When Senator Ron Johnson asked Hillary Clinton about the Obama regime’s intentionally misleading statements about the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, her response was petulant and insolent: “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”
It makes a big difference, Mrs. Clinton. It makes a big difference because the President of the United States, instead of vigorously defending American principles and the freedoms protected by our Constitution, sided with the terrorists and condemned a silly anti-Muslim video for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It makes a big difference because President Obama knew that this was a pre-planned terrorist attack and lied to the American people about it, blaming a silly video that had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Why did Barack Obama feel the need to blame America and apologize for our liberty instead of placing sole responsibility for the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the mindless savages who raped and murdered our ambassador? This reveals a deeply anti-American ideology in the White House, one inclined to “blame America first” and assume we have somehow brought these war crimes on ourselves. That makes a big difference, especially if Mrs. Clinton wants to be elected President in 2016. Does she share Obama’s views or not?
The other reason it makes a big difference is because Barack Obama lied about the terrorist attack. Why did he lie? Why did he blame the video when he knew the video had nothing to do with it? What purpose did that lie serve? What was Obama trying to accomplish? What was the agenda behind those lies? The answers to those questions makes a big difference, especially since we are stuck with this man for the next four years. Clinton’s response was shameful. There are many reasons why she is not qualified to be President, and this outburst by itself should disqualify her.
It was not surprising when President Obama decided to lift the ban on women in combat last week, but it was nonetheless disappointing. This will reduce the combat effectiveness of our military and lead to more abuse of women, including rape and sexual violence. The military’s purpose is not to be a playground for politically correct social engineering. The military’s purpose is to kill people and break things.
First, let’s go to the most obvious problem: Women are uniquely vulnerable to being abused in captivity, and many of the enemies we fight (especially Muslim terrorists) will enthusiastically take advantage of them when captured. For example, Rhonda Cornum was raped by one of her Iraqi captors in the 1991 Gulf War. Rape was used as a weapon of war in the Yugoslavian civil war, and continues to be epidemic in conflicts around the world.
War is horrible enough as it is. Do we really need to subject American women to this?
Unfortunately, we also have a serious problem with rape within our armed forces. Is it really wise to place women on the front lines and place them in danger of being assaulted by their own fellow soldiers? Placing women in combat will make this worse, not better.
It is a reality that men will seek to protect women in battle. This is how men are wired, and men who are worried about the danger faced by their female comrades will be less effective in battle. Feminists can dismiss this as much as they want, but the nature of the sexes is what it is and cannot be fundamentally altered.
This is because we were created by a loving God who explicitly commanded men to protect women. Specifically, the Apostle Paul commands husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church in Ephesians 5:25. How did Christ love the church? By shedding His blood for her, not by asking her to bleed and die for Him. Women already bear the sickness, vomiting, backaches and other complications of pregnancy in addition to the bloodshed of childbirth. Are we to expect them to fight our wars for us as well so we can stay behind and play video games?
Here is something else: Men are stronger than women. Men are more physically capable of being warriors than women. The Obama administration said that standards would not be lowered, but is that really the case? Physical fitness standards are already gender-normed:
In the Army’s physical fitness testing, women earn top points for running two miles in 15:36 minutes, for example, while men must run that distance two minutes faster. Women score tops by doing 42 push-ups; men must grunt through 71.
But those are fitness standards, not job requirements, right? Surely women will need to meet the same standards as men. “Those requirements will be examined closely to see if they really make sense,” the Huffington Post reports about certain job requirements. Now, surely allowing more women into those positions will not be a factor in considering whether those requirements are actually needed, like it has been in the United Kingdom?
Women soldiers are common in fiction. From G.I. Joe to Red Sonja and various female superheroes in comics, women in fiction are just as tough and capable as the men… but that is fiction. Reality is another matter. This is a bad decision, made for the purpose of appeasing radical feminists who supported Obama’s re-election. Unfortunately, now that this policy is in place, it will probably not be reversed. Stopping a bad policy from being implemented is far easier than reversing a bad policy once it is in place.
