-funded state university professors are open Communists.
Another reason is the obvious: SJW employers who simply hate conservatives, a phenomenon that in California, where I am, is particularly rampant. Marxists in groups like Antifa openly state that their reason for doxxing people is so that they can get them fired from jobs, and they have a habit of threatening employers with riots if they hire people like myself who have been interviewed by the media in contravention of their requests. Not only does this problem of SJW employers and Antifa, which really is a case of two sides of the same coin, have the effect of making gullible employers fire people for political reasons but it also prevents hiring by any employer that is not either a church or a gun store.
So, in order to debunk all of the "fascist" lies that Antifa uses as false premises to get people fired and keep them from getting hired I will make what I am in this blog post very clear: I am a millennial Ted Cruz. I am a proud Bible-thumping Christian theocratic dominionist who rightly sees mass immigration as a direct catalyst for the oversecularization of our culture. Using a combination of open borders and welfare to encourage illegal aliens knowing that they are used to voting for big government back home to immigrate en masse is how the left is trying to continue their stranglehold on Hollywood, academia, and the media, and also how they are trying to amass as much political power as they can, in order to attempt to sustain the immigration-welfare-degeneracy feedback loop.
They are then using those venues that they secure through mass immigration to push things like abortion, the false dichotomy that refusal to do business with LGBT must somehow be the same as hating them when in reality they can just find someone else to do business with (thankfully the SCOTUS struck this down), and other ideas that in turn represent a direct threat to Christianity. Again, without mass immigration the left would not be able to do this much damage to the Christian foundation of our society (according to Patrick Henry, "for this reason alone, members of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here") that it has, because mass immigration is how they keep bringing in the votes that they need to push this degeneracy. Oh, and lest we forget, there's also the problem of Quran 9:29 ― Islam is also a direct threat to Christianity because all the anti-Christian violence in the Middle East is incited by the Quran itself in that very verse. The left in Europe is aiding and abetting Islamic persecution of Christians by importing Muslims knowing that the Quran incites this very anti-Christian hatred.
The third and final reason THAT IS NOT AN EXCUSE, again, is that home loans are slavery and rent is slavery. My parents learned this the hard way when, back in 2008 when I was 15, they lost their old house in Lake Forest. Why? Because the banksters, controlled by the Fed, doubled the mortgage rates on millions of families, including my own, without warning. They could afford to pay the previous $3000 per month on mortgage with no problems, but $6000 per month? Yes, that's how bad it was. Mortgages and rents are cancer. They enslave you to the banksters, they enslave you to the Fed, and they enslave you to landlords. And don't get me wrong, some landlords are good people, but like the Fed and like they banksters they can and often do raise the rent on a whim, once again causing problems.
Until Sacramento is taken over by people who promise to use property tax dollars the right way I am not moving out. Until employers other than gun stores and churches (the latter I am an employee of, by the way) stop giving into Antifa's demands I am not moving out. Until I can afford to put 100% down on a house I am not moving out. THIS DOES NOT MAKE ME A GROWN CHILD AND IT DOES NOT MAKE ME A LOSER. It makes me a wise decision-maker who knows a lot more about the problems facing California than you do if you call me those things.
23 March, 2018
Omni-Bust: Trump's Biggest Mistake As President
Many people, especially pro-amnesty leftists, who think of Trump supporters almost instinctively also assume them to be sycophants who constantly pander to him, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Remember what he said at his inaugural address about "taking power from Washington […] and giving it back to you, the American people?" President Trump ran on a right-wing populist and civic nationalist platform. This means, among other things, opposition to globalist trade, opposition to illegal immigration (first and foremost), and policies that favor American workers over foreigners. So, when he makes a decision that causes pro-globalization, pro-amnesty far-left cultural Marxist nihilist commies like Nancy Pelosi to gloat, it's cause for concern to say the least.
That's exactly what happened when the 45th President signed the ludicrous Omnibus spending bill into law earlier today. This bill only increases border security spending by a paltry $1.6 billion and includes in it a provision that restricts the type of barrier to be funded to just a fence, not a wall, which is woefully inadequate as a border barrier because a fence is far easier to climb than a wall is. Meanwhile, it increases military spending by a whopping $700 billion (yes, that's billion with a B). Yes, we do need a strong military, but $700B is overkill if we aren't actually involved in conflict. The bill also wastes $6 billion on the National Science Foundation, $4.491329 billion on foreign aid, $30 billion on the Department of Energy, another $9 billion on 770,000 abandoned federal buildings, and, worst of all, yes, it still wastes money (albeit an unknown amount) on Planned Parenthood. Add in the amounts not disclosed by Sen. Rand Paul in his Twitter thread linked to in the introductory sentence to this paragraph, and you end up with a whopping $1.6 trillion in wasteful government spending.
