Updated States of America - Version 3.0

I read this article from the American.com website with the greatest of optimism, because, as people who know me well, know that I am a bubbly, upbeat, glass half-full kinda guy. OK you got me, I'm really not. I want to be an optimist, I really do. Things usually do turn out OK, right? But here I'm afraid things will not turn out OK unless a drastic course correction happens in America, and I just don't see it happening.

What James C. Bennett and Michael J. Lotus, writing for the American Enterprise Institute, fail to acknowledge in their article is that past transformations from one paradigm to another for America were not accomplished under the boot of an overwhelming and controlling central government like we have today. We have drifted ever so close, for all intents and purposes, to a powerful national government instead of a collection of states bound by a federal government.

Their supposition that versions 1.0 and 2.0 were wrenching transformations from an agrarian society to an industrial society with 3.0, just underway and just as wrenching, to the information society, has some real merit. Those earlier transformations gave rise to a powerful and dynamic nation that steered the entire world for decades starting with World War Two. But since the 70's the combination of a rebuilt Europe and Japan along with the meteoric rise of an Asian economic force has weakened that dominance to such a degree that very fabric of the nation is starting to unravel. The middle-class, which was a singular strength for America, has been devastated and current government and corporate policies are not only unhelpful they are accelerating the decline.

FTA:
The American political and economic regime now in crisis was built for the world of America 2.0. Today, we are in the midst of a dramatic transition to a new technological and political configuration — which we call America 3.0. Institutions that once looked permanent are cracking at the foundations. Technology will drive the transition, and the shape of future technology can only be known in broad outline.

Most importantly, the cultural foundation of America, based on its unique type of family life, will remain intact. This is the continuous thread linking each of the three “versions” of America. Our deeply rooted orientation toward personal and economic freedom will allow us to dismantle America 2.0 and build a better, freer, and more prosperous America 3.0 in its place.

But wait a minute!!! I can't let that second paragraph go unchallenged. First, if our strength as a culture is based on families then my friends we have trouble coming. Unless you've been asleep for the last 30 years you know that the very definition of a family is being challenged. For those still in the traditional family mode we are seeing a troubling trend toward "child worship". Nothing is more unhealthy for a child or a parent than creating a mini-god that then goes out into the unforgiving world with an inflated sense of entitlement. For the nontraditional family it's anything goes, I mean anything. Today millions of young men are being brushed aside as unnecessary and millions of young women are expected to do it all and when it fails, and it will, men in general will be blamed. Families may have been the nation's strength, but ultra-liberal trends (and policies) are destroying it as we speak.

Secondly, they say our deep rooted orientation toward personal and economic freedom will propel us into the future!!! Both of these tenets are being destroyed by the government in D.C. at an alarming rate. In today's Washington crony capitalism is the name of game and nothing destroys economic freedom faster than the rule of law that favors some over others. Where is the opposition to the trends we are witnessing supposed to come from? Politicians? Hardly. The loyal opposition? What opposition? Both parties are fully staked in this game by their corporate benefactors. The Tea Party? The media crushed it with a flick of its middle finger. The people? Lemmings.

The authors acknowledge all this: FTA
As the 2.0 state fails, we are seeing increasing awareness, urgency, and activism in response to a deepening crisis. The emerging America 3.0 will reverse several key characteristics of the 2.0 state: decentralization versus centralization; diversity and voluntarism rather than compulsion and uniformity; emergent solutions from markets and voluntary networks rather than top-down, elite-driven commands. Strong opposition to the rise of America 3.0 is inevitable, including heavy-handed, abusive, and authoritarian attempts to prop up the existing order. But this “doubling down” approach is doomed. It is incompatible with both the emerging technology and the underlying cultural framework that will predominate in America 3.0.

I'm not buying it. The Internet was the emerging technology a decade ago, a real game changer, the governed rising up with powerful voices, and still the march toward centralization and government control into all aspects of our lives marches on. I agree that powerful industries, even monopolies may disappear. I could see cable TV companies, health care compaies, Microsoft and other software companies and even possibly things like massive power utilities lose out as new and fantastic technologies come about, but the government is not going away and despite their avowed benevolence they will crush freedom in all it's forms if not brought to heal. It's inevitable.