There is no legitimate reason to reverse the FDA policy prohibiting blood donations from men who have sex with men (MSM) and reversing the policy will risk lives for the sake of political correctness. Blood donation policy should be based on sound science and statistical analysis, not on the political agenda of the homosexual-rights movement.
The statistics are striking. According to data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control, male-to-male sexual contact accounted for 23,846 of 41,845 HIV infections in 2009. This is 57% of all infections. That does not include “male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use,” which is also significant.
It is important to remember that homosexuals are about 2% of the population. MSM are clearly dramatically more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than the general population, meaning their blood is significantly more risky than blood donations from anyone else.
The 2009 numbers reflect a long trend. The CDC reports that 529,908 of 1,099,161 “cumulative estimated number of AIDS diagnoses” through 2009 were the result of male-to-male sexual contact – or 48.2% of all AIDS diagnoses. Another 77,213 of all AIDS diagnoses (7% of the total) were the result of male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use.
There are plenty of donors available without taking the risk that blood donations from MSM will be tainted. So why are we even having this discussion?
The answer is simple. This is not about helping those who need blood donations. This is about the political agenda of the homosexual rights movement. Militant homosexuals demand acceptance, not just tolerance. Therefore, even reasonable science-based policy must be abolished if it is seen as “heterosexist.”
But blood donation is not about the people who want to donate. The focus should be on the people who need blood donations. Those who demand the “right” to donate blood are inserting their selfish agenda into what should be a selfless and sacrificial act. My message to these people is very simple: It is not about you!
From the Standard-Examiner in Utah:
Peterson served the full 15 years of a one- to 15-year prison term for child molestation because he refused to admit guilt to the state Board of Pardons.
Peterson’s lawsuit includes sworn affidavits from his two children, who say they were coerced by their mother and stepfather to tell authorities their father sexually molested them. The son and daughter were 11 and 9 at the time.
Source: Standard-Examiner, January 21, 2013.
About 240 people showed up at the Monroe County Courthouse for the 2013 Rally for Life, sponsored by Christian Citizens for Life. You can see pictures from the rally on the CCFL Facebook page.
Speeches from the rally are below:
A lot of people put a great deal of effort into planning and organizing the Rally for Life, which marked the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that fabricated a “right” to abortion that exists nowhere in the Constitution. With this evil decision, laws against abortion in all 50 states were thrown out.
Last year, we got some opposition from the Occupy Bloomington movement, which also showed up a few days later to physically attack peaceful pro-life protesters at Planned Parenthood. This year, the only opposition we had (other than the usual few people screaming at us from their cars) was a woman who stopped at Planned Parenthood to preach the gospel of death to people marching by the “clinic.”
The woman offered this gem of a comment to the Herald-Times: “I just think people come from different backgrounds and you can’t tell a person to do one thing or another. You can try to push them in one direction.”
Somehow, I think if someone drove off with her automobile to use as his own that this woman would not feel that you cannot tell him to do one thing or another. She would probably fill out a police report and try to get her vehicle back. Even those who spout moral relativism usually break with their own views when it is something they do not like.
We have been wandering in the wilderness of legalized abortion for 40 years. One can only hope that God will have mercy on us and take away this bloodshed from our land.
Note: There are spoilers in this review.
The formula for the Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies is fairly simple. A bunch of teenagers or twentysomethings are driving through Texas, stop at an old farmhouse and get killed by Leatherface and his crazy family. You have to work at it to mess that up. Lionsgate worked at it and successfully messed it up.
The story starts off well enough. Leatherface has killed a bunch of people and the local sheriff shows up to arrest him. A bunch of people in town (call them the Redneck Brigade) show up with guns with intention of lynching Leatherface and “helping” Sheriff Hooper.
