The Left Shows Its Demonic Nature in Kyle Rittenhouse Case

 Why did the District Attorney in Kenosha, Wisconsin insist on charging Kyle Rittenhouse?  The videos were available for the entire nation to see almost immediately.  What were they thinking?  According to Steve McCann The Rittenhouse Trial Underscores the Left's Determination to Eliminate the Natural Right of Self Defense.

The American left’s determination to conduct a media-inspired political trial of Kyle Rittenhouse had as its objective the ultimate disarming of Americans and the elimination of the Second Amendment. While Kyle Rittenhouse was listed as the defendant, it was the right of self-defense that was on trial.

The United States is a unique nation in the world on a number of counts, and most of these make us also an exceptional nation. One of the ways we are unique among the nations is that we have the Second Amendment that acknowledges our right, as given by God to all men, to defend ourselves against those who would attack us and take our lives and our property. Indeed, the defense of your life and the lives of those under your care is a duty placed on people by God.

But, you may be thinking, self defense doesn't include 'stuff.'  But actually, it does. Here's why: property is purchased by the sweat of a person's brow. Since most of us work on an hourly basis, the price of that property determines how many hours of your life you must work to acquire it. Those hours of toil represent a substantial part of your life.  So to take your 'stuff' is to take a piece of your life.  And while men do not have to work as hard as they once did, there was a time when to steal a man's "stuff" meant his death.  Sometimes it still does.

The Founders held that property rights encompass not just physical property but also one’s life, labor, speech, and livelihood, as individuals own their own lives; therefore, they must own the products of that life which can be traded in free exchange with others. Further, as there is a natural right of self-preservation, man has the right and duty to defend himself against transgressors, including the state, that would deny, abrogate, or unlawfully seize his property.

However, over the past 160 years, the statists, including the current iteration of the American left, have marched in lock step to what Karl Marx espoused in his Communist Manifesto -- “The Theory of Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” He contended that one’s labor or livelihood (and by extension one’s life) is not private property and is thus subordinate to the common good as determined by the state. Therefore, the individual has no God-given and unconstrained right of self-defense against an individual or government, as that right can be utilized to counter or oppose the common good.

In Scott Morefield's article at Townhall.com entitled Kyle Rittenhouse's Victory is a Victory for Us All, he points to a Tucker Carlson opening monologue:

"So no one with a concealed carry permit is allowed to defend himself? What’s the point of having a gun if you can't save your own life with it? Well, that’s exactly what they’re telling you. They’re telling you you don't have that right. You have no right to resist. That’s the whole point of this whole proceeding. So the next time BLM sweeps into your town, your neighborhood, your house to burn and loot and brandish weapons, you had better not try to protect yourself or your family. Try to protect yourself or your family and we will charge you with murder, and while we’re at it we’ll have the national media call you racist."

So, why would the Left be so focused on eliminating the Second Amendment, or make it a meaningless right? Why would they want to make self defense illegal?  As has been pointed out in these pages before, the Left wants to push its agenda down your throat, and they don't want you to to be able to resist.  They want to enslave you, and they are attempting to do it every day.  They want to put a boot on your face and keep it there.

Go read both articles, and of course, Kurt Schlichter's article while your at it.

Do Church Leaders Lack the Courage of Their Convictions?

 There is more at work in the vaccine mandates, the mask mandates, and the desire to vaccinate every single person in the world.  And while certain people with certain ideologies perceive that they will gain power, it is not them that we resist. What Michael C. Hurley points out in COVID-19 and the Smoke of Satan, we fight against powers and principalities of evil.

For several years until only recently, I resided in the great city of London. I was there when Imperial College terrorized the world with a projected 3.5-percent infection fatality rate for COVID-19, after which the British prime minister, followed by a hapless American president and leaders around the world, decided to lock healthy people in their homes indefinitely. I was there when the archbishop of Canterbury and the Catholic bishops of Britain pleaded with the government to close the churches. I was there when the Church of England forbade its priests to answer the urgent call of the NHS for additional volunteer chaplains to minister to the sick and dying, for fear that soothing and saving those dying souls might endanger the mortal lives of those priests. It was then that I knew that this was no ordinary crisis, nor was it "about a virus."

...snip...

