Deriving Their Powers From The Consent Of The Governed

The Declaration of Independence set forth the decree to England that the colonies were no longer subject to the rule of England, and consequently, the rule of King George. By the words "Deriving their powers from the consent of the governed", the signers told the king that he was no longer superior to the law, but rather that those that govern are subject to the law, and that the power given to them is given to them with the consent of those they rule. This is a fundamental basis of our rule of law, but one that we have strayed far from in terms of understanding by the populace.

When the government fails to fulfill the obligations placed upon it by the citizenry, then it is incumbent upon the citizens to see that those obligations are fulfilled. This is not the "taking of the law into one's own hands" but rather enforcement of laws that the government is failing to enforce. A citizen making an arrest is quite legal and is the obligation of the citizen when he sees the commission of a crime. He is obliged to use deadly force if he or another is threatened. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has found that that the police have no obligation to protect citizens from crime. So, as police are only subcontractors to the public who have no obligation to even protect the citizenry, then citizens have no choice but to protect themselves.

This is why the single-most important issue today is the protection of individual gun rights. Not only must citizens be able to protect themselves from potential harm by other citizens, but also from the government, which was the reason for the 2nd amendment to begin with.

The governed have consented for the Federal government to provide for the defense of the nation, the primary and most important, and almost only, function of the Federal government provided for in our Constitution. However, they have fell egregiously short with the influx of illegal aliens from the southern border. Fortunately, although heavily criticized, the band of citizens called the Minutemen have stepped up and performed the obligations of our government. To be sure, the Minutemen have attempted to work with the Federal government, notifying the government border patrols of illegals crossing the border rather than attempting to apprehend the illegals themselves. But still, due to various motivations, the same government who has failed and forced the citizenry to perform this function discounts those law abiding citizens as "vigilantes".

Due to the political apathy of this country and the continuing dependence upon the government, as well as invitations by some sectors to the government for intrusion, we have almost came full circle to an elected monarchy, our government believing that they have no obligation to the will of the people. They wish to govern in areas that we will not give consent, using the courts to do this, and failing to govern in the areas in which consent is given.

A Recommended Site

I recommend that anyone reading this blog visit Stop The ACLU . Posts involve the latest undertakings of the ACLU and their war against individual liberty, along with some interesting historical facts around the ACLU.

"Having It All" Does Not Exist

As a teenager in high school and into college, I worked at a Wal-Mart store in Canton, GA. I will never forget a conversation that I had with a fellow employee one day, when I was telling this gentleman what I would like to do with my life. I told this fellow, who was a post-Vietnam army vet, of my ambition to have a small farm, but that I knew that I could never afford to remain in North Georgia and run a small farm. His statement to me has always stuck with me, and I have applied this to many decisions that I have had to make in my life.

"You can have anything that you want to have if you are willing to pay the price."

At the time this was a pretty large statement that I did not fully comprehend. But what he was really talking about can be simply stated as the concept of opportunity cost.

Actions speak louder than words, and one can often glean the priorities of an individual based on his actions. A man who claims that his wife and children are his main priority, but yet goes out on Friday night, loses half of his paycheck on a poker game while drinking most of what is left really does not have his family foremost in his mind. He is sacrificing time spent with his wife and children, not to mention at least a portion of their livelihood, for himself and his own pleasure.

Every action performed has an opportunity cost. You have the opportunity to perform another action if you do not perform the current action. Your priorities will dictate which action that you perform.

Herein lies the fallacy of "having it all." You must sacrifice the opportunity of gaining one thing to gain another. Therefore, one can never have it all.

By our actions today, most individuals in society has one common priority: self-indulgence. "As long as I am pleasing myself, then I am happy." Responsibility for others and to others is shirked off as easily as dropping a jacket at the front door. This priority is what drives people to do what they do.

This is evident with many people gaining more and more material goods, often beyond their means, having less and less children, and what children they have are handed to someone else to raise. We have fatherless children because biological sperm donors view themselves as above their obligation to do their part in raising a child. We have latch-key kids because mothers had rather be able to have a career outside the home rather than face their responsibility of raising children in the home. Worse, we have career women hellbent to have a child when well-beyond peak child-bearing years and to raise said child without the assistance of a man. Of course, the decisions made by these people is at a cost of allowing a child to grow without guidance, like a rowboat on the ocean without a rudder.

I am not being hypocritical of people. I am not perfect, and I make my fair share of mistakes, occasionally jumbling my priorities out of order. However, my home is something that a lot of people would not consider for themselves. I could make $10k-$15k more in my profession by driving into Atlanta. We could send our children to public school and daycare, my wife could go to work, and we could have a lot more things. But my priority is God, wife, children, family & friends. My decisions are based on those priorities, and I try to live by them. These opportunities my wife and I pass up to spend time with our children, raise them, educate them, and see that they have some guidance in their lives as they grow. This is the opportunity that I could not pass up for all the riches in the world.

Why Being An Anti-Feminist Male Does Not Mean That You Are A Sexist Male

I have been quite puzzled for some time at how many feminists can make the leaps that they do in drawing conclusions about people with such wide gaps in logic. In the feminist world view, I would be considered sexist. I am quite comfortable with that monicker, considering the broad definition that it is given in today's society. With that being said, in reality, I am not sexist just because I am an anti-feminist.

Depending upon how you use "sexist", I either could or could not be. If used as a noun, I definitely fit the mold of a sexist, because I do believe that in the real world, because of the delegation of duties and utility of each sex, that social roles exist for each gender. If you use "sexist" as an adjective, then I definitely am not, because I do not believe that women are inferior to men, nor men superior to women. So I am a sexist, but not a sexist male. This is almost as confusing as feminist logic, but here is the link for dictionary.com that I am using, referring to the American Heritage definition for a noun and the WordNet definition of the adjective.

So let me now explain myself. First of all, I believe that the Bible is the perfectly preserved word of God Himself. God inspired the writers, and they wrote the words inspired by God. The word "inspired" means "breathed in".

From that, I draw from God's creation Adam, after both he and Eve transgressed the commandment of God not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, that God had different roles in mind for each Adam and Eve. To Adam, He said that he would eat the herb of the field in the sweat of his face. To Eve, He said that her sorrows would be multiplied in conception, and that woman would be saved in childbearing. He also commanded that the husband would rule over the wife. This was the social order of God, not man.

