A Dozen Departures:
Twelve Things Progressives Have Taken Out of Society That Need to Return
By Linda McKinney
- Shame: Feeling
- Guilt: Being
- Common Sense
- Normalcy: Traditional Family Values
The list above is the list of the top twelve things that progressives have slowly but steadily and determinedly removed from our society and culture.
They were part of us until progressives started making inroads into our educational system, our government and our "elites" (Hollywood, etc.). (Note: For
the purpose of ease of writing - and reading - I shall use the universal male pronouns throughout, intending "mankind" as opposed to the gender specific male.)
Let's start with the first one on the list:
When was the last time you heard anyone - even a parent - say, "You should be ashamed of yourself!"? When was the last time you saw anyone be truly
ashamed of what they have done?
From Monica Lewinski and
Miley Cyrus to
Justin Bieber and the rantings of
Harry Reid, people use their
shameful deeds as a cliché, "All publicity is good publicity" is their mantra. Forget the fact that there was a teenage daughter involved in the
Lewinski/Clinton "scandal" ("It's only sex!" and "That's between a man and his wife! It's none of our business!", etc.) and the fact that Cyrus's
fans were teens and tweens who were apt to follow her lewd behavior and re-enact it. Forget the Bieberites who now think it's cool to be outrageous
for the sake of publicity and the cut-off point is where someone gets hurt or something expensive gets broken. (Although the broken thing can be replaced
by Bieber, it can't be by his "-ites".) Forget Harry Reid's ridiculous assertions and that he ever said a word. He's a progressive. He's allowed.
the Santa Barbara shooter, wasn't ashamed of his deadly thoughts and plans. He was capable of getting help before his deadly act. He had that option.
Problem is he didn't feel shame for his thoughts, plans and the first two killings (his roommates) of that horrible day. No shame led to more deaths
and ultimately to Rodger's suicide. He didn't commit suicide because he was ashamed, but because he was finished. He had completed the task he had set
for himself: the murder of as many people as he could kill without facing the police. He knew the cops were on their way and he preferred to take himself
out than to have someone else do it for him. Shame was not a factor because it's no longer taught, nor even allowed in our society.
Shame used to be a controlling emotion that would prevent us from doing the wrong thing, and steer us on the path to correct behavior. Back in the
fifties only the wealthiest of the wealthy were allowed to get away with
and suffer no repercussions. Their shame was bought and paid for via a donation to a charity for a related woe, or covered by a stiff double of
their favorite alcohol; or both. The common man had to tough it out, face the reality that he had done wrong and that the whole world knew about
it and his family's name suffered and his whole family was shamed by his actions. The family used to move far away, sometimes changing their names,
or staying as far away from society as possible.
Now, if someone in the family does something that used to be considered "shameful", the rest of the family immediately books onto the Jerry
Springer Show, Ellen, or Maury. They write books and screenplays about how well they knew the perpetrator and how things all went wrong with him.
If the perpetrator cannot benefit financially from a crime the family certainly can - and will! If it's not the family members it's a member of
his circle of friends, union, congregation, or whatever that will do the deed of benefitting from an act that damages society and doing so
(profiting) is acceptable nowadays. There's not a problem with making money from someone's shameful act; as long as they get money, infamy,
or whatever, it's all okay.
Shame used to be something deeply felt, and could be a life changer. If shamed deeply enough, you learned to not do "X" again, whatever that
"X" may have been. Remember the book,
"The Scarlet Letter" by Nathaniel Hawthorne? That book was about the shame of having
been caught in adultery. It was about trying to bring about change in someone's behavior - and thus society - via the useful tool of shame. No one
wanted to be an adulterer after the shame endured by Hester Prynne and it was a controlling emotion for some of those who were tempted, but remembered
the shame they also would have to endure if found out.
Shame: a simple idea of remorseful embarrassment and humiliation that used to work to help society control its animal impulses and maintain a
sense of propriety is no longer a part of our lexicon, much less our lives.
First, there is a
difference between guilt and shame. Let's acknowledge that.
How many excuses have we heard as bad excuses for people doing the wrong things? From the Menendez brothers, who killed their own parents
(and someone commenting on the case saying that it was so sad because they now have to grow up without parents) to the
excuses are growing more and more nonsensical. Being "guilty" of something is not allowed.
If it's someone on "your side", they can't be guilty of doing anything wrong! It's because of "X", or you're just looking at it through your own
"other side" slant. Our guy's not guilty and you're just wrong! And that's just the defender of the guilty person, not the guilty person himself! The
guilty person says, "It was the way I was raised. My Momma didn't love me." or "That's the way it is in my neighborhood. We take care of our own."
It's not guilt, it's victimization or heroism under a new guise. Nothing was their fault; they are not responsible unless they can somehow spin it
into a twisted, but false, positive.
The woman who killed her kids to be with her lover? She had post-partum depression: it wasn't her fault. The child who kills is not a soulless
sociopath, he's been deprived of his mother's love and he isn't to blame. The drug addict who kept ignoring his parents' attempts to help him and
chose to get deeper and deeper into harder and more addictive drugs until he was so strung out that he "had to" rob and murder to get his next fix?
That wasn't his fault it was the drugs' fault! He's a victim! The drugs did the robbing and murdering, not him! (Funny, I've never yet heard of a
rock of crack cocaine getting up off the table and going out with a gun to confront a stranger, demand money and shoot him after getting that money!
It needs a person, doesn't it?)
If it's not the fault of the person who pulled the trigger then blame the gun manufacturer, the bullet manufacturer, the number of bullets in the
magazine, the person who got shot because he had "bullied" the shooter, or society at large because we didn't stop the bullying. It's not the shooter's
fault! He's as innocent as a newborn lamb because someone did "X" to him! He has an excuse! He's not guilty!
This kind of courage is not the courage of our U.S. military members, firemen and law enforcement who stand tall daily and
protect our freedoms while facing grave dangers. They have a special kind of courage that I'm not referencing here.