It was the at the corner of version 2.0 in the late 1930's when the coming of total war demanded a powerful government that a monster was born. The monster had two figures sitting on it's shoulders. One might have resembled an angel and the other a devil. In one ear the monster heard the spouting of the American Constitution and in the other pure socialism. You decide which was which. Fast forward to 2013 and it's fairly obvious which road version 3.0 will take.


God knows, I hope I'm wrong on this one...




Ugh

It's the Patriarchy Stupid...

I've had some fascination with this Internet phenomenon known as the Manosphere. It's a kind of loose "community" of male dominated, male centric websites that comprise a modern version of the no girls allowed tree fort. It's a bit of a guilty pleasure and a validation of my modern sensitive male training. Essentially if I'm not occasionally offended by some of the articles and comments then it's time to re-do my sensitivity training.

I actually see an intrinsic value in these websites for a young man, I really do. While a lot of it is the childish musings of twenty-something man-boys who've never been with a woman and are bitter that women just don't find their basement blanched complexions, belly-rolls and constant blather about Call of Duty all that appealing, there is some truth to be gleaned from these lads. Adults for all their aged-based maturity aren't really all that mature. A young man fresh out of high school has already seen enough of male/female interaction to have some wisdom in that area. For an old guy like me it's hard to remember what chasing girls was like... Or the inflated bragging about my conquests.

The overarching theme of these websites, if one can distill it as such, is a true lamentation of the loss of maleness in modern Western society (as well as an homage to the alpha male). The feminization in all area's of society, the successful feminization I might add, has left men and particularly young men flailing like a weather vane in a hurricane. The interesting part is that most of them blame men for it. So do I.

These websites, known as Red Pill sites are largely just a place to blow off steam and pretend that they're actually doing something to regain male domination of society once again - but a movement has to start somewhere. It may fall to the generations that follow the self obsessed baby boom generation to turn the tide, to revive a strong patriarchal society, rather than this absolute mess that is developing before our eyes under the control of politically correct liberalism.

This brings me to the thrust of this posting. For the longest time I believed that the hatred Marxist/leftists had for the United States and the West was a hatred of the Judeo/Christian dominance, but it is really a hatred of patriarchy. That all major religions are built on pillars of patriarchy put them squarely in the cross-hairs.

Make no mistake that it was and is patriarchy that has made mankind one of the most successful organisms on the planet. I have often said - to the women in my life - if the world had been left to women to run we'd all still be living in caves. I believe this and if you don't please present your argument. Does patriarchy have a dark side? Yes, of course, but it is a system that is actually good for the vast majority of woman and also their children. Again if you think that what has happened to black children in particular since the demise of the black patriarchal family has been a good thing please present your argument. The black population in America does not have a worse enemy than the cultural Marxist/feminist movement. If one wanted to destroy the black man they couldn't have done a more thorough job than what the Marxists/feminists have done since the 1960's. When men are left off the hook for raising and caring for their own offspring then Katy bar the doors, all hell will break loose. (see South Chicago circa 2010's).

And yes, for the most part men have done this to themselves. We've allowed this to happen. It should be pointed out that some of this is directly the result of the success technological progress has made during the past 200 years. Strong minds are needed now more than strong backs. Make no mistake feminism and leftism intends to add the final blow against the patriarchy. Leftism, when given and inch will take a mile. In the course of righting some wrongs, some abuses that patriarchy had allowed the whole thing has snowballed the the point where society is literally throwing the baby out with the bath water. To a point where young men aren't needed - at least not like they used be. So we drug them as children (ADHD) and allow them to drug themselves as young adults. We send signals that they aren't free act like boys nor do we provide opportunities for them to work hard with their hands and their backs and then when they fail we warehouse them in prison.