Things quickly escalate out of control when one of the rednecks hurls a Molotov cocktail into the house. After a firefight, the house burns to the ground. There are two survivors: Leatherface (who everyone assumes is dead) and a baby girl who is raised by one of the couples from the town, who move to another state.
Flash forward 20 years. The baby girl (Heather) is all grown up, and she and her friends are driving through Texas to claim the mansion she has inherited from her recently deceased grandmother. The problem: Leatherface is living in the basement, having been cared for by the crazy old bat for the last two decades. He brutally murders Heather’s three friends and a hitchiker they picked up along the way, and tries to kill her.
Heather barely escapes, and while she is in the police station she finds out about the massacre of her family when she was a baby. This causes her to turn heel. She joins forces with Leatherface to get revenge on the people who killed her family when she was a baby and then goes back to the mansion with Leatherface to care for him.
At no time does Heather show any anger or bitterness over the fact that her cousin Leatherface butchered two of her friends and her boyfriend. That heel turn makes absolutely no sense.
Lionsgate could have foreshadowed the heel turn by inserting flashbacks of Heather’s childhood where she displayed aggressive, violent and psychotic behavior (with the explanation that mental illness runs in the family) but there was nothing in this movie that would make any normal person join forces with a deranged serial killer who has just butchered her friends!
It gets worse. Sheriff Hooper, the very same sheriff who tried to arrest Leatherface after he slaughtered several other people some 20 years earlier, witnesses Leatherface and Heather murder two members of the Redneck Brigade who murdered Leatherface’s family.
Hooper knows Leatherface’s history of murdering innocent people and the danger he presents to the community and anyone visiting the town. He simply allows Heather and Leatherface to go back to their mansion, making absolutely no attempt to stop them or apprehend Leatherface. No normal person would behave this way, especially a law enforcement officer.
I understand that Lionsgate wanted to end the movie in such a way that a sequel is possible in a year or two. There are many ways to do this other than the stupid and nonsensical way that this movie ended.
Once again, the 3-D effect is absolutely terrible. I have yet to see a 3-D movie that actually looks good in 3-D. Perhaps one third of the movie was in 3-D as it is, and the 3-D effect literally looks like transparencies on top of each other. It looks really fake, and winds up looking much worse than it would if it was simply in 2-D. Charging an extra $3 for that was a ripoff.
Final Grade: F
Over the course of the last 25 years, total revenue generated by the video game industry has increased dramatically. In fact, revenue based on in-store sales underestimates the real sales, because they do not include downloadable games from platforms such as Direct2Drive and Steam, or Apple’s App Store for their various devices. In that same time, the murder rate has dropped since the 1990’s even as our population has grown – meaning our murder rate has dropped along with the total number of murders.
But for simple-minded legislators – many of whom have never even picked up a controller, much less played for any length of time – video games are the cause of our social problems. Because games are still a fairly new form of entertainment, people who grew up on games have not yet percolated into our state and federal legislatures, though that will change over the next couple decades. So since you have people who came of age before video games were popular, they do not understand the industry and they fear it.
This is not new. When comic books were still a relatively new entertainment medium in 1954, the book Seduction of the Innocent prompted Congressional hearings on the great damage comic books were allegedly causing to the youth of America, encouraging juvenile delinquency. As that died down, the focus came on rock music and other things. Legislators – whether it be through their own ignorance or for shameless political opportunism – always love to jump on the newest thing as a boogeyman.
Of course, they often show their ignorance in doing so. Proposed legislation aimed at “violent” games targets games that get a rating of “T” or above – even though there are a number of games in that category that are not violent at all. This is to say nothing of the constitutional questions raised by legislation that singles out a specific kind of content for special taxation while leaving other content alone. Not only does it tax some games and not others based on content, the legislation does not target violent movies (in theaters or on DVD) or music with explicit lyrics.