I'm talking personal courage as in the courage of our convictions and even some of the military, firemen and law enforcement folks out there don't
have that. I'm saying very few of us have the courage of our convictions today.
The courage of our convictions is when we believe that something is wrong and we choose to stand up and say something about it, do something to change it,
to even tell a family member that it's wrong. How many of us stand up to the "powers that be" even via e-mail contact, snail mail, or phone call? How
many of us will write a letter to the editor over a political issue: a pending vote on a bill, a ballot issue, or a local concern?
The courage of our convictions is the courage to put our foot down and say, "No! That's not the way it is, or the way it should be and I'm not going to
stay quiet about it!" or "No! You've gone this far but no further!"
How many times has the homosexual cause been successful because a handful of people
(less than 3% of the American population self-identify as homosexual,
transsexual, bi-sexual, etc.) have been very vocal and pushy and demanded their "civil right" to marry their same-gendered "significant other"? Their
"civil right" is not a "civil right". Marriage was founded by GOD and if (as most ill-informed folks say) separation of Church and State is true,
then why are they demanding that the State interfere with the way GOD founded marriage in Genesis 1 as one man and one woman? A "civil right" to
marry a same-gendered partner exists only in the eye of the beholder: someone who wants it for themselves. But saying that a "civil right" is the
right to marry someone of the same gender is like saying that a "civil right: is the right to marry your dog, cow, or guinea pig.
Yet they'll make sure the delineated
First Amendment right to freedom of religion for Christians is
trampled upon and absolutely denied by state governments so that the
homosexuals have more rights than the Christians
of America; a nation founded by
Christian men (most were), with guidance from GOD, and under the protection of
Divine Providence (GOD).
The courage to stand against the things that are "too PC" to fight against (homosexuality), "global warming", etc., has been so vastly diminished
that it's rare to see anyone speaking out against any of them. The "PC Police" have been so busy silencing dissent that they have perfected the practice.
Their rhetoric has become a science and to speak out against them garners not only opposition but sometimes
death threats, or
harassing to the point of making you shut down your business.
Protecting the PC is tantamount: the ultimate goal is victory for the "correct".
It's control they're after and by whatever means they must use they will achieve that control. Standing against it is no more acceptable than telling
them that GOD loves them and Jesus died on the cross for them. None of that is allowed because it goes against their decision to be in control of everyone
and everything. That includes GOD. That's why they cannot admit there is one; if they can't control Him they can't admit to His existence.
The courage to stand is a rare gift, and seeing it in small ways (sometimes big groups gather, but nothing is accomplished except a temporary support
system for like-minded people; i.e. Glenn Beck's gatherings) is better than not seeing it at all, but if nothing is accomplished besides letting some know
they are not alone then why bother at all? Yes, a support group is good; but if we truly have courage, we don't need support groups because we stand alone
if none stands with us.
Our Founding Fathers vowed
their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor and some gave all of that and more.
Their support system was the knowledge that they were doing the right thing and in following the Divine Guidance of their Lord and Savior. No support group
ever faced what the Founding Fathers did and still carried on. Not only did they carry on without a support group, they carried on and won a war for
independence of a nation once - and soon to be again - great. They persisted and left to us the foundations they laid with some of the Founders' very blood.
Hopefully it will not be our generation that sees the Founding Fathers' sacrifices go to waste due to our lack of courage to protect their legacy.
Responsibility sounds like it would be the same as "Guilt", but it is not. Responsibility, here, is referring to the responsibility of having
a chore to do and others expecting you to get that task done; it's your responsibility.
Nowadays, a responsibility is not allowed. You're no more responsible for getting your own grades without outside assistance then you are
for breathing for other people. If you're a part of a special group (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) you must be given
for college entrance preferences, for instance. You can't be held to your own academic achievements, or lack thereof, but your race, gender and sexual
preference must be taken into consideration (also done for some job positions, military advancements, etc.).
Responsibility means the task's accomplishment lies on your shoulders and yours alone. Instead of allowing that kind of growth and struggle to
build character and to challenge us to work hard, we see group projects in school where six people (it should be "kids" but I've seen this in the
last twenty years, even in colleges) are assigned to write one paper and they all get the same grade, no matter how much time, effort and thought
the lazy one put into it. Even in the current administration we don't see things done that should be done; instead excuses are made and fingers are
pointed all the way up and down the line
ACA's launch, and
anything else that happens). He hands things off to
his advisors, minions and Valerie Jarrett so he can go play golf, go on vacation, eat something his wifey would not allow him to eat (if they're
paying for it, that is; if it's on the taxpayer dime, Kobe Beef and lobster, here they come!).
Lacking responsibility, males (not men) go out and become "Baby Daddies" to five, ten, fifty babies (my nephew brags about it) and have nothing
to do with supporting those children financially, emotionally, or with their time. Responsibility would be taking care to not create a child where
you're not willing to spend the time, money and effort needed to be a part of your child's life. It would also mean that if you do create a child
- no matter with whom - you determined in your heart and mind that you would spend that time, money and effort to help raise that child from birth
to maturity even if you don't like the "Baby Momma". The child is yours and it's your responsibility as well as the mom's. Walking away after the
orgasm is not being a man. To use the cliché, it's being an animal because that's what most male animals do immediately after coitus or soon after
the child is weaned.
In today's society fathering as many children as you can and having nothing to do with their upbringing after you've donated the raw material to
create them is totally acceptable to most. It's the way it is. It's okay because the government will step in and provide for the baby and its momma.
No father needed. Taking responsibility for your children in some parts of society is rarer than hen's teeth. That, to me, is such a shame.
Responsibility also covers the difficult choices: raising a child that was conceived unexpectedly, under the "wrong" circumstances, without a
desire for a child, whatever. Responsibility dictates that instead of aborting the child and making it pay the ultimate price for its own conception
that it had nothing to do with, the child is carried until actual labor delivers the child early without medical inducement to abort the child and
either given up for adoption (a very loving option) or raised by the momma or daddy in a loving home. That's responsibility.