So God gave Adam the commandment that he would eat of the earth, by his sweat. Adam was commanded to provide for himself, and implied to provide for his family and to protect them as well. Eve was commanded to submit to her husband, and to be saved, or preserved, she must bear children. God equipped Eve to care for her children while Adam worked to provide for their living. Simple, yet a divine delegation of duties.

In God's grand scheme, he did not make one sex greater than the other, rather he gave each sex their own strengths so as to coexist in harmony, bearing children for posterity. This really irks feminists because they fear being looked upon as baby machines. This, unfortunately for them, is what keeps them so bitter and lonely, because the ability to give birth to children and then to single-handedly see to their natural survival until old enough to eat as the adults is a divine gift and one that, by His design, attracts men to women. In other words, feminity and all that it entails is the strength of a woman.

Likewise, the strength of men and his ability to take care of his mate is attractive to women, and this is also by God's design.

But how does this apply to today's modern society? Does this mean that women should remain in the home, pregnant and barefoot, relying on her husband for all her needs? Does this mean that men should not accept women for "who they are" and allow her to make all the decisions around her life?

The answer to the first question is that God has not changed ever, and all things relevant to Adam and Eve are relevant today. The answer to question number two is that it depends upon the couples desire to have children and if they have them already. If a couple wishes to have children or happens to have children, then the answer would be yes (although not necessarily barefoot). For a woman to have a child and then leave it for someone else to raise while she attends to her "needs", which in reality translate to "wants", is not the best thing for her child. If the couple wishes not to have children, then by all means women should pursue their interests. And the answer to question three again depends upon whether or not the couple has children. Sometimes, because divine responsibility is placed on a husband to provide and care for his family, he must make decisions that may be at variance with his wife.

A lot of what I just said sounds harsh in todays hypersensitive society, but it only makes good sense. And I would submit that if more people followed the prescription of the Bible in as pure a form as possible without interjecting their shade of opinion and without fear of those who may look upon them as "backward", then we would see a lot less divorces, a lot less domestic violence, a lot less child abuse, a lot less sexual perversions, and generally a lot less issues that we face in society that has its roots in the struggle of traditional values versus secular popularism.

Many people would conclude from the above that I am probably a harsh authoritarian who keeps his wife underfoot. Consider the following.

My wife and I married while we were both still in college. We were expecting our first child while both of us were still in college. We decided that I would continue, as at the moment it only made practical sense that I should and become the sole provider while she stayed home to take care of our child. She still has three years of college under her belt in terms of degree, and is a highly intelligent individual who has homeschooled our three children, while I have continued to work and provide the financial needs of our family.

I cook. I clean. I wash clothes. I clean toilets. I change diapers. I put our children to bed. I help them with school projects. She does all of the above more than me. But we share in the things that need to be done that both of us can do. I do not boss my wife. But I do make decisions for our family that, when reasoned, she respects and abides. Likewise, in almost all instances her influence and guidance leads me to the final decision about the issues that we face as a family. I am no better nor am I more deserving of anything than she is. We work together in our respective roles within our family.

Unfortunately, feminists often play upon the stereotype of the abusive, controlling husband to scare women into either believing that they will be controlled and have no personhood in a situation that is traditional, Bible-based values, hence the belligerence toward the Bible, God and Jesus. But the fact of the matter is that the Bible teaches men against that type of behavior, but rather to love his wife as he does his own flesh.

So I am sexist, but not a sexist male. My advice is that men should be men, and women should be women. Each should use the strengths within their gender that God gave them, and don't be afraid to tackle the roles that those strengths and talents entail. You will not be trouble-free, but I will guarantee that when troubles come, you will get through them better, and you will be happier for it in the long term.

I Just Don't Understand The Connection

Amanda at Pandagon makes an attempt to show how ignorant anti-abortionists are in their view of rape abortions. In reality, she only shows her lack of ability to put together a logically connectable argument.

"On this thread at Feministe mocking American Life League leader Judie Brown—a woman who needs to get off the keyboard and on her back immediately, as god wants her to be—I saw this wretched woman-hating missive disguised as pseudo-feminism linked in comments.

'Why are we giving more trauma to the victim of rape by encouraging her to abort her child?

Carrying such a child to term has been for many women a help in coming to grips with the abuse they suffered.'

He tries to argue that rapists should be punished, but I have a feeling he’s foolin’. After all, rapists are bringing Sperm Magic into the life of women who probably deserved to be be violently assaulted for refusing the Magic, by his logic."

Now I will substitute some words to see if this makes sense, even to like-minded feminists.

On this thread at Feministe mocking American Life League leader Judie Brown—a woman who needs to get off the keyboard and on her back immediately, as god wants her to be—I saw this wretched abused child hating missive in the comments.

Why are we giving more trauma to the victim of child abuse by encouraging her to commit murder?

Not committing murder has been for many child abuse victims a help in coming to grips with the abuse they suffered.

He tries to argue that child abusers should be punished, but I have a feeling he’s foolin’. After all, child abusers are bringing Abusive Magic into the life of women who probably deserved to be be violently assaulted for refusing the Magic, by his logic.

Equating someone who believes that life is sacred, no matter the circumstances of conception, with someone who believes women deserve to be raped defies any logical connection. You may as well say that people who believe that murder is wrong, despite the circumstances that one blames for driving them to be screwed up, such as being abused as a child, believe that the murderer deserved to be abused. Although I am sure there are some people that may think in this way, I believe that it is quite a bold leap to lump them into that general category.

It sounds more like, "I said that women who are raped should get abortion on demand, and if you don't like it, your mama wears combat boots." More evidence that feminists are nothing more than perpetual children.

What Is It That You Are Expecting, Mr. Nagin?

Ray Nagin, the chocolate Mayor of New Orleans, has stuck his size 12 where he comfortably keeps it in his mouth once again by saying that New Orleans is only slightly more of a dump hole than it already was because of the lack of funding from, you guessed it, the Federal government. He further pimp-slapped all of us who donated money by stating that if it had been a predominately white town, such as Orange County, CA or South Miami Beach, FL, that the city would have had "a different response".