Patriarchy isn't a dirty word and certainly doesn't mean male domination over woman. It's a societal construct that provides for the protection of woman and children (physical and financial) and leadership for the family in exchange for loyalty, companionship and sex. In the Christian home a man is expected to provide these things while loving his wife as Christ loved his Church, that is - a self sacrificial love, not with chains and yokes. Simply put, patriarchy is good for children.When fathers are absent or rendered inconsequential children - and especially young men - suffer greatly. This isn't to diminish a mothers role, it's simply to say that young men and even young women need their fathers. They need them to provide an example and to provide leadership. Mothers are expected to provide other essential elements young people require - but these are different from what a man can provide. Modern feminism and Cultural Marxism intend do away with every aspect of the patriarchy. The good and the bad.

I'm sorry to say that a matriarchal society would be a disaster for man and mankind. Woman as a whole (meaning most women, not all) lack the essential and even whimsical imagination that is need to drive inspiration, innovation and other key elements for progressing beyond the here and now.

For men to stand up now in this day and age and demand (as the feminists have done) what they need would be counter productive. The opposition by the feminized elements of society including millions of "enlightened" men would be cacophonous. Clearly it will have to be done another way. Simply letting the world descend into hell is suicide. A different way of helping the world wake up from its insanity is required.

A decade ago a male centric movement was spawned that intrigued me. They called it the Promise Keepers and while I never joined in I saw the wisdom in their message. It was a call to men to become the leaders of their families, to accept the responsibility of being the head, to become true partners with their wives and positive examples for their kids.They put the onus on themselves, did not blame woman and manned-up. I was intrigued enough to examine my own mess. To make a long story short in the ensuing eight years by accepting the role of head of the family, including great deference to my wife as needed, we have a stronger and happier life than we've ever had. I don't know what ever happened to the Promise Keepers, but if they inspired more men like me then it was a good step in the right direction.

The conclusion that the death of the patriarchy is terrible for society is being drawn in many places in and out of the Manosphere. Brave woman have spoken up about how the dismantling of established, successful societal constructs has in many ways made their lives harder. I say brave because these women are shunned from that day forward. Feminism loves the decisions woman make for themselves except when that decision is to fall under the headship of her husband and follow him. Woman shouldn't be discouraged for wanting to work in a fulfilling career, they should not be criticized for choosing a traditional family either.


Am I wrong?








Ugh

Sustainability: Sustain this

If there's one word that makes me cringe whenever I hear it that would be the word sustainability. It's usually followed by a good scolding or some half-truth on it's way to a bold-faced lie. It will be uttered in every "green" rant you'll ever hear, referenced over and over on the campaign trail and, of course, slathered all over print ads, radio and TV commercials like so much cheap perfume.

sustainability sus·tain·a·bil·i·ty [suh-stey-nuh-bil-i-tee]
noun
1.the ability to be sustained, supported, upheld, or confirmed.
2.Environmental Science. the quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural resources, and thereby supporting long-term ecological balance: The committee is developing sustainability standards for products that use energy.


Now I'm pretty certain that point number 2 was added more recently. If I were to look at a dictionary from the 1960's or 1970's I doubt the point number 2 would be in there. Words take on new meanings all the time, but few have such deceit, such arrogance, such an aura of shame as the word sustainability does as used by the modern finger waggers.

Time and time again the finger waggers looking down their noses at the rest of us just trying to get on with our lives have been proven wrong. Dead wrong. I don't use the word "dead" lightly here...

Almost nothing brought to us by the modern liberal politically correct ruling elite is sustainable. Moreover, almost nothing they claim to be unsustainable actually is. Going back to 60's when the enviro movement got it's wings all their dire predictions have been wrong, and perversely almost all their remedies have cost the world billions of dollars and countless lives.