For starters, there is the never-before-in-history decision of the worldwide Catholic Church, to say nothing of the worldwide Anglican communion, to shut its doors and abandon the flock out of the fear of mortal death, which the Bible plainly tells us is Satan's stock in trade.

There is no possible explanation for a decision by prelates of the Church to refuse Christ's injunction to Peter, "feed my sheep," that does not end in abject disobedience. There is no benign explanation for the willful decision to deny a starving world the imperishable bread of heaven, which is the Eucharist, and exchange it for the perishable bread of this world, which is the fleeting illusion of physical health and material comfort that the bishops sought to purchase by closing the churches. It was an astonishing, utter, and total abdication of the most obvious and fundamental tenets of the Christian faith. If we cannot recognize Satan in a conspicuous, unapologetic, worldwide abdication of the Faith by the princes of the Church, we have no hope of recognizing him in our own lives.

But there is more. There is a kind of spiritual blindness that has descended over the Church and the world that is eerily apocalyptic in its own right. Not only have the prelates of the Church abdicated the Christian faith, but they appear to be unaware that they have done so. They now cheerily pass the collection plate and propose to carry on as though what has just happened was perfectly normal, necessary, and done out of their "love" for their fellow man. Other bishops demonstrate an even more profound blindness, now proposing to withhold the sacraments of eternal life from those who cannot produce proof of having received a vaccine to protect their mortal lives. What hope of salvation would the leper, whom Jesus touched with his bare hands in violation of Jewish law, have had in the hands of these frightened hirelings?

When I was a child, there was a radio program called "The World Tomorrow" with Herbert W. Armstrong that attempted to use the Bible to scare the bejesus out of listeners, and of course ask for donations so they could continue to scare the bejesus out of listeners. I fell for Armstrong's schtick for a while, but eventually outgrew it. But like Hurley I do wonder if we are seeing the end times.

Understand that Jesus never promised to save your physical life. Indeed, he promised that his Apostles would suffer for their faith and die, but would live in heaven with Him.  But what we should understand is that we all deserve to go to hell.  But by his great grace, we may be saved.  Halleluiah.  But what the prelates of the Church have done is shown the Devil, by this fear, is an extreme lack of faith.  They lack the courage of their convictions.

Fear Is Driving Policy...It Needs To Stop

Dennis Prager has an excellent video Fireside Chat on the fear that is driving the continued mask mandates and the desire to force vaccination on those who do not want it.

There are people who are literally afraid to leave their homes. I see people coming into grocery stores and sanitizing the carts before they use them, even though Covid doesn't survive on surfaces. It's because of fear. Companies who fear they will lose customers have enforced maske mandates on their employees. But wearing a piece of cloth over one's face is dehumanizing. Fear is driving driving policies in this country, and it needs to stop.

Go listen to Dennis Prager's Fireside Chat.

It's not their fault for attacking Rittenhouse. No, No! It's Rittenhouse's fault for being there.

 The closing statements of the prosecutors makes the piece by John F. Di Leo at the American Thinker on target. In Doubling Down on Victim Blaming Di Leo argues that the true purpose is to get a court to agree that one does not have the right to self-defense.

The murder trial of young Kyle Rittenhouse, the only noteworthy prosecution to come out of the 2020 Kenosha riots, has become a surrogate for a war that the American Left has long tried to keep under the radar: the war against the concept of self-defense.

The Left finds itself in a quandary. They cannot say “you have no right to self-defense” in so many words. They must get there in another way, a roundabout way, but one in keeping with their longstanding effort to defang America’s police departments. Create technicality acquittals, and erect restrictive rules of engagement for police. Build red-tape barriers to keep private security guards from being armed and trained. Overrule the castle doctrine in the courtroom. Build in so many restrictions to self-defense that it becomes a toothless defense.

Like so much that the Left gets wrong, the right to defend yourself against an imminent attack is a God given right, and a duty for all people. What is not a right, is vengeance. Vengeance is mine, says the Lord. But the Left continually conflates self-defense with vengeance and vigilantism. They are not the same thing. In the case of Kyle Rittenhouse, video shows that Rittenhouse was acting entirely within the relm of self-defense, and he should be acquitted on those grounds.