First of all, New Orleans was a city that was built below sea level. For years prior to Katrina, the city dodged the bullet, all the while being appropriated the most money for the Corp of Engineers of any state for the purpose of strengthening levies for such a disaster. Rather than strengthen levies, politicians in Lousiana used the appropriated money in vote-buying schemes. So the Federal government, i.e. the taxpayers of the United States, have been paying for this disaster for years in advance.

Second of all, I find no power for Congress to appropriate money for the rebuilding of a city in our Constitution to begin with. Despite this, the Congress has committed $110 BILLION to the rebuilding of New Orleans.

New Orleans was not the only city to be affected. Other cities, such as Boluxi, MS, took the brunt of the hurricane. I hear no one complaining there. New Orleans was flooded, knowing good and well that it was going to happen one day, and did nothing proactively to help themselves. And now, Ray Nagin, who asserted in racist overtones that God wanted New Orleans to be a "chocolate" city, is screaming that because of the black population in New Orleans, no one wants to help.

Millions upon millions of dollars have been sent to New Orleans and other affected areas by individuals and businesses through private donation. Companies such as Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Microsoft, Pfizer, Dow Jones, and a myriad of other businesses donated millions of dollars to Katrina relief. Even the small, predominately white Baptist association to which my church belongs sent donations to the Katrina relief effort.

Ray Nagin has insulted each and every person who charitably donated their resources to the people in need of New Orleans and surrounding areas. He is a race pimp, stirring emotions of black citizens of New Orleans into re-electing this sorry excuse back into office as mayor. He has made every citizen, particularly black citizens, into victims of racism when in fact they are victims of negligence of local politicians, namely the governor and mayor. Can anyone say "underwater buses?" The only other victimization these people can rightly claim is that they were victims of their own poor judgement. City below sea level + Hurricane = Underwater city.

And I will close with this highly insensitive, but nevertheless brutally honest, assessment of the black residents of New Orleans, and this can go for any race, gender, class, or religion. I personally do not buy into stereotypes of different races and classes of people. I believe that each individual is their own person. Unfortunately, there are those that do. My advice is that if you wish to dispel negative stereotypical behavior of black people as a falsehood, then do not present the negative stereotypical behavior that is associated with black people.

The Internet Yields No Privacy

Potential employers may be accessing your "myspace" account or other blogs to gain information on you if you are seeking a job. They can gain information that cannot be asked in interviews from blogs or personal accounts available on the internet.

I first heard about this on...NPR (I know, I know). The host was interviewing some expert on this topic, when he asks what I thought to be the most ludicrous, idiotic question, but I sensed that it was coming:

"Is there any guidelines that can be set up for employers so as to protect the privacy of potential candidates?"

These people are clueless. Someone that is literate should come along and script their interview questions for them. There is no privacy for you on the internet, especially when you are the one that controls what information is available. Whatever you do not want the general public to know about you, do not place it on your blog.

This is why I use the name "Badbeans" rather than my real name. People who know will either figure out who I am, and most likely they already know everything that I have made available in regards to information about myself. And I do not forsee that I will make a living from this blog or any other writing I may do, so I prefer for my name not to be made known on this blog.

If you don't want it to be known, don't put it on your blog.

He Should Be Happy

Looks as though fame of being the American Idol has gone to
Taylor Hick's big, gray head. The Smiling Contortionist is suing a Nashville record producer for marketing some of his songs, recorded in 2001, on iTunes.

Although the article goes on to say that Hick's first song "Do I Make You Proud" debuted on the Hot 100, I am predicting that Hick's career is over before it even started. He should be thanking the Nashville promoter for trying to get him some royalties, because the best work he will probably get in entertainment is in a lounge.

The American Idol is selected by Ford's marketing department. I only watched AI last season, and I found out when Chris was voted off that it was a scam.

Women and the Church

In Waterton, New York, a big hubbub is brewing over the removal of a female Sunday school teacher, who has taught Sunday school at the First Baptist Church now for 11 years, having attended the church now for 60 years.

Last Thursday Lambert received a letter from the Diaconate Board telling her that she was dismissed from her position because the board had adopted the scriptural qualifications for Sunday school teachers. In short, this prohibits women from teaching men.

Although very popular in a lot of churches, I would like to see some New Testament scriptural support of a lot of church activities, including Sunday school, but that is really beside the point here. Apparently, Mrs. Lambert was on the deacon board as well.

Last month, Lambert and two others were kicked off the Diaconate Board. They were told they were being removed for attendance issues.

But apparently, if you are married to the pastor, the same rules of men holding the offices of the church do not apply to you.

The letter was signed, "Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Very truly yours, Kendra LaBouf." Kendra is the wife of City Council Member and Pastor Tim LaBouf.

And then residents who have no stake nor a clue that we do not live in a theocracy.

"And she is a woman, and when we women fought for equal rights for a long time, since 1929 hasn't it been?

And why is this a big deal to anyone? Because the pastor is a government official, and government officials, in their personal lives, must apply the political correctness standards that they must follow for what they perceive to be political expediency.

Now, I must criticize this pastor since he is being somewhat inconsistent. He is applying Paul's charge selectively. Clerk, Treasurer, choir or music director are all leadership roles in the church. The clerk is given the authority to document the workings of the church and write letters of recommendation. Given the church must approve of the work of the clerk, nevertheless the clerk is still an authority, as these duties are delegated to the clerk. The treasurer is likewise the authority on the finances of the church, and people look to the music director for leadership in the song service. Yet these positions in many churches, even Baptist churches, are held by women. If this pastor were consistent in his conviction of Paul's writing in regards to leadership positions being held by men, then he would be sure that all positions were filled by men.

Now, I do not want to seem too judgemental, because all I know of this church, pastor, or situation is what I have read in this new story. But given that this woman has served on the deacon board, and that Paul also charged Timothy that a deacon should be the husband of one wife, if these people ordained this woman as a deacon, they are an unorderly church under New Testament standards, and if they did not ordain her, then they are still out of order by allowing one not ordained as a deacon to serve in that capacity. (The ordination of deacons was set forth in the 6th chapter of Acts.)

Lambert said she feels there's more to her dismissal than the scriptual qualifications.

Perhaps she is right. I am not so sure that this church is scripturally qualified to begin with.