Abortion dismisses responsibility; deletes it. Abortion says that, yes, a child was conceived, but, no; let's not worry about what that means for
the future. Let's make the child pay for whatever happened. Make the child pay for the rapist's violation. Make the child pay for the mother's
indiscretion. Make the child pay for the father's lie that he's sterile. Make the child pay with its life for something it had nothing to do with:
its own conception. Hold the child responsible for the acts of someone else. That's the "responsible" thing to do, right? (Wrong.)
That common sense is missing in our society today is common sense.
Sorry. I couldn't resist a little levity because this is a sore subject with me. People can see for themselves that
global warming, for instance, is not happening
as the controllers say it is, yet - like the "I'm fine, but my neighbor is hurting" mindset of the Clinton administration's minions - they
can't see any real evidence of their belief that global warming is happening.
It's a religion more than anything because the more it is looked into the
more lies we see have been used to support global warming's alleged existence.
The more pro-global warming lies we uncover common sense dictates that fewer people would believe in it and that those who do believe would be left
with a weakened belief. That's what common sense dictates, at least.
Nowadays, we show people the lies of global warming and they argue more vehemently for it, standing nose to nose with their "opponents" and
getting all uptight and in the faces of those of us who can see the noses in front of our faces. Global warming supporters are either blind as bats,
incapable of seeing the truth, or just want it to be true so that their friends will still be their friends. Heaven forbid they be the first in their
group to be a "turncoat" or someone who questions the idea of global warming. It's not popular to be a denier, but it's even less popular to use
common sense to get there!
Common sense also tells us that our president is a liar and has broken every law he has ever encountered since the day he got into office. Okay.
That's admittedly a slight exaggeration; but only a slight one. Seeing all of the "Executive Orders" he has used to go around the existing laws -
even his own Affordable Care Act healthcare insurance law - and to override, change or basically delete other laws tells us that he is usurping the
"separation of powers" idea built into our United States Constitution. The Congress writes the laws; not the president. Common sense dictates that
someone who is acting as the president is - by definition, de facto - is breaking the law.
Yet, there are those who refuse to see that fact. They cannot admit it, or see it for themselves (because they have no common sense), that the
president is breaking hundreds of laws
and that he has gone rogue and is going above and beyond what the U.S. Constitution permits him and is thus operating in the range of Dictator or Tyrant.
Common sense is people acknowledging that a family is
one man one woman raising their children
and that is what is best for the children. A mom and dad are essential to the well-being of the children as studies have proven over and over again.
Yet, there are those who can't seem to muster the common sense to admit that the traditional "nuclear family" is best for children and society. GOD's
design is always best and to deny it flies in the face of logic and completely denies common sense.
Common sense dictates that the fewer people on the government teat and gainfully employed is better for our nation as a whole. It provides a sense of
pride for the employed, a better company for the employers, a better community when choose work over laziness and a better result for our government,
taxes and the deficit. Yet there are those - including our president, apparently - who cannot admit that it is better for America for people to be
working instead of on unemployment for months on end and then to sit on welfare for years and years because the government has damaged the economy
so badly (with a wave of the Magic Pen, no doubt) that the U6 unemployment rate has gotten as high as
17.1% and has been above 12.1% since this president has taken office.
If this country still had common sense within the masses, we'd be demanding that this administration choose truly qualified people to be department
heads, czars and cabinet members. Proof is in the pudding and the list of
people who have been chosen by this president to fill positions of authority and real consequence is so long it's embarrassing!
Where is the whole idea of right and wrong? Where did that go? Is premarital sex moral? If it feels good, do it! If you want to do drugs - and
states are just as guilty, legalizing marijuana - go ahead and do it. As long as you have some sort of "reason", go for it. How about cheating on
a test, or an attorney cheating in some fashion to win a case? How about the teacher who seduces a student? Is that the right and wrong of things?
Is it wrong to take things from your employer's supply closet? Is it wrong to steal? Is it wrong to ask someone who just took the driver's license
test what some of the questions were so that you can study for those questions? Is it wrong to lie to a customer in order to get his business? Is it
wrong to have sex with someone of the same gender? Is it wrong to divorce your spouse when he hasn't cheated on you or abused anyone in the family
(not even his mother-in-law)? Is it wrong to commit voter fraud when you really like the candidate and someone pays you to do so? Is it wrong to
not prosecute someone because of his skin color?
Is it wrong to ignore the Constitution you took an oath to uphold and defend? Is it wrong to use "Executive Orders" to be a tyrant?
Is it wrong to obey an order to fire on innocent people? Or is it wrong to give the order to fire on innocent people?
Is it wrong to fire on unarmed people who
just want to express their displeasure with the current administration?
Is it wrong to imprison innocent people
for trying to do the right thing who are just standing up for our U.S. Constitution and what it says?
How about the right and wrong of internet contact for sexual activities with someone besides your spouse? Is that "just words"? How about porn?
Is that okay: to look at or to pose for or act in? After all, it's your body and you can do what you want with your body, right? Or just looking
doesn't hurt anyone, right?
not paying your bills? Is that right or wrong?
If you have the money and you choose to not pay, is that right? How about if things went wrong and you don't really have the money for all of them,
have the latest iPhone and a
call/data/text package? Should you give up your luxury phone to help you pay your bills? Is it wrong or right to give yourself permission to ignore
the bill you ran up in order to be able to afford the luxury of a fancy cell phone you want in order to keep up with the trend? Or maybe it's not a
cell phone and a big monthly usage package. Maybe you've splurged annually to get season tickets to the local theater, amusement park, or football
games? Is it wrong to ignore your credit card bill so that you can buy the thing that helps you relax and de-stress so that your life is more
enjoyable? Or should your moral responsibility be to pay all of your bills, even if it is a little at a time, and to not push the extra cost of
your non-payment onto those of us who do pay our bills - without the help of others? What is right and wrong for your bills? Should you be responsible
for paying them, or should you be given a break for everything you owe because, well, you just don't want to pay those bills you accrued and it's
right that you don't have to pay them if it means you'd have to go without something else that you really want to have/keep?