Starting with the ban on DDT to protect the sustainability of bald eagles the lies and distortions started:

(From various articles...)
As early as 1921, the journal Ecology reported that bald eagles were threatened with extinction – 22 years before DDT production even began. According to a report in the National Museum Bulletin, the bald eagle reportedly had vanished from New England by 1937 – 10 years before widespread use of the pesticide.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service attributed bald eagle population reductions to a “widespread loss of suitable habitat,” but noted that “illegal shooting continues to be the leading cause of direct mortality in both adult and immature bald eagles,” according to a 1978 report in the Endangered Species Tech Bulletin.

A 1984 National Wildlife Federation publication listed hunting, power line electrocution, collisions in flight and poisoning from eating ducks containing lead shot as the leading causes of eagle deaths.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that “DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs...

On June 14, 1972 William Ruckelhaus, Administrator of the EPA, as a result of political pressure from environmental extremists, made a one man decision to ban the use of DDT in United States, a move that was illegal. He took this action ignoring 8,300 pages of testimony and the findings of the hearing examiner and most scientists and in the absence of any honest substantiating science.

Not to turn this into a exposé on DDT I use this to point out that on every single subject the enviro/sustainability Nazi's lie and ignore facts - and people die. Millions have died from malaria and other insect related diseases that could have been prevented by using DDT.

Paul Erlich's Population Bomb scenario couldn't have been farther off the mark. Oddly it has sustained a myth that the human population is out of control and has led to a pathos that is seeing millions of woman deny the notion of even entertaining the idea of motherhood. Born of this pathos in part is also the tragedy of the abortion culture.

Peak oil is another grand myth. It is constantly reported that new and fantastic oil reserves are being found, and new technology has opened up access to more resources than could have been imagined only a few years ago. Prices continue to rise not because of a supply problem, but because of a political problem - all driven by environmental lies. Technology advancements will eventually make the use of oil significantly decrease, but in the here and now the vast majority of the people suffer high prices while just a few get filthy rich. Don't think the filthy rich dislike it that way.

More to the point about sustainability and leftist politically correct elites is what they have done to great unwashed in North America and Europe where this evil was born. What is sustainable about the morons and idiots being passed through the monopoly of public education? What is sustainable about the vast welfare state being aggressively promoted by left-wing? What is sustainable about the cost of the higher education and the "university-industrial complex"? What is sustainable about massive immigration into job-starved economies? What is sustainable about government spending that eats more and more of a nation's GDP? What is sustainable about a regulatory and tax environment that favors giant corporations over Mom and Pop's little world on Main Street? What is sustainable about the crony-capitalism that promotes the denuding of the West's industrial might in favor of cheap labor in Asia?

It's actually unfair to lay this all at the feet of leftism, the modern right-wing offers just token opposition and might as well be reclassified leftist-lite.

The trendy lie these days is the myth of man-caused global warming - or climate change as they like to call it. Climate change is a fact. It has been changing, sometimes dramatically, since the beginning of time. The perverse aspect of this whole made up debate is that even if man is in some small way responsible for rising temperatures the prescribed remedy when boiled down to it's essence is massive human depopulation of the planet. This is the end goal of the sustainability crowd, and it is based on lies.  

There is so little truth, because the elites have made it all relative. There can be no truth if everything is relative. All that's left is lies. What is sustainable about lies? Nothing.




But I could be wrong.


Ugh

Professional Liars: Will the truth ever get it's boots on?

For several weeks now I've seen articles/editorials all over the net about lying. Not the little white lies we all use to avoid confrontations and hurt feelings. I mean big lies, with big consequences. Then there's deafening silence in the broader culture giving the liars tacit approval to pile one whopper on top of another. So, am I finally detecting a collective disgust? I only wish.

This kind of lying knows no political bounds nor does it have a definite inception. Leaders since the beginning of time have lied to their people for both noble and nefarious reasons. Parents lie to their kids in order to protect them - so they believe. It's not as simple as declaring every single thing with brutal honesty and damn the consequences. But we've come to a time when the most powerful people lie with such ease it has become a pathology. Even when called out the liar suffers almost no consequences and in fact often rise in fame and stature.