You can read the rest of Di Leo's article, which expands on the theme of turning a case of self-defense into a case of "if he hadn't been there, this wouldn't have happened."  But that isn't entirely true either.  While the Left may yet achieve its goal, as they have in England, the right remains with people.  The fact is that the three men shot were the ones looking for trouble, and they would have found another individual had Rittenhouse not been there.  The same trial would have happened with different defendants.

Meanwhile, Scott Morefield at Townhall.com had an article entitled Tucker Carlson Described The 'Whole Point' of the Kyle Rittenhouse Prosecution, And It's Horrifying. Again, what Tucker Carlson noted is that the point of trying Kyle Rittenhouse is to discredit self-defense against imminent bodily harm or death.

It will be interesting to see how the jury finds.  There have already been some threats against the jury.  How brave will these people be?

Martin Luther King Would Be Rolling in His Grave

 Critical Race Theory, or CRT is racist.  We know this instinctively, because just as racism in the past divided mankind by skin color, and discriminated against those with darker skin colors, so too does CRT, only in reverse.Truth be told, that simple formula is at the heart of all the fine sounding words used to try and convince us that CRT is correct.  But like much of Leftist theory, it is not:

This is seen by some Critical Race Theorists as only just turn around, as fair play. What was done to those with brown or black skins must now be done to those deemed without color in order to balance the scales of justice. It is now just to tell little girls (and little boys, too) that they are inherently bad because their skin is seen as colorless.

At the American Thinker today, Fay Voshell has an excellent piece on the truth of CRT in an article entitled Persons Of No Color. She starts with a description of two manakins, one male and one female, with clear skin to show the inner workings of the male and female body.

The Smithsonian Museum, the American Louvre of unusual artifacts, has a collection of toys. One is a transparent plastic figure called "The Visible Woman." She has as her companion "The Visible Man." The see-through educational toys were designed to teach children about human anatomy.

Her point is that God does not see skin color, and in imitation of Him, neither should we. Martin Luther King had it right when he said that he hoped that one day we would judge each other not by the color of our skin, but be the content of our character. King would be rolling in his grave.

The Left's Political Prisoners

 I have restrained myself from commenting on the January 6 prisoners, believing that justice would eventually take place.  I have grown weary of hoping for justice, and, in truth, the information coming out of the D. C. jail are appalling.  And then, there is the fact that justice delayed is justice denied.

At the American Thinker today, Andrea Widburg has a post entitled January 5 Prisoners Evacuated on Stretchers After Guards Gas Them.

Go read the whole post. This is reminiscent of the type of justice one received in the old Soviet Union. Joe Biden and the Left have adopted the same tactics they condemned when done by Stalin. But it makes sense that the philosophy of the Left, which is the same Marxism as what governed the Soviet Union, would eventually lead to similar actions. Here's the other thing, that is also reminiscent of the Soviet Union. 

Oh, and the fecklessness and the cowardice of the politicians is amazing, given their relatively protected status:

When the American people entered Congress, not a single politician had the courage to go out and face them. Every politician ran away and hid. Even now, Marjorie Taylor Greene is the only politician with the courage to force her way into the prison to speak with the captives. What a pathetic bunch of poltroons we have placed in a government that was created by great men and once was home to them too.

'What they can where they are and with what they have.'

 I had planned to do a book report on Dwight Longenecker's book Beheading The Hydra: A Radical Plan For Christians in an Atheistic Age. But then I read this article at The Federalist by Louis Markos entitled How To Preserve A Moral Culture Through 'Creative Subversion.' It is better than anything I could have written, so I encourage gentle readers to go read it. It pretty well sums up Longenecker's thesis. After explaining the philosophical changes that led to modern society, he tells us what the Bible says we should do to counter the "isms" that has ruined our culture.

Such is Longenecker’s diagnosis of a dying world infected to the core by the venom of the multi-headed hydra. But does he offer a cure?

Interestingly, rather than propose a right-leaning program of direct confrontation with the heads of the hydra or a left-leaning policy of accommodating their subtle poison, he offers something approximating Rod Dreher’s Benedict Option. We must change ourselves, he argues, and live out that change in such a way that we will simultaneously expose the lies of the hydra and incarnate an alternative way of living.