How about speeding: is it wrong? How about five miles over the "Speed Limit"? Is that acceptable? Does the word
"Limit" mean anything? It is, after all, a law and you should obey the law, yes? So is it
okay to speed? I've heard people say that they're okay to drive five miles an hour above the speed limit, and I've even heard cops say things like,
"Five is fine; nine you're mine!" But doesn't that word "limit" mean anything? If it's okay to speed, how about parking - even for a quick fifteen
minute in-and-out visit - in the handicapped spaces at the store; is that acceptable?
When you get too much change back at a store or restaurant, or there's a miscount at the bank and you get too much money, do you think it's okay
to keep that money? Is it their loss since it's their mistake? Is it a lesson to them to count more carefully, hire smarter employees, or is it
something that your conscience dings you and you make sure you explain the mistake and give the extra amount back?
Is the idea of right and wrong situational for you? That is, if you think stealing from your parents is wrong, do you think it's okay to steal
from your neighbor whom you hate, or the stranger down the street? Is it wrong for you to take a stranger's seat at the football game or on the
plane because it's a better seat and you don't think they'll make an issue out of it, but it's not okay to take your boss's better seat? If the
mailman delivers your new neighbor's package with jewelry in it to your house is it okay to open the package and keep the jewelry, but you'd never
do that to the neighbor you've known for ten years?
When is right just right and you do it all the time, no matter what, no matter who, no matter where? Where is your morality?
NORMALCY: TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES:
Whatever happened to traditional family values? Did they die in the 1950s or did they get pushed aside by political correctness? Is it more
important now to fit in with the crowd and accept the different convolutions of what passes for a "family" today? Is two moms acceptable, correct?
Is three dads okay? Is it okay to have one dad and four, five or ten moms? Single motherhood is so acceptable nowadays (and single fatherhood is now
acceptable, too) that no one bats an eye.. (BTW, there's a difference between being single and the misfortune of a spouse dying; so let's not go
there.) So what's traditional about that? Traditional family values used to be the father worked hard for his family and the mother stayed home and
raised the children, cleaned the house and welcomed her hubby home with a hot meal and a well cleaned home and well-behaved children (think "Father
Knows Best", or "Leave It To Beaver").
Is the traditional family value idea part of morality? When you look at the transition the family unit itself has gone through, yes; it is part of
a morality question. Two Mommies means that somewhere along the line two women decided to form a union of some sort (emotional, legal, church-and-state
condoned) and chose to raise children within that union. It may be two men, or any combination nowadays, but it's not the traditional family unit as
studies have found to be most beneficial to children. Thus, if it's doing harm to a child, would not that make the issue one of morality; right and wrong?
Traditional family values are pushed aside when Mom chooses to go to work and Dad is already working and they put the kids into before-school care,
and after-school care and the school has them in between. Mom or Dad (if they remember) picks the child or children up after work, they wind up spending
fifteen minutes with the child (but that's okay: it's "quality time") before the kids go to bed because they have to get up with Mom and Dad in the
morning so that they can be dropped off at the before-school program. As the traditional family values get pushed aside, usually so do the kids.
Traditional family values include a child well-regulated by his Mom and Dad because they are in control and they know that they are responsible for
the child's education as far as right and wrong is concerned. Dad teaches us that it's not okay to ride our bikes across the neighbor's flowerbeds,
for instance. Mom teaches us to clean our room and to take out the trash without grumbling about it. Chores are assigned and the children perform
them without raising voices to Mom and Dad and without deception about who did what, or without it being done at all.
Normalcy also includes the idea of traditions. What traditions do we have as a society as well as the traditions we have in our individual families?
As a society we have certain holidays we celebrate, and our families have certain ways to celebrate those holidays. Those traditions are established
by each of us, and they contribute to the continuity and comfort of childhood. Disrupt those things via a new person in the "family" every Christmas,
and that continuity is disrupted because that new person will have their own ideas about how to celebrate Christmas.
Where is "normal" in your life? We have recently learned that
the divorce rate is not 50/50 as we've been told for years,
but is more like 25-30%, so we have more hope that our marriages will work out and we'll make it because others have made it. If your "normal" is
traditional marriage, fight for your marriage. Work to keep it together. Make sure you give it every effort, enough time and forgiveness to keep it
together. Marriage is not a throw-away item and it deserves to be fought for. You fell in love and you said "I Do!" but that was the easy part.
Afterward, marriage is a choice to stick it out through the tough times because after the tough times, come the good times again. That's part of life,
not just marriage.
Logic and reasoning are as far away from America today as is global warming. Remember the woman who was asked what she's standing in line for and
she replied that she was waiting to get some money from the current president? When asked where he got the money she said
"From his stash!" When asked
where he got his "stash", she said she didn't know. Remember her? Was she using logic or reasoning? Does she even realize that she was taking money
from her neighbor, brother who works hard to earn his money, or from your Mom if she is still working (as is mine)?
Remember how many stupid things children have been suspended for school for doing:
biting a toaster pastry into the shape of a gun;
a little boy kissing a little girl on the cheek;
wearing a t-shirt that supported a pro-gun stance?
Where is the logic or reasoning in any of that?
Remember "Occupy Wall Street" and the whole "occupy" movement? Were its assertions (whatever they were besides cry-babying) logical - especially
considering what was going on
within its own encampments?
Are the things our
Senate doing logical? They're not
fighting back against this administration and they're allowing him to use
to basically write laws - taking away their jobs and doing it outside of the confines of the Constitution - and allowing the separation of powers
idea and America's very foundation to be undermined by the one in the White House. Is it really logical for the House and Senate to not fight back
when the president is
making their jobs obsolete?
Believing in global warming is totally illogical.
The numbers used to push global warming have been proven to have been tampered with,
current numbers are still being mucked about.
The fact that they have to muck with the numbers tells us that the truth would not support the PC lie and thus, their control over the rest of us
would diminish. They'd no longer have a strangle hold on the powers that be in every country that has bought into the big lie: England, the
Scandinavian countries and Europe. The White House is pushing it now, too, but strictly as a way to control us in another way.