It's come so far that people prefer the warmth of a lie to an uncomfortable truth. I'm reminded of a quote posted on one of my favorite blogs alfinnextlevel.wordpress.com  George Orwell declared “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”. How would people react to a leader who told the truth? Would they even know it?

The thing is evidence is beginning to show that the brain of pathological liars is rewired, eventually robbing them of their ability to think otherwise. According to Professor Bruce Charlton "Habitual dishonesty (most notable political correctness) is a form of learning; and learning strengthens some brain pathways and brain connections; while allowing other pathways and connections to wither and (perhaps eventually) perish.

Therefore, even on those rare occasions when a typical modern intellectual tries to be honest and to think straight - they cannot do it, because their reasoning processes have been sabotaged by their own repeated habits of dishonesty..."

The topic of Political Correctness is ipso facto the topic of pathological lying, and it is PCism that drives much of the bureaucratic lying we suffer today. But not all of it.

Obviously the quest for power motivates lying on a grand scale. The incredible thing is, focusing on the current regime in power, the sheer number of lies, big and small, should have counted for something. They didn't. The President lied about nearly every aspect of his history. Many people presented evidence of the facts - and even when substantiated they were ignored by the press and the electorate. Most people wouldn't want a dog catcher that lied that much - but president, well that's OK.

As pointed out in Victor Davis Hanson's recent piece:
Barack Obama, as is the wont of politicians, has lied a lot — and from the very beginning of his national career. He knew Bill Ayers well, Tony Rezko too. He lied about his decision not to seek the presidency as a newly elected senator, and lied about his willingness to take public campaign financing funds in 2008. He misled about what he would shortly do about most of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism protocols. Obama lied about much of his own biography.

When the president uses emphatics like “make no mistake about it,” “let me be perfectly clear,” and “in point of fact,” we know what follows will be untrue. He did not cut the deficit in half in his first four years. He had no intention of ever doing so. He lies about the circumstances of America’s gas and oil production surge — occurring despite, not because of, him. He lied about his involvement in the radical ACORN community action group, and fabricated about his father’s and grandfather’s World War II involvement.

Tally up what Barack Obama said about his health care initiative, the border fence, and his fiscal policy. Almost all of the major assurances proved lies.

I'm not crying boo hoo here, merely pointing out the astonishing fact that straight-up lying doesn't seem to hurt - it in fact seems to help. Can some of the same things be said of George W. Bush? Bill Clinton?
Of course. Yet both Clinton and Bush we're called out on their lying repeatedly - and in the case of Bush by the time his presidency ended he was blamed for literally everything with such dishonesty that it became the stuff of jokes. Barack Obama seems to be blessed with an ADHD media. Yes, politicians lie, always have, probably always will, it's the ease with which they lie in this current era that is so incredible.

We could spend all day talking about the abuse of the truth the media subjects us to. Yes, including FOX news, but I hardly think any of the "serious" news outlets (like MSNBC) would even know how to come clean while still captive to their delusions of objectivity. The media's lies and omissions would fill volumes - a subject for another day...

Oddly, it's our sports stars that we won't accept lies from. Ask Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds even Alex Rodriguez. Isn't it strange that men who play games aren't allowed to lie, but men who control armies and economies are expected to.



But I could be wrong.



Ugh

What woman want and other unknowables...

I'm only half joking with this blogpost title. Being a man in a long term relationship (pretty good one I guess) I ultimately have no idea what women want and I likely never will. It's because what they say they want and what they actually want - deep down - are often entirely contradictory. The truth is most woman will agree with that statement.

I stumbled upon a fascinating blog the other day and read with great interest because the subject was essentially about the "bad boy" syndrome. Most of us safe, reliable beta males know exactly what that means whether we understand it or not. This article was about today's ultimate bad boys - Muslim men. You can read the whole thing here.

While the article is written by a Christian woman and is centered on the feminist movement's love affair with Islam I thought some of the underlying insights from a woman's perspective were fascinating. Regardless of the fact that most woman would deny many of these assertions if you've lived with a woman or women long enough you know there is truth in there.