No, I am absolutely not under any circumstances going to believe the "you were conned" argument coming from the very leftists who conned us with Obama, not one bit, so don't even try it on me. Every single person who has ever made this ludicrous assertion on Twitter not only is pro-amnesty ― something that more than 70% of Americans are not ― but also supports an increase in government spending, an increase in taxes, single-payer healthcare (!), and worst of all they are seemingly OK with the religion of possessive perverts, marital pedophiles, polygamists, and downright terrorists that is Islam. You who use that cliche are the very reason why I voted for Trump in the first place. You want everything that America does not. You want more open borders, more communism, and more hell that comes with all of that. Try to mess with me and you'll be sorry you did. The fact that you have the nerve to accuse me of being conned after having conned me with Obamacare, conned me with the lie that diversity is strength when in reality diversity is our weakness, and wrongly think the reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy to be a valid argument when applied to Trump, only proves just how stupid you actually are. I can see right through that BS for what it is.
Yes, I am still a Trump supporter. No, I am not a sycophant. I am courageous enough to hold him to his words at that January 20, 2017 inaugural address. Signing this bill is hypocrisy with respect to them, and when flip-flops like this happen, it's extremely important to call them out, not sit idly by and sycophantically defend them as Bill Mitchell would often do. I want him to succeed, badly. That means calling out moves that are capable of setting him up for failure. This move is one of them. The May 2017 Syria strikes were another. The offer of amnesty for illegal aliens in exchange for building the wall ― which thankfully didn't pass ― is another still. I do get that the President is under a lot of pressure, not only from cultural Marxists in the mainstream media and in the Democratic Party but also from establishment neocons who like former President George W. Bush would rather send America into another pointless war than see it succeed, but that pressure doesn't matter because it is not coming from his base. The pressure that matters is the pressure from people who voted him into that office in the first place, of whom I am one.
Mr. President, do NOT listen to anyone in the establishment on whether or not to sign legislation, I don't care how many people get turned off. Had you vetoed this and it got passed after overriding your veto, then it would have been an opportunity for members of Congress to be primaried out and more competent potential contributors to the populist agenda voted in. Signing this bill, however, means you own it. There are only 2 possible solutions at this point: Either A, we vote someone into Congress who will repeal this bill ― hopefully Erin Cruz will at least introduce something into circulation that says "the Omnibus spending bill of 2018 is hereby repealed" ― or B, we invoke Article V and convene states together in order to amend the 1-in-2-out rule into the Constitution, making the act of passing bills like this one without also repealing two previous ones unconstitutional. Either way, this is not a good move for the agenda that you ran on, not in the least bit.
That's exactly what happened when the 45th President signed the ludicrous Omnibus spending bill into law earlier today. This bill only increases border security spending by a paltry $1.6 billion and includes in it a provision that restricts the type of barrier to be funded to just a fence, not a wall, which is woefully inadequate as a border barrier because a fence is far easier to climb than a wall is. Meanwhile, it increases military spending by a whopping $700 billion (yes, that's billion with a B). Yes, we do need a strong military, but $700B is overkill if we aren't actually involved in conflict. The bill also wastes $6 billion on the National Science Foundation, $4.491329 billion on foreign aid, $30 billion on the Department of Energy, another $9 billion on 770,000 abandoned federal buildings, and, worst of all, yes, it still wastes money (albeit an unknown amount) on Planned Parenthood. Add in the amounts not disclosed by Sen. Rand Paul in his Twitter thread linked to in the introductory sentence to this paragraph, and you end up with a whopping $1.6 trillion in wasteful government spending.
No, I am absolutely not under any circumstances going to believe the "you were conned" argument coming from the very leftists who conned us with Obama, not one bit, so don't even try it on me. Every single person who has ever made this ludicrous assertion on Twitter not only is pro-amnesty ― something that more than 70% of Americans are not ― but also supports an increase in government spending, an increase in taxes, single-payer healthcare (!), and worst of all they are seemingly OK with the religion of possessive perverts, marital pedophiles, polygamists, and downright terrorists that is Islam. You who use that cliche are the very reason why I voted for Trump in the first place. You want everything that America does not. You want more open borders, more communism, and more hell that comes with all of that. Try to mess with me and you'll be sorry you did. The fact that you have the nerve to accuse me of being conned after having conned me with Obamacare, conned me with the lie that diversity is strength when in reality diversity is our weakness, and wrongly think the reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy to be a valid argument when applied to Trump, only proves just how stupid you actually are. I can see right through that BS for what it is.