The belief that abortion is not murder is not logical. They'll admit that
an amoeba is alive and that's just a single celled organism, but not when it's
the combined sperm/ovum of two humans of opposite genders. They'll save the whale, dolphin, gopher tortoise, but they won't save a human in
zygote, blastocyst or embryo form.
Where is the logic in that? If we are to keep the human race going should we not start putting an emphasis on the sanctity of human life? Human
life includes a fertilized egg! If the DNA of a single cell can be replicated by forensic scientists and they can tell you which specific human did
crime "Z", then why cannot a fertilized egg (more than one cell
24 to 30 hours after fertilization) be considered human, too? Where is the logic in
abortionists' beliefs? Also, considering that
89% of abortions take place in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy,
baby's heart starts beating eighteen to twenty-one days after conception, how can
the pro-abortionists say that the baby is not alive? Eighteen days to twelve weeks - eighty-four days - is a big difference. Is not a
beating heart alive? Where is the logic in their assertions?
Juries are another area where logic and reasoning are lacking. Juries are amazing in some of the things they've done. Remember the
McDonald's coffee incident?
A jury awarded megabucks to a woman who ordered hot coffee from McDonald's and then drove away with it held between her thighs. When she spilled the
hot coffee on her own thighs, she sued McDonald's and the jury awarded her the win and the money! Where is the logic in that? Did anyone from
McDonald's push her or the cup? Did anyone from McDonald's take the coffee from between her thighs and pour it over her? No? Then what in the world
was that jury thinking?!
We have warnings: "Caution: Hot coffee is hot and may scald or burn", "Caution: Do not use iron on clothes while wearing them", "Caution: do not
attempt to lick beaters while mixer is running", etc. Well, duh! Can people not think of that sort of thing for themselves?
Gender has been taken away, has it not? After all, we now have homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality, cross-dressers who are not transsexuals,
transgendered, heterosexuality (yes, I have the moxie to include that) and the asexual folks. Add to that the reassignment of traditional male/female
roles and the punishment of boys who act like boys and girls who act like girls and you've got a society that is quickly becoming gender neutral.
We have women serving in every branch of the armed forces in close to every role that used to be reserved for men, including combat, front line
positions. We have bathrooms in public buildings that are gender neutral and both genders use the same bathroom. (To which I say, "No, thank you!" I
have to worry about the toilet seat enough at home. I don't want to do so in a public restroom!)
"Gender neutrality" has led to women being ordained in certain religions as pastors/priests (How can a woman be the
"husband of one wife" as the Bible
explicitly requires of pastors?) thereby negating the Bible in
doing so and what use is negating the thing the ordained pastor/priest is allegedly going to be preaching? (Also speaks to the lack of logic and
reasoning in America, n'est-ce pas?)
We have boys dressing as though they are neuter; girls as though they are butch and grown men who are "metrosexual" and get mani/pedis and facials
on a regular basis. Girls pump up their bodies to look like men on steroids and women are invading every sport that used to be male only.
Boys are being allowed to use the girls' restroom in public schools,
and vice versa. We're not talking just teens being given gender confusing rights within schools. It's happening as
young as third grade! How in the world can a parent give that kind of
decision-making power to an eight-year-old? They cannot even choose what kind of ice cream they want without changing their minds six times!
Worse, parents who allow their six-year-old to decide what gender he or she is at any given moment is not helping the child. Adding to the
confusion of being confused about one's gender is the parent saying "I'm not going to help you. I'm not going to guide you. I'm not going to try to
reinforce what you were born as. YOU get to make that determination and you're old enough to figure that out for yourself. Go with your feelings."
Excuse me, but if that child feels like killing someone six months after changing gender identity is the parent going to support that, too? What if
the child's murderous choice is the parent?
Parricide is not unheard of. Will they support that?
Our children's toys are more and more "gender neutral" and laws prevent gender discrimination but gender discrimination is one of the first things
some people scream when it's convenient. However, laws don't protect those of us who want to be treated as though we are the gender we actually are.
That's called gender discrimination and if I see a man in the ladies' room what am I allowed to do about it nowadays? I'm not allowed to do anything
because he has more rights than I as a natural born female. Also, new terminology will have to be introduced: "natural born" will become the norm.
Righteousness is not a word used much nowadays. I wonder why (sarcasm). Righteousness is defined by Unger's Bible Dictionary1 on page 927 as:
"purity of heart and rectitude of life: the being and doing of right"
"Purity of heart and rectitude of life" sounds easy enough as long as you know what "rectitude" is.
Rectitude: "rightness of principle or conduct; moral virtue"2
Righteousness refers to GOD's rules, His way of doing things and what is right
in His eyes, too. So "righteousness" and morality are tied together with doing what is right. Doing what is right has to do with figuring out what is
right. Which means that we have to figure out who decides what is right and what is wrong.
There are several different opinions as to who that should be. Should it be
an individual person-by-person choice
as to what is right and wrong? If it's an individual choice, then
how old do you have to be to figure out right and wrong?
If it's an
individual choice the person who decides that raping a child is okay with
his ideas of right and wrong should be allowed to rape a child because that individual is doing what is right in his own ideals. Individual choice as
to what is right or wrong leads to this type of result. There is no denying that.
group-think? Should it be a society that decides what is right and wrong within its
confines? For instance (to be ridiculous about it), should an isolated town in the boonies be allowed to vote that if strangers come visiting town
the townspeople get to take everything the visitors have and send them walking out of town with just the clothes on their backs? What if the visitors
don't think that is what is right? Should they be forced to agree to give the town everything that they own except the clothes on their backs because
that's what the town voted fifty years ago? The two rights and wrongs collide there. Whose should prevail: the majority rule of the town's people or
the two visitors?
If you agree that the majority should rule in that instance, then what if it were you who went to that town? What if the vote had been to kill all
visitors because the town didn't want visitors at all? They considered visitors contaminated and if you visited them, they'd have the right to kill
you. Would that be okay with you? What about your right to life? Would that be something you'd be willing to give up because of "majority rule"?