Government Employees

Many employees of our government, on all levels, have a tendency to forget it is the people that they serve. From your local health department or tax assessor to the Federal Department of Health and Human Services or the IRS, employees of our government have will put on "job blinders", basically defining the function of their job by how important they believe they are to the nation. Parents have a natural animosity toward DFACS because of the overstepping by some employees of the bounds of their job. The IRS has claimed their fair share of ruined lives because of the seizing of property because of back taxes.

A few years ago, when I first became a homeowner, the tax office in our county had my address incorrectly entered into their database. I did not receive my tax bill, but I thought all along that it would eventually arrive. One day, a "door hanger" showed up on my front door knob, stating that I was three months behind on my tax bill.

I went to the tax office, and then discovered that my address was entered incorrectly. The clerk promptly corrected my address, but she balked at removing the late charges from my tax bill. I was advised to speak to her manager. When I spoke with the manager, I told her the situation, and told her that I was prepared to pay my taxes in full, but not the late charges. She then promptly refused my original tax amount as a "partial payment", and threatened to have a warrant served for my arrest by the probate judge if I refused to pay the tax. Reluctantly, I paid the tax in full.

In thinking about these types of people, who feel that they have a duty to be their brothers' keeper, I am reminded of Saul of Tarsus. Saul was given authority by the Jewish government to persecute Christians. He was well versed in the Jewish law, and he even thought that he was doing the will of God. Stephen was stoned by his consent. But soon he found himself to be convicted, regenerated, and converted to a Christian. As Paul, he found himself at odds with the Jewish authorities. He found that the Jewish authorities of the day manipulated the law to further their own importance and prominence, denying the spirit of the law, the same law that prophesied of the coming of the Son of God, whom they denied and crucified.

Sounds a lot like some of our government employees of today.

A Little Disappointed, But Not Surprised

My top ten list did not get posted on the Problogger site. I followed the submission procedures, but maybe something else disqualified me.

Perhaps the "Problogger" is a Hillary fan. Or maybe its a scam. Or maybe the contest are only for an exclusive club of bloggers that I don't belong to. At any rate, I am just a little disappointed, but I am certainly not surprised.

Abortion Exceeds the Nazi Death Toll

Dr. Walter Williams wrote this piece, which appeared in Townhall.com on Wednesday, explaining how most academics are not actually communist, but rather anti-anti-communist. In the article, he referred to a a book by R.J. Rummell, a professor at the University of Hawaii, which stated that the 20th century recorded the most deaths of citizens at the hands of government in history. He cited that under communism, Stalin's Soviet Union killed around 62 million of its own citizens. Mao Zedong's Red China killed over 35 million in the 20th century. By comparison, Hitler's Nazi Germany killed 21 million.

In a recent post on Big Blue Wave, Suzanne cites a figure that over 40 million babies have been butchered under abortion. This exceeds the Nazi death toll cited in Rummell's book, and approaches the Soviet rate of murder.

Given that if Hitler and the Nazi's had not been defeated, Naziism may have taken the claim to most barbaric, since communism thrived a lot longer than Nazi Germany. But abortion has only been legalized federally in the U.S. since 1973, a mere 33 years. At the present rate, if the practice of abortion survives, it will exceed the communist Soviet death toll in 18 years. That many deaths in considerably less time, since communism was the controlling force in the Soviet Union and the regions comprising it for about 70-80 years.

Abortion is murder, plain and simple. It is not a matter of whether or not teenage girls are ruining their lives by a few seconds of pleasure in a druken stupor, a "mistake", nor is it a matter of whether or not government, under the guise of the evil "Patriarchy" is trying to control the body of a woman. Rather, it is a matter of the death of another human being who is most innocent among us.

Here is another link that I found interesting that I pulled from the comments at Big Blue Wave.

Top Ten Benefits for the U.S. If Hillary Is Elected President

10. If asked for documents that may incriminate her, she will not be able to find them until after she is out of office

9. She can invest the social security trust fund in cattle futures

8. Bad luck would not befall America for breaking the “Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton” chain

7. She would reduce the federal government workforce without having to pay out retirement or unemployment benefits, a la Ron Brown and Vince Foster

6. First President to have two last names since Martin Van Buren

5. Words to “America” would be changed back to “Long Live the Queen” (Lizard Queen)

4. Transition from Bush to Hillary will not be a visual shock on the public, since both basically are short, aging men

3. A National Holiday would be established around the same time each month

2. Bill can have a legitimate affair in the oval office

And the Number 1 reason the U.S. would benefit if Hillary is elected President (drum roll please)

1. One bad day of PMS, and Iran is history


The above was a submission into the lists group writing project on
Problogger.net.

And...Who Cares?

My AM radio dial is on the fritz for some reason, so being the news junkie that I am, I tuned to NPR (I know, I know). On FM in the Atlanta market, not much is out there for news.

Nevertheless, I found why NPR, besides being mostly liberal propoganda, is not such a good choice for news with stories like this being reported as news.

So Begins the Blame Game

Soon-to-be former 4th Congressional District Representative Cynthia McKinney (Democrat, Georgia) made her first appearance since her loss to Hank Johnson in the primary run-off yesterday. In the speech, she detailed the root causes of her loss: white republicans and technology.

Ms. McKinney, who I am sure has a job at CAIR after November, stated that the electronic ballot machines were rigged so as to disenfranchise black voters and cause her loss. She also stated that the primary laws should be changed so that party crossover voting would not be allowed.

First of all, it is important to note that Dekalb County, the area that comprises the majority of the 4th district, is majority black. As a matter of fact, the county is
54% black, as is supported by census data. So if all white people in Dekalb County voted for Cynthia, at least almost half of all black people, assuming everyone voted in the primary, would have had to have voted for Hank Johnson. Second of all, it is important to note that Hank Johnson is black and a Democrat as well.

So to say that the black voter was disenfranchised in this election is disingenuous. As a matter of fact, it is a bold assumption on her part that all black democrats would have voted for her.

Waynedawg, disagrees with me on this, but I also believe that republicans would have voted for McKinney rather than against her if they actually did cross over. I know this may be giving republicans too much credit, but a seat held by a democrat with no credibility is better than one held by a democrat who stands to gain credibility. McKinney was snubbed by her own party leadership. I happen to believe that her consistutency, black democrats, wanted a candidate who stood a chance of being taken seriously.