Yes, I am still a Trump supporter. No, I am not a sycophant. I am courageous enough to hold him to his words at that January 20, 2017 inaugural address. Signing this bill is hypocrisy with respect to them, and when flip-flops like this happen, it's extremely important to call them out, not sit idly by and sycophantically defend them as Bill Mitchell would often do. I want him to succeed, badly. That means calling out moves that are capable of setting him up for failure. This move is one of them. The May 2017 Syria strikes were another. The offer of amnesty for illegal aliens in exchange for building the wall ― which thankfully didn't pass ― is another still. I do get that the President is under a lot of pressure, not only from cultural Marxists in the mainstream media and in the Democratic Party but also from establishment neocons who like former President George W. Bush would rather send America into another pointless war than see it succeed, but that pressure doesn't matter because it is not coming from his base. The pressure that matters is the pressure from people who voted him into that office in the first place, of whom I am one.
Mr. President, do NOT listen to anyone in the establishment on whether or not to sign legislation, I don't care how many people get turned off. Had you vetoed this and it got passed after overriding your veto, then it would have been an opportunity for members of Congress to be primaried out and more competent potential contributors to the populist agenda voted in. Signing this bill, however, means you own it. There are only 2 possible solutions at this point: Either A, we vote someone into Congress who will repeal this bill ― hopefully Erin Cruz will at least introduce something into circulation that says "the Omnibus spending bill of 2018 is hereby repealed" ― or B, we invoke Article V and convene states together in order to amend the 1-in-2-out rule into the Constitution, making the act of passing bills like this one without also repealing two previous ones unconstitutional. Either way, this is not a good move for the agenda that you ran on, not in the least bit.
21 January, 2018
Why it is Not Un-Christian to Believe in an Old Earth
When bringing up morality when debating with leftists and particularly secular leftists, pointing out the obvious fact that by believing morality to be subjective they believe moral relativism to be an absolute and by believing moral relativism to be an absolute they contradict their own moral relativism, sometimes I will get "But the Bible can't be absolute because it contains a creation narrative out of touch with the geological record."
In order to answer this objection we first need to ask the question "Who wrote that narrative?" The answer, according to Old Testament scholars, is Moses, given that it is categorized by Orthodox Jews as being one of his five books. Yes, Moses definitely had God's help, but at the same time, Moses was not God. In the New Testament, the Pharisees tried to challenge Jesus on divorce based on another book of Moses, and this was His response:
—begin quote—
“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Matthew 19:7-9
—end quote—
“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Matthew 19:7-9
—end quote—
Note the boldfaced portion of this quote. If the Israelite people's hearts were so hard that they needed a watered-down version of divine morality in order to be able to accept it without throwing a fit, then wouldn't it go without saying that they were also so dim-witted that they needed a watered-down version of the creation narrative in order to be able to understand it at all?
That seems to be profoundly the case. When people were confronted with facts that contradicted their predeterminations in the ancient world, they always threw fits. If these people had a predetermination that the Earth was young and were capable of getting triggered like SJWs if they were presented with something contradicting this predetermination, then why this creation narrative would get truncated from its original form by Moses suddenly begins to make all the sense in the world. If a fact falls on a hard heart, then it will also fall on deaf ears. So Moses, not God, is the one who presented a truncated, watered down version of the narrative: not to be accurate, but to appease the hard-hearted Israelites who would have cried foul at the idea of the earth being older than their predetermined notion of it. When Augustine challenged that predetermined idea centuries later, he was vehemently attacked for it — during Moses' time, it would have been even more difficult to convey.
With this in mind, if you stretch Genesis 1 out, then it matches exactly. First there was no matter, space, or time at all (Genesis 1:1-2), then there was light, then, about 10 billion years later, there was an Earth with water on it (Genesis 1:6-8), then continents began to peak out from an Earth that was initially 100% ocean (Genesis 1:9-10), then photosynthetic life appeared in order to add oxygen to the atmosphere (Genesis 1:11-13), then the thick Venus-like atmosphere thinned to the point where the sun and moon were both visible from Earth's surface for the first time (Genesis 1:14-19), then Cambrian aquatic life appeared (Genesis 1:20a), then dinosaurs with feathers roamed the Earth (Genesis 1:20b), and, finally, at the very end, human beings are created. There are creation narratives all over the place, but the Biblical narrative is the only one that places all of these events in this exact order.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)