Okay, we've covered individual choice and small group choice, how about large group choice? Should right and wrong be decided by large groups? In
large groups you have more people represented and that leads to a smaller chance of extremism in the law; but that's only a "smaller chance". It does
not prevent it.
Take, for instance, the current healthcare law. People were against it in droves but that didn't prevent it from being pushed through by a
Congress and Senate that totally disregarded what the people wanted and who flaunted their disregard and congratulated themselves on it. A certain
proportion of the population wanted what they thought (and were sadly disappointed that it was not so) would be a free ride: everyone else paying for
their every medical want and need. Want a nose job? The A.C.A. will pay for that! Want a boob job? No worries: the taxpayers will do that for you!
Need an appendectomy? Just show up! It's covered!
Totally disregarding the large number of people who were against the whole idea, didn't want the law passed and still don't like it and refuse to
sign up for it, the large group of the lazy, greedy and political vote-buyers pushed it through. Is that what is right? Was that group large enough
to decide for you and I what is right for us?
After 9/11 America was united in our desire to find and punish those who were responsible for and paid for the attacks on our country. We wanted
to figure out who, why and how; we already knew the what, where and when. I'd say that finding and punishing the countries responsible for the
attacks was something that more of us were in favor of than almost anything in the last twenty-five years. We chose to go about it in a particular
way, but what if we had chosen to go about it in a different way? What if, instead of doing the things we did we chose to drop multiple nuclear bombs
on the Middle East countries that financed and aided in the attacks and basically wipe them off the map? Would that have been acceptable? A lot of
people supported the idea of finding the responsible people and punishing them. Would that have been acceptable? Or would that have been abhorrent?
From where do right and wrong come? If it's not an individual choice and it's not group think, then who decides?
Right and wrong - and thereby, righteousness - come from GOD and
we are apparently hard wired with His moral system from the get-go. He alone is worthy of deciding
what is right and wrong because He is holy, without sin (incapable of sinning),
He designed us and
gave us consciences (the connection to His rules that convicts our hearts and makes us feel bad
when we do something we inherently know is wrong) and He loves us. He loves us so much that He sent His Only Begotten Son to die on a cross for us
so that all of our sins can be punished by the death of His Son, who was also sinless. That's not a loving GOD who would send His Son to die for us
sinners, you say. Oh, but He is. Have you never seen a soldier's funeral? He died for your freedom and your future. He loved you, his family and his
country so much that he gave his life for us, for them, for his country. If a man, a sinner, can do that and accomplish the future freedom of his
children and survivors, then GOD's sinless Son who gave Himself to be killed on a cross for us so that we can accept Him and believe in His sacrifice
and GOD's forgiveness of our sins can accomplish our eternal lives in heaven with Him and His Father.
Only GOD has the right - and the righteousness - to decide for the whole world what is right and what is wrong. It must be a decision made from
outside of ourselves because we are fallible and we are flawed. Our own ideas, plans, sins and flaws get in the way of our decision making process.
If it's individual, we've seen how that can go horribly wrong; same with small or big groups. It must be a universal right and wrong and it must be
from GOD because the rest of us are not qualified, worthy, nor intelligent enough to decide.
Universally, rape is wrong. In America as well as India, Japan, Russia, China, the Middle East (although they blame the victim instead of the
perpetrator), Brazil, Norway, France and elsewhere, rape is wrong. That's a universal truth. That tells us that GOD decided that rape is wrong and
that He put that into our consciences. In our hearts we know that it's wrong, although some will still ignore that acid drip on our hearts and still
make excuses for it and still support those who want to do wrong. Even among those who break the laws GOD made for us, there are some rules that
should not be broken because we all know that there is wrong, and there is very wrong. Pedophilia being a "very wrong" even our inmates who have
done wrong will adjudicate among themselves and punish the perpetrator in their own way. So even those who know they've done wrong can recognize
the degrees of wrong.
Right and wrong come from GOD and that's irrefutable. We all know wrong when we see it - or at least we used to. Nowadays we have negated the
whole idea of right and wrong and we have chosen to placate the loud and obnoxious and agreed to not make anyone feel bad about the wrong choices
they've made unless it impacts a lot of people. The Menendez brothers got sympathy even though they murdered their parents. How many people knew
O.J. Simpson got off because of the race card?
How many of us know that the only reason the current president is getting away with what he's doing because of the same race card? How many of us
look the other way instead of standing up against the
homosexual agenda and acquiesce to its demands and its dilution of American culture because
otherwise we'd be excoriated by those who kowtow to the politically correct?
Righteousness: it used to be that America was the only country on earth that even regarded it as a standard. We used to want to be righteous.
Our Founding Fathers desired righteousness. Yet,
today, we have turned our backs on righteousness for the sake of allowing our inner animals to rule our ideas of right and wrong. The problem with
that is that animals have no idea of right and wrong. Domesticated animals learn "No" and learn to not do certain things, but they don't have an idea
of right and wrong. They don't obey because it's the right thing to do; they obey because in doing so they get a reward or don't get punished. It's
behavior modification based on reward/punish and learning what action gets them the reward. That's not learning right and wrong. That's learning
which hand feeds you.
Righteousness is now a bygone era in America. As such, we have lost our moral foundation, have lost our leadership right in world events and we
are no longer looked to as
Pres. Ronald Reagan's "shining city on a hill". Our moral
high ground to be the arbiter of certain world situations has been so diminished and damaged by the choice to listen to satan (I refuse to capitalize
his name) rather than to GOD that America is now laughed at and distrusted. Part of that is indeed caused by our current administration. However,
our Founding Fathers' desire to establish and maintain a righteous nation upon this earth still lives within the hearts of some of us, but for the
most part, it is so very trampled upon that its "shining" has become almost completely blacked out and instead of being a
beacon we have now a tealight candle and even its flame
flickers and wanes.