I have been a gamer for 30 years. In the last 20 years, I have seen one hysterical attack on the game industry after another. The industry has managed to avoid the heavy hand of government regulation so far, and as people who grew up as gamers enter into leadership, the excitement over legislation restricting games will likely wane. What we have here is another attempt to find a scapegoat for the very real societal problems (especially the breakdown of the family) that lead to violence instead of actually addressing cultural rot.
Video games are not the problem, and legislating against them will not solve anything.
Forty years ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that women had a “constitutional right” to have their unborn children murdered via abortion. Since that decision, over 54 million unborn children have been murdered in the womb under the protection of the U.S. government. After 40 years of this darkness, will God finally show mercy on us and free us from this continued bloodshed?
The number 40 is significant in Scripture. Of course, the Israelites wandered in the wilderness for 40 years because of their disobedience. The giant Goliath taunted Israel for 40 days, and the prophet Jonah warned the city of Ninevah that God would destroy the city in 40 days, then relented when the king and the people repented. After forty years of this wickedness, will God send His Spirit into our hearts to make us repent of this great and terrible evil?
We have about 1.2 million children murdered by abortion every year in this nation – an average of 3,287 babies killed each and every day. There were 12,664 murders of born persons in 2011, according to FBI statistics. In response to the fact that 323 of those murders were committed with rifles, the nation is consumed with the need to “do something” about gun violence, especially with so-called “assault weapons.” But we protect the right to kill 3,287 babies every day as a “constitutional right.”
We strain at a gnat while we swallow a camel whole.
In the face if this unprecedented slaughter, we hear from the Republican establishment that we do not want to discuss “divisive social issues” because we need to focus on jobs and the economy. But even with the pain that our economic morass has caused, how can it compare to millions of murder victims who we have decided we will not protect from those who would do them harm? Has it occurred to anyone that the inevitable financial collapse that our deficit spending will bring could be a judgment from God for our wicked slaughter of unborn babies created in His image?
Abortion is not just the most important of the ten most pressing issues we face – it is #1 through #9 with #10 lagging miles behind. It is time for our nation – starting with President Obama – to repent and plead for mercy from Almighty God, and hope He spares us from the judgment that we deserve.
What is the ultimate goal of “No Labels” in dealing with gun control and public safety? “You’ve got to get problem solvers around the table.” We have to have a discussion where everything is on the table. Right. And then what are we going to do? Who are the problem solvers? What differing perspectives will they bring to the table for the discussion?
Even when you bring people to the table, you are not going to solve the basic impasse – that there are people who believe that we should ban “assault weapons” while others believe it would be a violation of our natural and legal rights to ban those weapons. Simply bringing people to the table is not going to bring a solution that both sides will be happy with, because the two sides have fundamentally different views. This is to say nothing about the concerns the video game industry has about being scapegoated by an institution that knows nothing about gaming.
This is the problem with the simple-minded discussion of controversial public policy issues in the news media, and, frankly, by former elected officials and candidates for elective office who really ought to know better. In fact, they do know better. This business of bringing people to the table is meaningless nonsense, meant to make the person proposing the discussion look wise and prudent while accomplishing nothing.
What was the one concrete solution proposed? Legislation “which basically puts a commission about mass violence together.” Well whoop de diddly do. Another commission. Yay! Not concrete solutions or specific proposals for lessening gun violence, protecting innocent people, or dealing with the cultural factors that lead to the devaluation of human life. No, we’re going to talk about it. Have we not been talking about these issues for generations? What exactly is another commission going to accomplish?
In this debate, there is going to be a winner and a loser – as it should be. My hope is that the gun-rights argument wins the day. Perhaps it will, and perhaps it will not. Let’s lay the policy discussion on the table and debate the merits of the proposed solution. In doing so, we need to recognize that doing nothing is and should be an option. After all, doing nothing is better than doing something ineffective, counterproductive or destructive. We should not rush to get a bill passed simply so say we have done something.