At any rate, McKinney took the boot, and I believe that the root cause for her defeat can be found staring back at her in a mirror.

Hypocrite With A Capital "C"

We must face it as Christian Fundamentalists, or at least those of us who are not afraid to say that we are, we are all hypocrites. We "fundies" have been caught at our own game of self-righteousness, after attempting to stand for years in the public eye as a moral beacon, but in our private lives being all degenerates.

Pandagon has helped me to see the light with this post.

We all must admit now that when the collection plate comes around, we all take a few bucks for ourselves out of the plate after it passes the old people. We must all admit that we get drunk playing poker at our girlfriend's house, who most likely is the preacher's wife or daughter, before repenting on Sunday. And let's not forget that we all surf the web daily for porn.

Yes, we must all admit our hypocrisy. After all, if you are a "fundie", you are inclined to look at the world with a pious eye while partaking in the pleasures of sin out of sight of the world, that is, until we get caught.

I mean, of course, we admit that we are sinners. We even admit that we do not deserve the grace of God and His Son, whom we should now refer to as "Jeebus" (if we want to be on the un-hypocrital, non-judgemental, smarter-than-everybody-else crowd).

Nevermind that there are very few "fundies" as a whole who are guilty of actually of scamming little old ladies out of their money. And to note that we would question those, especially in leadership positions in the church, as to their sincerity of faith, as we know faith begets good works, would not be relevant. Because of the actions of a few who pose to be "fundies", we are all guilty and thus Christianity as a whole is debunked as a myth.

Yes, friends, we should be like the homosexuals that we have criticized and castigated for so many years. They are honest enough to admit to their behavior, although they will not admit that it is deviant. If we are honest, we would realize that it is not our faults that we Christian "fundies" are all guilty of having adulterous affairs with the preacher or his wife, but we were born this way. Maybe it's the "Dobsonian" method of child rearing that makes us this way. Either way, we cannot help it, because it is in our nature to steal, lie, and cheat. We should not try to hold ourselves to a higher standard of living because of the commands of our God, because of His grace.

In fact, we already admit that we are born in sin. And we are not better than anyone other human walking the face of the earth. We just try to "keep ourselves unspotted from the world".

The Law Addresses Actions

Thomas Sowell has written anexcellent columntoday concerning gay "marriage". In this column, Dr. Sowell addresses why, from a matter of law, that "gay marriage" is not a matter of equal protection under the law, but a matter of unequal treatment of actions under the law.

As I have blogged here before, marriage is not a civil right, and co-habitating with another person of your choice is not illegal, no matter how immoral or repulsive the reasons may be to common sensibilities.

As I have stated numerous times, I am not afraid of the gay people. They would not bother me if they just did their thing and kept it to themselves. I do not approve of the behavior. I do not approve of a lot of behavior that goes on today. Behaviors that I do not agree with are not necessarily going to be illegal, even if immoral.

I do not approve of binge drinking. I do not approve of using God's name in vain. I do not approve of pornography. I do not approve of homosexuality. All of the above are immoral, but not illegal. And although people have the priveledge of living in a nation such as the U.S. where they can partake of such behavior, this does not mean that such behavior is considered profitable to society, and therefore should be sanctioned by law.

One could make the argument that marriage should be no concern of the state, but then women and children would definitely get the short end of the stick.

Ending Gender Confusion

I am not speaking about so-called "transgendered" people here, although I believe that this could speak to the ones who are not legitimately born with both male and female equipment, which I suppose would make for a confusing life. I am talking in general about men and women, and why gender equality has to be such an issue in our society.

The fact is, has been, and will remain that gender equality does not nor will ever exist. This has absolutely nothing to do with equal pay for equal work, opportunities, voting enfranchisement, or none of the other boogymen (or boogypeople) that our oversensitive feminist types get their panties in a wad about.

I have thoroughly enjoyed laughing at the absurdity of some of the feminist bloggers on sites such as this or this, although some of the words they use, such as "Jeebus", tends to get under my skin. But the entertainment value is almost on par with Cynthia McKinney taking herself so seriously when no one else does. So it is with these ladies.

Nevertheless, they always seem to have the expectation that one day, gender equality and the eradication of sexism, which has a broad definition which includes the role of wife and mother in western society, will become reality. But these people will live long miserable lives and die bitter and alone because this is not reality.

I base this on the FACT that God has created man and woman, and has thus designed them in the way with which He is pleased. Already, the feminists will reject this, because the previous statement acknowledged God and revealed me to be a "fundie". He created man, and woman He created to be his companion.

His design placed responsibilities upon both man and woman. His design also gave each inherent strengths to compliment the other. His design was such that men and women would be attracted to one another such that when each found a mate, they would bring forth children.

He gave us guidelines and instructions for how we should be behave. He made the husband the ruler over his house, obliging him to provide for the welfare of his family, commanding, through Paul's writings, for him to love his wife as Christ loved the church. In another place, the command is to love his wife as his own flesh. Likewise, he gave the wife commandments to submit to her husband. He also said that the body of the husband belonged to the wife, and the wife to the husband.

Unfortunately, in our day and time, the waters have been muddied by liberal factions who have rejected Judeo-Christian principles, including the feminists and homosexual political and cultural movements.

But in the end, God and His ways will prevail.

I have more to say about this subject for later.

More Edgy Satire

Suzanne at Big Blue Wave commented on my "Patriarchy" post, stating that my satire needed to be a little more "edgy". I agree with her. And I have done better in the past.

Suzanne is a fetus-rights advocate in Canada. In her honor, I am republishing a comment that I made on another site concerning abortion. Out of respect for the blog author on the other site, I will delete her name where referenced. I might not should have been so hard on this blogger, and since we have gained a mutual respect for one another. But this is an illustration of my satirical ability at its finest. Here it is in it's entirety.

I agree with you. It is a humanity issue.

I received an e-mail the other day from NARAL-Pro Choice/Planned Parenthood concerning a governor in South Dakota who had the gall to sign into law a bill that would limit a woman's right to an abortion. I could not believe it!I mean, how dare this guy have the tenacity to call a fetus a "baby". And to say that a "fetus" is innocent. We all know that a fetus is nothing more than a parasite, and even when full grown, continues to be a parasite.