Joy! I'm not talking happiness. I'm talking JOY! Joy, as defined by Webster's3 is:
"1. [T]he emotion of great delight or happiness caused by something exceptionally good or satisfying; keen pleasure; elation"
As defined by Wycliffe Bible Dictionary4, joy:
"comes from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Christian Community, is a basic characteristic of the kingdom of GOD. [my caps]"
Unger's (page 631) defines joy5 as:
1. Joy is a delight of the mind arising from the consideration of a present, or assured possession of a future good."
The best definition of joy that I've found is in Today's Dictionary of the Bible6:
"[A]n attribute of GOD according to the scriptures (Deut. 28:63; 20:9; Jer. 32:41) and second in the list of fruit of the Spirit
cataloged by Paul in Gal. 5:22, 23. Joy is referred to countless times in Scripture, and is often mistakenly made synonymous with happiness,
although the two qualities are quite different. Happiness tends to come out of circumstances that are happy, while joy comes despite
circumstances (i.e. Paul and Silas were joyful in prison, Acts 16:23-33, and Jesus knew joy at the cross, Heb. 12:2). [my caps]"
Joy has departed because we've kicked GOD out of:
the public schools, at least
one political party,
society at large
and - in some cases -
even our churches. Look at the Protestant religions and how
politically correct they've gone. Some religions have gone so far away from GOD as to either have
already condoned homosexual "marriage" or they have gone even further than
that and have
condoned homosexuals in the pulpit and as leaders
within the hierarchy of the church as a whole.
When was the last time you saw joy in the Middle Eastern Muslim countries: caveat that to include without celebration of multiple deaths of
infidels? Where is joy in other countries? It's not there. Tom Cruise may jump on a couch and act goofy because he's happy, but can Scientology -
a religion that teaches that
aliens inhabit our bodies and Scientology cleanses them from our bodies via bio-feedback and
answering personally invasive questions - give you true joy since it has no clue as to who GOD is? Am I asserting that only Christians - Bible
believing, Jesus Christ trusting, born again Christians - can have joy? No. I'm only saying what the Bible says and I believe the Bible absolutely,
totally and irrevocably.
I can speak to this issue personally, too. I have joy. I know the Lord God Almighty and I have been given the gift of joy and I appreciate it daily.
Even when I was a child and a teen, in bad circumstances and in good, I had joy. I didn't know before I accepted Christ at age fifteen where it came
from, but since I've believed in GOD and His Son since I was tiny, I believe that GOD gave me that gift to help me through. My earthly Dad was not a
nice man. He abused the family physically, emotionally and sexually. He beat us, tried to starve us, killed our pets and beat our mother in front of
us while forcing us to sit on the couch and watch. He was pure evil. Most people assume he drank and that's what made him so evil. He did not. He took
over six months to drink a six pack of beer; longer to drink a bottle of hard liquor. In spite of that abuse, I have joy.
Joy comes in knowing that no matter what, it's always a good day. When my fifth favorite person on earth died -- my husband's Grandpa -- I was so
sad, but I was also joyous. I smiled throughout his funeral. I couldn't help myself! I knew that Grandpa knew Jesus as his Lord and Savior and that
I'd see him again in heaven and that as I said my final earthly "Good-bye" to him at his funeral, Grandpa was walking streets of gold, in the presence
of GOD and His pure, unadulterated LOVE and that Grandpa had full use of his faculties and no pain or illness in his body (there is no sickness in
heaven). Joy exists even in sorrow and pain, illness and torture (as Heb. 12:2 says), while happiness does not.
Some people try to equate temporary pleasures with joy: going to a party and having a "good time" is not joy. Getting drunk at a club every weekend
is not joy. Even having a baby is not joy - it comes close, I agree: I've had two children and I know. But in that experience, laying aside the daily
joy that comes from the Lord, was happiness in knowing that they were healthy, perfectly formed, beautiful, mine, a future for our family, the
fulfillment of a dream, my husband and I joined as one and other things, but the daily joy did not come from having our two sons. It was there already.
Joy comes from knowing GOD and serving Him. Joy is a special gift that makes such a difference in how things are seen and how life is lived. Joy is
hopeful although hope is not something most folks would see. Joy believes, although most have given up. Joy rejoices (root word: joy) in the bad times
and in the good.
Joy gives us strength
and courage, encourages creativity and prompts generosity. Joy connects us to the Most High GOD when we're burdened and heavy laden and gives us a
smile that can light up a room as well as the sky. Joy bounces when all others drag. Joy scrunches up its nose and puts a twinkle in the eye when all
others cry. Joy dances without music, delights in the little things as well as the big and sees GOD in all things. Joy loves without being loved back.
Joy sparkles in laughter and comes in the morning like the sun as we open our eyes. Joy sings while you sleep and worships GOD with each wakeful moment.
All of that, sadly, is mostly gone from our society as the progressives/lefties have redefined what a good time is, what happiness is, and wiped GOD
from our schools, government and the town square.
Progressives have been fighting the very idea of GOD - the One True GOD -
almost since time began. They've created multiple gods since the
time of Jacob in Genesis 31:19 where the Bible says that
Rachel stole her father's idols. Idols are statues of or to false gods. So we know that at least in
the very early history of the earth false gods were already around. A false god's "duty", if you will, is to distract people from the One True GOD, the
GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; Father of/Co-Creator with Jesus Christ (see
John 1:1-5), Jehovah, the Lord GOD Almighty.
Madelyn Murray O'Hair law suit that basically
removed GOD from America's public schools we have been slowly but steadily removing GOD from America. First the schools kowtowed to the law suit and
prayer, the pledge of allegiance and other mentions of the GOD of the Christian Bible were done away with. Challenges to nativity scenes in public places
(the first I found in
1969 by the ACLU) as well as displays of the
statues of Jesus
were challenged and government entities caved and shivered in the corner screaming, "Just don't hurt us!" instead of standing for what was right and
for what the majority of the American people believed in and for what our
Founding Fathers demonstrably said over and over again; that America was
founded with the guidance of Divine Providence (GOD), with the help of the Almighty (GOD), with faith in GOD and His Son. Read the writings of the
Wallbuilders.com or the
minutes of the earliest Congressional meetings.