Longenecker refers to this inner change as “creative subversion.” Here is how it works. Rather than fight materialism in the academy or embrace Christian consumerism, we must demonstrate to the world our refusal to absorb and imitate its cupidity by tithing generously to our church and other charities. Likewise, rather than debate atheists on television or construct our own modern versions of Deism, we must show forth our belief in an active Creator God by living lives of continuous praise and intercessory prayer.

In other words, Longenecker argues that the way to change the culture is to live as if we really believe what we profess to believe. Lead by example. Or, in Longenecker's words Christians are to do 'what they can where they are and with what they have.'

Standing Our Ground and Speaking The Truth

 Over at Crisis Magazine, Ron McNamara has an excellent article entitled Creeping Authoritarianism in America. Of course, Crisis is a Catholic publication, but we won't hold that against the publication.

For nearly three decades I devoted myself to upholding the dignity of individuals in far off lands who were denied freedoms most Americans routinely took for granted. Never could I have imagined that our God-given rights, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, would be threatened on our own shores as we see today. A lesson I learned while confronting authoritarian and dictatorial regimes on behalf of the repressed was the importance of speaking out clearly, publicly, and early on. We remain silent at our own peril.

I have said before that speaking out the turth often and loudly is our biggest contribution. By speaking out to counter the lies, we give courage to others to do the same. One of the things that is being foisted on the American people is the idea of masking. People reason that if doctors mask, doesn't that point to them believing in the efficacy of masks? But doctors, like many professionals, must have a government issued license, and serve at the pleasure of that government:

Fear is a powerful weapon typically used by authoritarians to coerce the masses into compliance. I have seen all too often during the course of my career what happens when the powers that be bring to bear the levers of state force and control against individuals and groups who fail to toe the party line.

Anyone subject to state or federal certification or licensure—doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals, lawyers, teachers and other educators, social workers, law enforcement officers, firefighters, architects and engineers, transportation workers, food service employees, carpenters, plumbers and other tradesmen, and many more—are particularly vulnerable.

McNamara goes on to cite a number of instances of the recent authoritarianism that tend to provide proof of his thesis. Then there is this:

As some scientists are suggesting that the ChiComm virus is likely to be with us for the foreseeable future, attempts to curtail our fundamental freedoms as Americans should be met with strong, public opposition. The stakes are tremendously high for us, for our children, and for our children’s children. Left unchecked, the creeping authoritarianism we are witnessing before our eyes will spread, robbing us of the freedoms we have for too long taken for granted.

The Left Has Nothing But Fear

Without False Claims About The Risk Of Concealed Handgun Permit Holders, The Left Has Nothing claims John Lott at Townhall.com

New York is one of seven “May-Issue” states where officials can turn down carry permit requests for any reason (or no reason) at all. The Court is considering replacing this discretionary process with objective “Shall-Issue” rules. That way, people can get a permit as long as they reach a certain age, have no criminal background, pay the fees, and complete any required training.

Since 1976, 18 states eliminated “proper cause” requirements, and gun control advocates have consistently predicted disaster. But in state after state, concealed handgun permit holders have proved to be extremely law-abiding, and Right-to-Carry states have never even held a legislative hearing to consider moving back to “proper cause.”

Lott goes on to present statistics that show permit holders to be more law abiding than police officers. While that is good news, it still is a utilitarian arguement, and doesn't address the underlying principle. Whether or not permit holders we more law abiding than police, we would still have a right, a God given right at that, to defend ourselves with the most effective tool at hand. At this stage of technology, that would usually be a hand gun. In the future it may be 'phasers.' Who knows. I applaud the current case, and I look forward to the Srpreme Court's ruling. But technically, we should not need a permit to carry a gun anywhere, either open or concealed.

Tyranny Pops Up in the Most Unlikely Places

Joy Pullman, at The Federalist has an article entitled Lawmakers Demand U. S. Punish Finland For Criminalizing Christianity As A 'Hate Crime', that makes the point that tyrrany and authoritarianism can pop up in any society. The hate crime laws that no doubt were passed in good faith have not ben turned against the Christian faith, which I doubt were the intended targets. But it shows the horrors that can arise with so called 'hate crimes'. Not only are these people facing charges for being Christians, but the law is one of those retroactive laws that supposedly can not happen here.

Bishop Juhana Pohjola and Parliament member Paivi Rasanen face fines and up to two years in prison under “hate crimes” laws that effectively criminalize speech and set the government up as the arbiter of what religious beliefs are legal in Finland. One of the charges against Rasanen is the alleged crime of posting a Bible verse on Twitter.