As you said earlier, no one should be forced to have a child.This legislation promotes a lot of unnerving ideas. First of all, again, it promotes the idea that a fetus is alive, when in fact, a fetus is nothing more than a parasitic cluster of cells. I know you know what I am talking about, since you are an ER nurse. Secondly, this legislation promotes the dangerous idea people can somehow control their impulses, especially those that are sexual. Hormones are raging, and we can't stop them. And finally, and this is personal to me, this indirectly promotes the idea that human beings are superior to other animals. C'mon, we are all just squirrels trying to get our nut in this world.

A fetus is a fetus. It is a cancerous growth in the womb of unsuspecting women. Who wants the burden, the pain, of bearing these clusters of growth to full-term, just for them to hamper the lifestyle of EVERYBODY who comes into contact with them. Nevermind that the Greek word "fetus" translates to "baby". We know what we mean, even if the majority of other people do not.

And how dare anyone even imply that people are responsible for their sexual impulses. Hormones are hormones, and we just have to live with them. Puberty hits and we better watch out. I mean the highschool kids are like rabbits in mating season. And it is not their fault. It's their hormones. How dare anyone even suggest that a person is responsible for their own actions. I know that this somewhat flies in the face of our sexual harrassment agenda, but c'mon.

And, my personal beef fetus with this, this legislation suggests that men and women, boys and girls, humankind, are somewhat superior to other animals. My belief is that morals do not really exist, that we are all just animals, so if it exists in the animal world, it's fair game. The women of South Dakota, if they cannot secure an abortion in their state, should just eat their young.

You've got me really fired up. It doesn't matter to me that a fetus has a heartbeat, brain activity, and nerve activity early on. It doesn't matter that the only difference between a fetus and a legal "person" is size, dependancy, and location. (I also personally believe we should abort, or euthanize, all short people over the age of 50 living in San Francisco who depend upon insulin to regulate their blood sugar.) And personal responsibility, didn't we get rid of that with the sexual revolution? How archaic to think that people actually have to suffer the consequences of their actions. I mean, really, that would imply that humans are somewhat at a higher level than the animals world, with reason and logic and morals and everything that genuinely does separate humans from animals. Margaret Sanger didn't think that a difference existed, especially if you were black. And nobody cares about the the missed abortion opportunities, except perhaps their mothers and people interested in adopting those missed opportunities. And besides, so many famous people support abortion. How fun is it not be among the cool people.It is certainly fair to generalize all of those anti-abortion nuts as misguided idiots who only care that the burden of child-rearing be placed on women so as to oppress them, and that the only people they want to see aborted is the abortionists. Generalization is alright, right Margaret Sanger?

Thanks for bringing this issue up. The 5,000 desperate women who performed the close-hanger abortions prior to Roe V. Wade "legalizing" abortion certainly justifies the over 46 million babies aborted since 1973. Does the WHO have any statistics on how many babies were aborted prior to 1973, when abortion was legal, but was much a state matter rather than a federal matter? Oops, I said "babies". Anyway, thanks again. I know I probably sound like an ass, but, hey, aren't we all just animals anyway?

Where Did One More Patriot Go?

I have been trying unsuccessfully to view One More Patriot's blog, but it looks as though it has been deleted. It doesn't even show up on his profile.

As a result, I am deleting the link from my blogroll. Patriot, if you come back on the scene, comment on this blog and I will link you again.

I Am A Card-Carrying Member of the Patriarchy

I have decided to come out of the closet. I am confessing that I am a member of the Patriarchy. I have maintained this secret for quite a while now, but now I find it expedient to make this revelation public.

The Patriarchy is a closely-knit society of men who have ruled over the world since the dawn of time. While the Patriarchy has over the ages been more scattered and a more diverse group of men, we now are less diverse and more defined than ever.

To be a member of the Patriarchy, you must be:

• a man
• white (Anglo Saxon)
• affiliated with what's is considered a Christian Protestant church
• heterosexual
• between the ages of 25 and 55
• employed in a legitimate free-enterprise business

We secretly meet daily in executive board rooms and at weekend poker games, not to mention on Sunday mornings at church, to plot the misery and oppression of all people not in the Patriarchy. We have code words, such as "conservative", "Christian", "pro-life", "liberty-loving", and "small government" that allow each of us to know other members of the Patriarchy.

Explained below are the qualifications:

1. A man - While the root of the word "Patriarchy" comes from the Latin "Pater", meaning father, it only stands to reason that members of the Patriarchy could only be men. Anyway, women are one of the targeted groups for our oppressive policies.
2. White - Throughout history, the Patriarchy has had members of all races. But in our age of technology and ability to travel, we have narrowed the Patriarchy to only white men of European ancestry. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Middle Eastern, and Native Americans are now targeted groups for our oppressive policies.
3. Protestant - While Catholics and Jews were once members of the Patriarchy, and the Patriarchical policies are rooted in Jewish-Christian tradition, we found it necessary to exclude these groups from the Patriarchy, since both groups are now targets of our religious intolerance.
4. Heterosexual - To be in the Patriarchy, you must be inclined to be attracted to women, since it is necessary to entrap them in marriage and long-term relationships in order to oppress them and to produce future members of the Patriarchy, as well as future members of the female oppressed.
5. Age 25-55 - This requirement ensures that you are compliant with requirement 6, as well as mature and able-bodied enough to maintain membership in the Patriarchy. Besides, we have targeted elderly and retired people as an oppressed class.
6. Employed in a free-enterprise, profit-driven business - This was necessary since we target retired persons and unemployed persons with our oppressive policies. Bantered about was the possibility of excluding working-class men from the Patriarchy with a requirement that one must hold a white-collar job, but we have found that factory workers are just as effective in oppressing their wives as executives in the oil industry.

The Patriarchy is currently oppressing more people than McDonald's ever thought of serving, since members of the Patriarchy are now in the United States government (Remember George Bush and Dick Cheney have ties to big oil), where most all of the Patriarchy now reside, having some residual in Great Britain, Australia, and a few other Western European countries.

Below are some of the policies that you may recognize but did not know that they were targeted policies of the Patriarchy.