You will find there that the Founders really were Christians - a lot of them
ordained pastors/preachers, biblical scholars, co-publishers of Bibles.
If the Founders did not want this to be a Christian nation,
why mention GOD so much in their own writings
about the founding of this great nation?
Yet, when progressives start making any kind of scratching, clawing noises as though they're going to blow a gasket because the City, State, or
America has something to do with a display that depicts a cross, a nativity, a student mentioning GOD in his Salutatorian speech, or praying over lunch,
or the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, a certain portion of the rest of us has done the only thing they have the spine to do: an immediate cave,
acquiescing to whatever the progressives/lefties want just to keep them quiet. With each victory over a religious symbol, prayer in school, etc., the
progressives get bolder and more demanding and they push harder and demand more because for the most part there has been no push back.
GOD is out of our public schools as a part of education: including the idea of His hand in creating our universe and ourselves, as well as the idea
that morality has anything at all to do with sexual conduct. Schools teach
"If it feels good, do it",
and abortion as the norm, showing third graders how to put a condom on a banana instead of teaching them that they are more than animals and they have
the ability to control themselves and to make wise choices. They don't teach that a child at an early age will change their lives forever, or that a
child is a huge responsibility. Nor do they teach that the child and the child's mother will suffer for their lack of involvement in their lives.
Progressives want children born out of wedlock because it keeps people dependent upon the government to get food, shelter, clothing and that, in the
progressives' mind, is the whole point: dependency.
Instead of using self-control and making wise choices, progressives want people to be animalistic and to not use their above-their-shoulders-brain
while in a tempting situation because if they can do that, they can also drive a wedge of despair, want and contempt between those who participate in
the animal behavior and the GOD who says, "No. Don't do that. I have better for you!" They teach people to think "If there was a GOD He wouldn't have
allowed me to get pregnant." or "If there was a GOD He wouldn't have allowed my husband to leave me for another woman." Despair saps our strength and
our despair leads to a search for comfort and a search for comfort leads to another encounter and another child without a stable traditional family.
Progressives instead, focus our attention on the god of
"Mother Earth: Gaia" and saving the whales, tortoise, stopping a non-existent global warming. It's not
the family we should save, "Look! A dolphin is drowning!" Meanwhile, the needs of the child in a mother's arms are neglected by progressives because
the human child is the enemy. That child draws resources from "Mother Earth" (GOD's creation, not "Mother Earth" and He will
"provide all your needs according to His riches and glory in Christ Jesus, Amen.") and that's a
bad thing. The child leaves a
"carbon footprint" so people shouldn't have children: abort the child but
save the gopher tortoise! It's a movement in the environmentalist wacko field to
not have children because of the enlarged "carbon footprint".
Never mind that GOD said for mankind to
"be fruitful and multiply" and that
He would provide our needs. Never mind that GOD says that He loves the children and
"whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me". Abortion is an offense, don't you
GOD's ways of doing things is far better than anything man has come up with. GOD created male and female and
one man + one woman = marriage. Nowadays, we have states legalizing
homosexual "marriage" and there's a recent court decision that allows polygamy. That's not what GOD designed. GOD designed Adam and Eve to be man and
wife; one man and one woman.
Distorting that at our own risk they've exchanged their natural lusts
(Romans 1:26-27) toward the unnatural and that proves that it's a choice to be homosexual; if
"they've exchanged" that means that they chose, not that GOD created. They were not born that way; "they've exchanged their natural lusts". GOD
created us sexual beings (remember, He commanded us to
"be fruitful and multiply" and He wasn't talking math!) but He does create something that He
considers an abomination. GOD doesn't make sin - He's incapable of sinning and creating sin would be the same as sinning - so He couldn't have
made people be born already, DNA designed (NOT), to be homosexual since He considers homosexuality an abomination. That would be contrary to
who He is. It would be so very counterproductive that it makes no sense whatsoever. For the most part the homosexual community has turned it back on
GOD and has denied His existence so that they can flagrantly disregard His rules, His design, His love - and GOD does love homosexuals, but He does
not love their sin. That's okay, though, because He doesn't love my sin, either. GOD does not like sin, period; homosexual or otherwise.
A "white lie" is still a lie and
GOD abhors liars. Lying made the top ten of GOD's list, but so did sexual sin in commandment seven and
one could say it could be covered in the tenth commandment as well, the commandment to not covet includes someone else's body if you're not married
(GOD's definition) to them. GOD loves everyone but He hates lies. In our society, we love the lie. We pay people to lie (attorneys, weather people,
politicians). We think lying is okay as long as it suits our present needs. Who cares that it's a sin and that GOD said not to do so? It's okay as
long as it gets us what we want. Does anything else matter?
These things are the things that progressives have done away with in our society. Have they done away with other things as well? Absolutely: but I
believe these things are the most important things that they've done away with. I also believe that these things can be brought back with a few
hard-fought battles and with hard work. I also believe that our country - that "shining city on a hill" - will all be the better if and when we do.
- Unger's Bible Dictionary Merrill F. Unger, Moody Press, Chicago, 1966, seventeenth printing 1971, pp. 927
- Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary Special Second Edition, 2001, ISBN0-375-42566-7, pp. 1614
- Ibid: pp 1035
- Wycliffe Bible Dictionary Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard F. Vos and John Rea Editors, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Peabody
Massachusetts, 1975, Fourth Printing November 2000, ISBN 1-56563-362-8, pp 963
- Unger's Bible Dictionary Merrill F. Unger, Moody Press, Chicago, 1966, seventeenth printing 1971, pp.631
- Today's Dictionary of the Bible Compiled by T.A. Bryant, Guideposts Edition, Bethany House Publishers, A Division of Bethany
Fellowship, Inc. Minneapolis, MN, 1972, ISBN 0-87123-569-2, pp 361
Remember the older stuff is on Page Deux or on the Storage pages.