FTA: random statements
- - inside, women are like children looking for limits 
- - she wants to have the security of being put in her place
- - they are seeking someone who will put them in their place and pass their fitness tests
- - women want to be in submission, but they tend not to want to do it without some fitness testing
- - a man can’t really pass a woman’s fitness test if at the end of the day he does not have any power
- - seeks a worthy man who is strong enough to keep her safe if she cedes control in order to follow him

These assertions (from a woman) at first seem shocking to our modern post-feminized mindset, yet they are buried deep within an evolutionary psychology that pre-dates the feminist movement by tens of thousands of years. What the feminist movement has accomplished by emasculating modern society mostly via political correctness prevents most men from ever passing the fitness test. Modern government, urbanization and high technology has aided in this transformation. Today's modern man is not generally called on to physically defend the family or kill game for food or even conquer the land. Hell, he isn't even able to fix the damn car without advanced training. So today's women either settle (and I mean settle) for a beta, never marry and become cat ladies or go lesbian. Or they seek an often tormented, destructive life of chasing alphas - the bad boys.

In her article Sunshine Mary draws the distinction between what she calls the White Knight - this being white Christian men in modern Western society (in other words the devil himself) - and Muslim men. Now, I believe most Western women have no interest in Islam itself, but they way Muslim men act toward women is strikingly similar to the infamous bad boy in Western culture. That Muslim men are frequently tall, dark and handsome doesn't hurt. It's the aloofness and the absence of any semblance of male neediness combined with the willingness to use coercion and violence that is like an aphrodisiac. Add the infidelity that is literally expected of the bad boy and he is simply irresistible. Her constant dread that she is yesterdays news keeps her striving to please him in every way regardless of how he responds.

Women who settle for safe, comfortable beta males often let themselves go physically and have little interest in housework or cooking or sex. Their "yes dear" husbands do nothing to instill dread and often fall into the same rut. They too let themselves go and find solace in sports and drinking or some other activity that separates them from their wives. This while the media and society fills both their heads with images and stories of the triumph of alpha males and the fruits of their conquests.

It has gotten so bad that men are constantly told in commercials that they need a drug to get back what feminism and the modern world has taken from them - their hard-ons. One, you never see overweight, dopey mamma's boys in those commercials, and two, try to imagine erectile dysfunction TV commercials running in Muslim countries - not gonna happen.

A huge problem for women these days is that the pool of qualified men that can even take the fitness test is dwindling before their eyes. This problem is exasperated as they age because what they have to offer in a mans eyes fades. Without any "manly jobs" (face it there are very few actual full-time positions for firemen) a young man without a college degree has few prospects of achieving an earning potential that even get's him in the door. It's hard to blame women for that. She has needs, and the security of high earner sharing her bed is often paramount.

Young men around the world have retreated to their parents basements to play video games. They've gone K through12 doped up on Ritalin because they, well, they acted like boys. Now college doesn't want them, manufacturing plants have left the country and the trades are over-stocked with cheap immigrant labor. It's hard to blame young men for that. They get their needs met in their mom's kitchen and of course broadband Internet porn.

And so the TV and radio commercials for online dating web sites blare morning and night. In the end very few ever measure up. Young men aren't interested in overweight, demanding women and young women aren't interested in man-boys that live in their mom's basement. What a world we have created.

As a self confessed beta male and having once been a "yes, dear" husband I think the solution is that men are going to have be a hybrid... Alpha-when-you-need-to-be. Take charge of your life with confidence. There are times being assertive and sensitive, aloof and attentive all at the same time is going to be required. You will have to set yourself up socially and economically to demonstrate your manliness and status without being a full-time jerk. Hopefully you won't have to resort to violence ever, but be wary of anger. Alpha males are rarely angry men. I don't know if woman like violence as Sunshine Mary asserts, but I am sure that women don't like anger.


But I could be wrong.