1. Anti-abortion: Since women are one of our targeted groups of oppression, we staunchly oppose any reproductive freedom that they may have. While held among most of the oppressed people the world over as a human right, we ademently oppose the killing of children. There is a two-fold reason for the Patriarchy to oppose this. First of all, children keep women within the bonds of our oppression by limiting their ability to "do things for themselves". Secondly, children are key to the perpetuation of the Patriarchy and its oppression. We make a big deal about abortion being a method of killing children, which we believe, but only to the extent that we seek to keep women under our thumbs.
2. Anti-affirmative action: We give much lip service to affirmative action policies being a slap to minorities, since the underlying philosophy is that minorities would not be able to succeed without affirmative action due to, what else, but the Patriarchy. While it is true that affirmative action programs are not merit-based and reward less qualified people with jobs and seats because of their skin color, and that affirmative action assumes that minorities are not able to compete with the Patriarchy, our true reason for opposing affirmative action is to keep minorities under our thumb.
3. Pro-Christian displays in government: In the U.S., the Constitution states that Congress shall make no laws establishing religion nor prohibiting the exercise thereof, our true agenda is not to allow for the free expression of Christian religions. Our true agenda is to set up our Christian theocracy by having such symbols as crosses and the ten commandments displayed on public owned property. Of course, for now, we say that we will not force Jews, Muslims, and atheists to convert, and this is true. While for now they deny Christ, sooner or later they will proclaim Him King without our persuasion. By then, though, it may be too late for them.
4. Anti-hate crime legislation: We contend publicly that laws already exist concerning violent crimes, and that if the motive of said violence is portended to be because of a hatred of certain groups, this borders upon the legislation of thought. While it is true that laws do exist prescribing punishment for violent crime, and that most violence involves a negative emotion of some sort, be it hatred or otherwise, we truly oppose hate-crime legislation because we enjoy beating up gay people. It is part of our oppression agenda.
5. Social Security Privatization: We contend publicly that those so inclined can earn more of return on their retirement investment over time from private investment. And while this is certainly true, our true purpose for social security reform is take income away from old people.
6. Anti-minimum wage: According to the Patriarchy, minimum wage is an artificial inflation of wage pricing that is detrimental to lower skilled workers, as they are edged out of the market by technology and over-seas labor pools. While this is certainly true, the Patriarchy really enjoys oppressing poor people. Blue collar workers are targeted, even though some are members of the Patriarchy by virtue of the qualifications.

While the above policies illustrate our oppressive agenda toward all those non-Patriarchy. We keep a cover on our true conspiratorial agenda by posing as hard-working, freedom-loving, patriotic, church-going husbands and fathers who pretend to feel a responsibility to the welfare of our families and others. But in reality, we pledge our allegience to the Patriarchy and its dominance.

Our dominance is threatened by the much smarter liberal types, who are much more individual-oriented than we, illustrated by their well-orchestrated and intelligent mantras such as "hell no, we won't go", or "Bush lied, kids died". These individualists typically form groups that further amplifies their individuality. They abhor everything Patriarchical, including bathing and shaving. They are hypersensitive to the oppression of the Patriarchy, battling through negotiation and appeasement, their strongest weapons of their theoretical war.

But as has been proven over time, the Patriarchy will prevail in the end.

Thank you for allowing me to finally come clean.

And Yet More Evidence of Perpetual Children

This gem struck my attention, courtesy of the girls at Pandagon. I mean, why wouldn't a title like "Why The Culture War Is Classist and Racist" not catch the attention of someone like me. But I cite this article only to point out that feminists, like other liberals, are perpetual children. Here is the quote that pretty much sums up the author of this post.

With 16 children, Michelle Duggar is the patriarchal ideal; she was rendered incapable of resisting or leaving many children ago (Mandatory caveat: We are officially to say that we believe Duggar when she swears she loves it.) if she wanted to, since she has just too much child-baggage to do anything for herself.

Children, real-life ones that are already born even, are luggage that the true independent woman can leave on the curb, hail a taxi, and ride off to wherever her heart desires. But poor Mrs. Duggar, oppressed by the patriarchy, has too much baggage to drop in order to live the feminist ideal.

The assertion that this woman is doing nothing for "herself" because she has children is a slap in the face of every mother that ever was, including the mother of this author.

In my experience, my wife, who stays home with our soon-to-be four children, has accomplished much more than this hyper-sensitive dateless wonder will ever attempt to accomplish. She is actively molding, shaping, affecting, and educating the lives of countless people for ages to come. She is instilling values, handed down from various influences in her life, teaching skills, and nurturing the personalities of our children, who will in turn, hopefully, do the same for their children and so on. And I am also participating in raising our children as an equal partner, acting as the head of our household, my wife acting as the guide of our household. Part of being a mature, responsible, adult member of society includes thinking and acting beyond yourself and your own gratification.

Our feminist friend, displaying her child-like attributes, is doing us a favor by "pitying" those who are mothers rather than following their example. For in that, she will cut herself from the gene pool, and my children will not have to contend with her offspring.

The Economists

I have two economists that I really like reading. These two guys put economics in simple terms that anyone can understand. And yet, they are probably two of the most intelligent pundits we have in our midst.

Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams is to whom I am referring. Both are free market economists. Both view most government interaction in the economy to be counterproductive, the most productive economy being that free from government interference. Both believe the minimum wage to be detrimental to low skilled workers. Both believe that affirmative action is yet another form of discrimination and only furthers the stereotypes of minorities who cannot function in the real world without help from whites. And both believe that the current system of education is failing students, particularly minorities.

But these economists, one of whom fills in for Rush Limbaugh on his radio show, would probably be stereotyped by people who do not know them as corporate white guys. But these guys are both black. The links above are to biographies on Wikipedia. I recommend that you read them before jumping to the conclusion that they did not live the "hard life" that is the basis for the outpouring of aid to minorities.

I also recommend their weekly columns on Townhall.com. Anything that I could possibly say about them would not compare to reading their thoughts.

Primarily The Primaries

Two high profile run-offs are happening today. In Connecticut, Democrat Joe Lieberman is attempting to hold his seat against contender Ned Lamont. And in my home state of Georgia, our mascot for the embarassing side of the state, Cynthia McKinney, faces challenger Hank Johnson for the 4th District Congressional seat.