“Free people should not have to violate and recant their deepest convictions to remain part of a free society,” the U.S. lawmakers write in response to this situation. “True religious liberty both protects an individual’s right both to hold beliefs that are unpopular with the prevailing cultural winds of the world, but also their right to live out authentically and profess the truths they hold dear without fear of government interference. Those rights are fundamental and unalienable to the whole human race, and it is critical to the flourishing of both the human soul and civil society.”

...snip...

Pohjola is the bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Mission Diocese of Finland. His alleged hate crime is publishing a 2004 booklet written by Rasanen about the Bible’s teachings about sex and marriage. Years after the publication of that booklet, Finland passed laws creating legal privileges for LGBT citizens, under which the two Christians are now being accused of “incitement against a group of people.”

Back around 2000, Mrs. PolyKahr and I, along with my parents, took a Church trip to Scandinavia to look at, and worship in, the wooden church buildings there. Scandinavia has unique church structures. In addition, most of the Christians in Scandinavia are Lutherans. While the state supports the Lutheran church there, it leads to a lot of atheism. We noted that the churches were not well attended. Perhaps this is why the Finns felt it save to target Christians with their hate crimes laws.

Science Leads Towards Truth and God. Scientism Leads Away From God

Fr. Dwight Longenecker has written a book entitled Beheading the Hydra in which he points to a number of "isms" that inevitably lead us away from God, the source of Truth. One of the "isms" he points to is Scientism. He makes clear that Science and Scientism are two different things. Science is the discovery of the world around us using the scientific method: observations, developing a hypothesis, and designing experiments to prove your hypothesis wrong. Science thus seeks to find truth and thus is akin to the Truth. Scientism is the hijacking and cherry picking of some facts to construct something that has no basis in science, or even common sense.

Renee Parsons over at the American Thinker has a perfect example of Scientism in her article entitled Faux Science Dictates CDCs Covid Directives. What's more, she seems at times to be channeling Longenecker in calling out scientism as a false idol leading us away from God.

The mandatory COVID lockdown and vaccine requirements are sold to the public as a legitimate scientism perpetuated by a longtime government health institution once considered an independent watchdog. Instead, the CDC has a long history of offering politically inspired evidence as a facsimile for real science where the dilemma may rarely be settled. Thankfully, many medical professionals have stepped forward to pursue real science: an ongoing inquiry that raises doubt as it is tested with precise application, seeking analysis that develops through a rational examination of the facts based on reason, evidence, hypothesis, or collective investigation.

Today's scientism has become a world of political regimentation and medical tyranny based on "trust the experts" as it shuts down debate and threatens those professionals who dare question government sanctions. In addition, the CDC has deceitfully appropriated itself as the official legal enforcer of arbitrary unscientific principles as if Americans were required to unquestioningly obey its every directive, with no validating justification. At the same time, scientism allows local dictatorial health departments to overstep their authority as the State concedes its legal influence to unelected bureaucrats.

In other words, the Marxists continue to depend on a fabricated scientific worldview that supports their denial of religious or spiritual values, relying on state rhetoric with an embedded fixation. The CDC became bedrock for a delusional belief system as the fabric of reality unraveled into a materialist worldview where there is no God, which, in turn, stifles and inhibits free inquiry, once the very essence of science.

As Parsons points out, when scientism replaces science, people lose faith in the entire endeavor. Because scientism is not truth, but is also resistant to challenge, the discerning person is quickly turned off. This has been the record with the whole climate change regime. People claim a "consensus of scientists" for its authority. But of course true science doesn't rely on consensus, but on experiment and observation. But anyone who brings up these ideas is quickly denounced in the media as a crank. The same thing has been happening around the Covid pandemic. The media has tried to scare the public into believing that Covid is the most deadly virus in history. So far, observation tells us it is not. This is not science, and neither is scientism.

Of course go read the whole article. And consider getting a copy of Longeneckers book.

Fear and Loathing in Washington D.C.

 Andrea Widburg had a post the American Thinker entitled Must See Tucker Carlson Video About the Cause of America's Woes. If you didn't tape Tucker Carlson Tonight, you can find it here.