Ugh
 

New Art

click on image for a larger view

"The Blue and Gold"
30" x 48"
(acrylic)
2013
by
Craig Willms

 From a photo found online, original photographer unknown to me.

 

A new painting that took me nearly a year to complete. I was so frustrated with finding/mixing the right color blue for the bird's plumage that the painting sat idle for 6 months. I eventually decided that I had to go with what I had. The blue is not as striking as would have liked but the painting, I think, turned out well.

 

Be sure to see more of my art here: www.static-art.blogspot.com/

This time I am not wrong...

Ugh

Is it Over Yet?

My God, is it over yet? 


If an alien race where to land on Earth in the year 2013 and watch the news for any length of time who would fault them for believing the most oppressed people on the planet were the homosexuals.


Seriously, I don't give a flying f__k what homosexuals do or don't do or want or don't want. I am just so tired of hearing about it. You would think that they have been tied up, held down, stood on and generally repressed by every single aspect of our rotten, unfair, jack-booted culture. What BS.

Homosexuals have had the culture by the short hairs for a long time. Yay for them, they've come a long way baby, we're thrilled, just thrilled I tell 'ya. Now can they just please be quiet? That's not going to happen is it?

They will eventually get everything they want out of government, it's just a matter of time now, the Federal government will fall in line - as it should. That's fine, like I said I don't give a hoot, not my fight. Even after all the states and Uncle Sam become gay friendly it won't be over, because government benefits was never the goal. Nothing short of the destruction patriarchal Christianity (ie the Catholic Church) will do.

How ironic that the Catholic Church, where homosexual men went to hide all these years, would be the ultimate target of the gay cabal. Make no mistake this is a no holds barred fight to the finish, and it doesn't look good for the Christians. The problem is no one is going to come out the winner here, no one. If the gay cabal crushes the Church and throws out the baby with the bath water we all lose.

The thing is the Church (Catholic or Protestant) is a hypocrite, it's true. There is a biblical ideal which kinda follows along with common sense and human nature. The ideal is that a man should lie down with a woman, it's natural thing. Its is not that hard to imagine that this should be the ideal. The reality is we all fall short of "the ideal" in one aspect of our lives or another. We are all in process, a work in progress, we are probably never, any one of us, ever going to be "the ideal" with regards to anything. Besides this notion is massively overshadowed by Jesus' command that we love one another. The Church should invite them in with all its heart and love them just the same. Jesus would never have turned them away, and neither should any of his followers.

The gay cabal does not care that many Christian churches have opened their doors to them. Even a huge slice of the catholic population hold out open arms to homosexuals. That doesn't matter, the Church is still the enemy. That's OK, Jesus implores us to love our enemies. It's just another thing that shows just how radical Jesus was.

What I see in the near future is a concerted effort by the gay cabal in solidarity with Politically Correct elements in government and the media to continue an all out assault on the Church and Jesus Christ himself. First to go will be the tax exempt status. This may be inevitable as the last vestiges of Christendom finally wane. Then the Church will be slowly stripped of its rights as a private institution, like every other private institution that displeases PCism.

Here's the rub, if equal rights and equal treatment under the law were all that were at stake it would be a done deal. But deep down we sense, even some in the gay community itself sense, that at the heart of this is pure evil. It's the destruction of good. So called gay rights is at the tip of the spear, righteousness plunged into the heart of injustice. Unfortunately injustice isn't the target, justice is. There is only one justice, one judge, God himself.

Whether they want to acknowledge it or not the tip of the spear is always followed by the shaft. To God they say "give him the shaft"!



         But I could be wrong.



Ugh


PS 

I have gay friends, have for my whole life. They are my friends because they don't constantly push an agenda on me or anyone. They have their passions like anyone else, but can read a room and determine when and where to say something or not. This is admirable...

This is not a gay bashing diatribe - if you read it carefully I am imploring Christians to open their hearts and love all people equally. It's PCism that is at the root of this evil of which I speak, GLBT is just one of the many dupes that have been strapped to the tip of their spear as they jab it into the heart of goodness.