In terms of the Connecticut race for Mr. Lieberman's senate seat,
this piece by Lanny Davis, who is certainly no friend to conservatives, makes some admissions about the Democrats and the left-wing of American politics that we on the right have known, but now some of the more honest lefties are admitting.

There is no doubt that extremes exist on either side of American politics. However, what is generally characterized as extreme right-wing actually is more in line with left-wing leanings. Fascism and Nazism, often attributed as right-wing extremism, is actually left-wing policy. Socialism, which is embraced by the left and often cited as successful policy, was a hallmark of Nazism. Nazism began as a worker's movement, the proper name being the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Here is what Dictionary.com says about fascism (and pay special attention to the reference to National Socialism at the bottom of the "World History" description), and here is the same site on nazism. Does it sound like the right wing, who believes in economic freedom and a small, limited central government, or the left wing socialism?

Nevertheless, I digress. Lieberman has been a pro-war Democrat, and now he is paying the price for supporting President Bush in the Iraq War. Lieberman, by all other accounts, is a progressive (read socialistic) Democrat, except on the issues with Israel and the Middle East. And now loyal democrats, the party of "tolerance", comes out full force against a Jew who supports the Jewish state of Israel, a stance most right wingers have no problem taking, including myself. Many on the left are blaming Israel for the problems in the Middle East. Sounds eerily like one furor of Germany in the 30's and 40's.

In Georgia, many on the right have made a brilliant calculation. How better to guarantee the defeat of a democrat in a democrat district than to support said democrat. And that is just what has happened to Hank Johnson. Several prominent Georgia republicans have came out in support of Mr. Johnson after polls showed him leading Cynthia McKinney in the run-off. This has been fodder for Ms. McKinney in her debates with Mr. Johnson. And so the hope of the right-leaning people is that Ms. McKinney will retain her seat. I cannot say better why than this piece from
Neal Boortz.

I am rooting for the incumbents in both races. For Mr. Lieberman, I root for him because he seems to approach issues with some common sense. I root for Cynthia McKinney because we all need the comic relief.

But the Kids Are Alright

Some incoherent drivle from Mother Jones.

Here in Austin on April 10, the marchers were mostly in college and high school. But the signs they carried often expressed the experiences of the parents. Their message: We came to work. We pay taxes. We appreciate what we have here. We want to be left alone.

What really does not dumbfound me is that how liberals tend to find so much wisdom in children. I began reading and posting on this liberal blog, until I found out that it was a bunch of kids who had no idea what they were saying anyway. Liberals hold themselves to no higher standards than children do, often pitching emotion-filled tantrums, and in their own minds bucking the system because it is the "system".

Let me make something clear: Conservatives are not against immigration. Migrant workers have always came to the U.S., and always will, and we welcome them. We are against illegal immigration.

Not too long ago on a cable station called "Democracy Now", a story ran in which a high school student who committed suicide after he was not allowed by school officials to take part in a staged school walk-out protest over illegal immigration was lionized for his stance and mourned for the tradegy. Of course, school officials were blamed for the whole thing, along with the ongoing debate over illegal immigration.

Only a liberal can equate a stance against illegal immigration as a stance against all immigrants. And not surprisingly, since their thought process is, well, so child-like.

Now I understand why college professors are mostly liberal.

Margaret Sanger Never Shot Quite So High

The gals at Feministing have exposed the pro-abortion movement in a nutshell. What Jill was really trying to do while posting this little piece on The Rudepundit was to expose the "Pro-Life Movement in a nutshell."

But it's become fairly apparent that "life" has very little to do with being "pro-life." After all, Viagra kills a whole lot more people who use it than RU-486, or the "abortion pill" (not to be confused with emergency contraception, the "morning-after pill") does. For that matter, so does childbirth

This reveals the true agenda of the pro-abortion movement. Supporting so-called "pro-choice" policies by saying that more people are killed by childbirth than RU-486 is like saying that homosexual parents are better parents because there are less instances of child abuse among homosexuals raising children than heterosexuals. Well, duh, that's because there are not that many homosexuals raising children.

I think that we should impose strict 5 gallon water bucket laws because more children die by drowning in 5 gallon waters buckets each year than those who die from gunshots. (A heavy sigh ensues.)

Margaret Sanger only wanted to exterminate the black folks. Pro-abortionists believe childbirth to be a bigger threat to women than abortion. I guess abortion is no threat to anybody if there is no one around to get one.

Oliver Stone's Next Movie: "Diebold Conspiracy"

The hags at Pandagon have posted another humorous gem today. I have really begun enjoying visiting some of these feminist blogs. I get a good chuckle. I guess if laughter adds years to your life, I should live to be an old man after reading the posts on this site.

Think it’s BS? Try looking at this series of shots of the interior of the same machine at Open Voting Foundation, the source of the shots in the video.

This reminds me of the conspiracy video on the internet that circulated a few months ago concerning the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks. "The hole in the wall of the Pentagon was not large enough for a plane to go through," implying a rocket went through the wall. The same video also implied that Flight 93 was not brought down by the passengers who overtook the terrorist, but that the plane never really crashed.

Oliver Stone has some potential with this.

"Judge Not" To The Extreme

The girls and girl-wannabes over at Pandagon take on the bad heterosexuals now raising children.

A woman who molested at least one of her five children and prompted four of them to have sex with each other has been sentenced to 40 years in prison.

And how about a couple of other examples:

As I said in my recent post “Parents“, Florida couple John and Linda Dollar tortured and starved their children, beating them with belts, paddles, switches and whips, kicked them, and took a cattle prod to them. Former Cincinnati City Councilman Sam Malone whipped his son with a belt hard enough to hospitalize him (trying to “beat the black off of him”) and was not judged to have committed a crime.

And so what is the obvious solution?

Yet time, energy and money are spent all over the country trying to make sure law-abiding LGBT citizens don’t have the right to adopt or foster children simply because of their orientation. If it’s all about the children, somehow I think the priorities are not in order if the folks above had zero legal barriers to parenthood by default.

I find it ridiculously humorous when people who seek to dispel general unfavorable opinions about their behaviors use specific examples of others' behaviors at an attempt to make their behaviors look more normal acceptable to the critical eye.

Just because some heterosexual parents are not fit to raise children does not mean that any homosexual couples are fit to raise children.