Widburg points out that the ever insightful Carlson has once again hit the X in the middle of the target

People are beginning to realize that something is wrong with America's ruling class, and by "people," I don't mean people like you, who are actively engaged in politics. I'm talking about people who want nothing to do with politics or people living in prosperous leftist enclaves who haven't been forced to think about what's happening to less affluent Americans. To the extent they're sitting up and taking notice, Tucker Carlson's monologue perfectly explains what's going on at the upper reaches of American government. The bottom line is that Biden knows he's out of control, and, in his fear, he cedes his power to dangerous ideologues.

Fear. It is the fundamental driver of much of what is both the good and the bad in human nature. It drives us to work for fear of starving. It drives us to be wary of the other. And it plagues everybody. We must fight it constantly. And Carlson has seen it in the President of the United States. Go read Widburg's post, then watch the video if you haven't already.

Why Should I Vote Republican?

 W. D. Bert Newman asks a question today at the American Thinker which has been troubling my own thoughts for a while now: Tell me again why I should vote Republican? As he points out:

Really? Not so fast, Bucko. A mere two days after this great political victory that was supposed to signal a profound change of direction in the body politic -- one that would send a message to everyone that taxation, regulation, border anarchy, racism and authoritarian mandates were given a resounding rejection -- thirteen Republican House members voted to support the President’s “infrastructure” spending plan that would all but guarantee the continuation of everything that we thought we opposed. (Nineteen Republican Senators also voted for this bill.) So what is the point in continuing to elect Republicans when they sell out principles so easily?

Of course, this is only the latest example of “moderate” and “centrist” GOP pols assisting the Dems to further their growth policies in the areas of government debt, deficit, regulation, taxation, and control. Debt and deficits grew alarmingly under both Presidents Trump and Biden. Both Republican and Democratic congresses pass new legislation that alarmingly increases the size, scope and expense of government. Both parties vote to raise the debt limit without much thought to repayment. Both parties accept without question the right of the Federal Reserve to artificially suppress interest rates, and to continue bond purchases, “quantitative easing” and other measures that result in a bloated balance sheet, asset inflation and destruction of the dollar’s purchasing power. So what is the point in electing Republicans?

So often, whether they are in control or in opposition, Republicans do not really stand for anything. They may at times oppose the size or expense of legislation proposed by Democrat administrations, but they do not lead. They do not defend any consistent positions. They are almost always on defense, and overly sensitive to media criticism. They apologetically play by the rules (even when in a street fight). They attempt to piously uphold congressional institutional traditions (often to their disadvantage) but they are, for the most part, ineffectual. None of these traits plague Democrats who consistently and doggedly push forward their radical agenda, unconcerned about appearances or opinion.

I am appalled that so many GOP Congressmen and Senators would vote for the opposite party's agenda.  There is a saying that there are no DINOs, Democrats In Name Only, but there are lots of RINOs, and we talk about them all the time.  Why is that?  And no, I do not see voting for a Democrat, but I can see little value in voting for a Republican either.  Just look at the Supreme Court where we now have two new Catholic members, and we are wondering how they will vote on abortion.  Really?

Many who read this blog may know that I have voted Republican at the state level because the Republicans have been the most supportive of my right to keep and bear arms.  But here too, while the campaign on upholding gun rights, they tend to do nothing about them unless we prod and pry, and even then they are likely to send gun rights bills to a committee to die.

So, like Newman, I have to wonder why should I vote Republican?  Does my vote count at all?

Pray for Binniyat

 You are probably aware that Christians are being persecuted around the world.  What happens in other countries makes what happens here seem like small beer.  At The Epoch Times today Douglas Burton reports that an Epoch Times Reporter Was Jailed In Nigeria for reporting on abuses of Christians there.

Religious freedom advocates in Washington are protesting the Nov. 4 jailing of Epoch Times reporter Luka Binniyat, who has been at the forefront of reporting the atrocities against Nigerian Christians.

“This is an alarming development. If a journalist, reporting on the government’s refusal to prosecute those engaged in religious-motivated atrocities, has been arrested for his [reporting], this would be further evidence that the government of Nigeria is complicit in the ongoing egregious and systematic religious persecution in Nigeria,” Tony Perkins, a commissioner serving on the U.S. Council on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), told The Epoch Times.

Pray for Binniyat and all persecuted Christians around the world.

Wokeism Is Marxism Masquerading As Manners

 Following on to yesterday's post, the American Thinker has an article today by Steve Rose entitled The Fatal Flaw At The Core of Wokeism. While Archbishop Gomez points out the pseudo-religions of the Left, including Wokeism, Rose points to the logical errors that underpin it.

Wokeism is fatally flawed at the core. It pretends to be a road to universal harmony. But it will never deliver. Wokeism might seem intimidating at first but, like the Death Star, critical weaknesses make it vulnerable.

The most obvious flaw is that certain individuals claim to be oppressed while simultaneously enjoying support from the government, the media, academia, the entire entertainment industry, Big Business, and Big Tech. You can either be a marginalized victim or enjoy the support of the most powerful institutions in existence but not both.

...snip...

Why does Wokeism encourage victimhood for those with power, pretend to aim for harmony while stoking division, and elevate superficiality? Looking at how wokeism works helps explain.

Wokeism lives and breathes through criticism and accusation. The strategy of “let’s all criticize each other’s flaws until we all love each other” creates mutual implosion. It weaponizes human imperfection. But even more: Wokeism is impossible. It’s why even Hollywood, with its wealthy fanatics, fails at Wokeness. It’s not that “there’s a lot of work to do.” The core ideas of the entire operation are flawed, top to bottom. No matter how much “work” we do, it will never be enough.

Wokeism assumes that criticizing people who do things wrong will make things right. It offers cheap, fast-food-style Instant Moral Superiority for Dummies. But these efforts to solve certain problems only create new, worse problems.

Criticism assumes something to criticize. It parallels socialism’s focus on wealth redistribution, assuming that wealth will always be there to distribute. Both relationships are parasitic. And every hungry parasite requires a host.

This is why when they can’t find enough actual racism Wokeists invent race hoaxes. It’s why Wokeolites have to retreat to subconscious racism and micro-aggressions and “silence is violence”—because conscious racism, actual aggressions, and actual violence are rare. There isn’t enough food for the parasite. The old host was already sucked mostly dry.

Go read the whole article. Essentially, what Rose is getting act here is that Wokeism is a pseudo-religious cult that is immune to counter arguments. It is just another form of Marxism:

George Carlin spotted the fraud decades ago: “Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners.” He saw more clearly then than many today.

Wokeism is intellectual herpes disguised as tolerance. It’s a mind-virus deliberately engineered to enslave humanity by hijacking the ideals of good people and turning those ideals against them.

It was invented by people who want more power over the rest of us. They’ve fooled many into cruising around, gleefully correcting everyone according to rules they just made up, declaring this racist, that sexist, this offensive, etc. But these nags aren’t the morally superior crusaders they pretend to be. They’re suckers. They’re moral fast-food junkies. They’ve been tricked by deceptive tactics into joining a political-religious cult that persecutes outsiders.

Archbishop Jose H. Gomez calls out the Pseudo-Religions of the Left

 The president of the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops gave a scathing speech in Madrid, Spain, in which he called out such Left wing attributes as "wokeness" as "social justice" are in fact pseudo-religions:

However, Gomez might argue the “devout Catholic” president is in a different kind of secular communion with members of a “pseudo-religion,” one which just so happens to have infected his own party.

According to the Washington Examiner, in a speech delivered to virtually to the Congress of Catholics and Public Life in Madrid on Thursday, Gomez — the archbishop of Los Angeles — argued “America’s new political religions” like “social justice,” “wokeness,” “identity politics” and “intersectionality” had “come to fill the space that Christian belief and practice once occupied.”

...snip...

“With the breakdown of the Judeo-Christian worldview and the rise of secularism, political belief systems based on social justice or personal identity have come to fill the space that Christian belief and practice once occupied,” Gomez said.

“Whatever we call these movements — ‘social justice,’ ‘wokeness,’ ‘identity politics,’ ‘intersectionality,’ ‘successor ideology’ — they claim to offer what religion provides.”

And yet, while these pseudo-religions appear to provide the same things that true religion offers, as Gomez notes:

“In denying God, these new movements have lost the truth about the human person. This explains their extremism and their harsh, uncompromising, and unforgiving approach to politics,” he continued, urging the church “to understand and engage these new movements — not on social or political terms, but as dangerous substitutes for true religion.”

Go read the whole article at the Western Journal

Cry Racism, and let loose the dogs of nuisance lawsuits

So, the Republican led legislature has come up with the new maps for Congressional districts, State Senate districts, and of course Legilative districts. The reason for the new maps is because as a result of the 2020 Census, North Carolina added a Congressional seat. Well, hip hip horray. However, even before they had seen the new maps, the State NAACP, a group that has lost is signature purpose (the advancement of colored people) and has instead become yet another Leftist activist group, sued the state claiming Racism.

These suits have plagued the voter identification efforts, as well as the previous district maps for a decade. Here's why. The Left sues the state. The Attorney General of the state is a Democrat, and is in league with the group suing the state. The state judges are, of course, Democrats as well, so they are also sympathetic. The only people not in sympathy with or in league with these suits is We the People. The entire process is a joke.

Can nothing be done to limit theses suits? Perhaps they could remove the maps from judicial review?  The Republicans are certainly within their rights to set the maps to favor Republicans. After all, Democrats did it for 100 years, and the Republicans didn't complain.  But Democrats are sore losers, and like little children, change the rules to ensure they always win.

Why Do Our "Conservative" Justices Show No Courage?

 Rachel Bovard has a excellent think piece over at The Federalist

entitled If Kavanaugh and Barrett Betray Pro-Lifers, We Must Blow Up The Conservative Legal Movement. She notes that conservatives always get surprised by our supposedly "conservative" justices siding with the Left to approve Unconstitutional rulings. Kennedy and his Obergefell ruling, or Roberts ruling on Obamacare are typical examples. As Bovard notes:

It is not an understatement to say this is the case pro-life conservatives have been waiting for. It’s why many in our movement willingly shed blood in the vicious fight for the confirmations of Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch. The prospect of a majority conservative court was a key reason millions of Republicans turned out to vote for Donald Trump.

So the trepidation conservatives now feel about where Kavanaugh and Barrett may end up on Dobbs is both unexpected and unwelcome. There is a distinct possibility that Barrett, Kavanaugh, and possibly the George W. Bush-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts will find a way to hedge; to “both sides” their way into a narrow and distorted opinion in a case that, as Mississippi’s Attorney General Lynn Fitch has laid out, demands a clear imperative with regard to the dubious constitutional standing of Roe and Casey.

To be clear, with a 6-3 allegedly conservative court, anything less than a decision ringing with clarity on the dismissal of Roe and Casey should be viewed as a failure. Despite the goal-post-shifting going on in establishment Republican legal circles, there is no “long game” here. Although some will argue that any ruling that chips away at Casey is good enough, Roe is the case that created the constitutional entitlement. It is the architecture upon which the legal abortion structure is built. Both Roe and Casey must go.

It is hard to imagine a clearer majority that should overturn Roe on both legal and religious grounds. Roe was built on and entirely imagined right to privacy, a right not mentioned in the Constitution. In fact, legally, the issue of abortion should reside with the 50 states, and not the Federal government.

Beyond the legal issue, however, both Kavanaugh and Barrett are Christians, indeed Catholic. As such, each should find abortion in all cases repugnant. And yet, how they will vote on an issue that should be obvious is in doubt. Yet our conservative, Catholic jurists show no courage. It is bad enough that our Republican politicians show no courage, but the Justices have been given lifeime appointments so that the will show courage to do the right thing. Why don't they? Does this betray a lack of faith?

Which brings up the main point of Bovard's article:

If the outcome of Dobbs is indeed a hedge that splits the court’s conservatives — or, to put it more bluntly, if the conservative legal movement has failed to produce Supreme Court justices who are comfortable overturning two outrageously constitutionally defective rulings on abortion — we will be left to justifiably wonder what the whole project has been for.

That we are even in the position to openly speculate where Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Roberts might end up on such a foundational conservative legal question should itself prompt reflection, not only about the expanded role the court now plays in our self-government, but also about how we select our judicial masters.

Bovard is right. We need to change the way we choose and vet judges. We must insist they tell us how they will vote on issues of interest to the people. As I recall, the confirmation of both candidates was in doubt because the Left feared they would overturn Roe. So far, it looks like they needn't have been concerned.