Sadly, Not News For Long
Meet Peter Vlaming. Peter is a French teacher at West Point High School (in Virginia, I think). Oh, sorry, was a teacher. He has been fired. You know what for. "Sexual impropriety?" No. "Racism?" No. "Anti-science positions?" No. He refused to use the "preferred pronoun" for a transgender student in his class. "We are here today because a specific worldview is being imposed on me," he told the school board. And that's the truth. "You will use the preferred pronoun the student desires and you will not make any reference to science or religion or the like." As was noted by Mr. Vlaming, firing someone under these conditions is not tolerance; it is the opposite. The very sad thing to me is that this won't be news much longer. Expect it coming soon to just about anyone who disagrees with the prevailing sexual-orientation/gender-identity winds.
The Scum
You remember Kid Rock. He was fired last week from Grand Marshall of Nashville's Christmas parade because he used an unacceptable word about a beloved left TV host. The scum. Now he has exceeded all bounds of decency. He paid off Walmart layaways for 350 families. Loser. Can't trust anyone these days.
Where We've Come From
The rest of the "civilized" world is already there, but now Ireland has decided to join the "wrong side of history" and legalize baby killing. It is an "historic moment" for women now that they can choose to kill their children in the womb. Now they will "care for women with compassion" and murder babies with abandon. The only plus side is that they have a 12-week limit, so only the absolutely most vulnerable are in danger.
Where We're Going
This probably isn't new, but it's still here, and I'm wondering if anyone is actually paying attention. The mayor of Woodland, WA, saw to it that the decades-old tradition of a Nativity display in a public park was put to death this week because of "a handful of complaints." It's a constitutional question, it seems. Something to do with the "Establishment Clause" (not to be confused with the Santa Clause) because, you see, if a government entity recognizes a religious entity in any way, it is establishing a religion. Get it? If you do, you're better than me.
If we carry this to its logical end, we have a lot of changes to make. We'll have to censure every document in American history that mentions God, starting with the Declaration of Independence -- that will go right out the window -- or religion (because in the earliest days of this nation the "religion" to which they always referred (positively) was Christianity). All the national figures who prayed, who stated, "God bless America", who even hinted at anything Christian would need to be erased. Government-related entities -- offices, schools, whatever -- would have to cease recognizing Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter (at least). The next government office that takes Christmas off would be in direct violation of the Constitution. Prayers before government events like congressional gatherings would have to be canceled. The military would need to fire all their chaplains. For starters. I'm sure you can come up with more. It will be interesting to see if there is a single government officer (or a single atheist) who refuses time off at Christmas on the grounds that it is not constitutional. Yeah, right.
What We're Getting To
This story is so twisted. In Cleburne, TX, three men were protesting outside of St. Mark United Methodist Church during a "Breakfast with Santa" event. "Do you let your kids believe in a fake Santa," one asked, "or do they know who Jesus is?" Well, that was too much, of course. A mother of four was outraged. "When I told them not to ruin Santa and Christmas for my kids they started to shout out that Santa was not real and that I was wrong for teaching them that, I got really verbal with them over it." The church asked them to leave. Two did, but the 3rd refused and was arrested for trespassing.
Twisted. A church had someone arrested for trespassing. He was trespassing because he wanted to talk about Jesus and they wouldn't allow it. Christmas is ruined if you tell kids that Santa isn't real. The protester will get coal in his stocking for Christmas. (Seriously, that's what the mayor suggested.) I'm not supporting the protester -- defending Christ is right, but "with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15). That a church and its visitors would favor Santamas over Christmas at Christmas is beyond me. Like I said, twisted.
What Ulterior Motives?
Her name is Letitia James. She "is an American lawyer, activist and politician." And she was just elected to be New York's Attorney General. (Just for reference, the job of a state attorney general is to be the chief legal advisor to the state government and to be the state's chief law enforcement officer.) Well, she's promising to be right on top of things, planning to "launch sweeping investigations into President Donald Trump, his family and anyone in his circle" for any potential violation of the law. Let's see ... a lawyer, an activist, a Democrat, planning to investigate "anyone in his orbit." Seems fair and reasonable to me. Oh, wait! How is that fair or reasonable? How is that not a "woman on the edge"? "I've got a loaded office and I'm not afraid to use it!" Hope she has time to, you know, do the rest of the job she was elected to do. (I'm just wondering. When the "anti-Obama" conservatives made efforts to examine questionable items in Barack's past, the left criticized them harshly. Do you suppose they will do the same when Letitia does the very same with Trump and everyone in his orbit?)
Assault on Free Speech
California is at it again. Now they are considering a "text tax". They want to charge users for texting. They plan to tax users for their texting so they can provide free phone service for low-income residents. I mean, seriously, that is an assault on free speech, isn't it? (That's what we call a "pun" in the vernacular.) (By the way, they're talking about a retroactive tax that would go back 5 years. Nice.)
Wait ... What?
First, they tell me, "My little baby brother, who's never read a book, Knows one sex from the other, All he had to do was look." Then they tell me, "Oh, no, gender is a societal construct. Genders are variable and even fluid. There is no actual difference between the sexes." Now they tell me, "Exciting new research in neuroscience highlights sex differences of the brain at all levels, from structure and function to nervous systems. It is now understood that sex is a significant biological variable in areas beyond reproduction." Now, come on! Can't you rein in your god -- Science -- and make sense here? (The story is stunning in its content and implications. Read it fast. I can't imagine it will be available for long.)
2 comments:
What could a state Attorney General find that the FBI couldn't? Don't we already have a federal investigation to Trump and his family and associates?
In the linked text tax article, there are some stupid things said. One thing mentioned was that the funding from telecoms has decreased, but it seems like it was still far more than they said the program they wanted was needing. Then, some guy said that making a tax on texting would alleviate a tax on voice calls. What kind of nonsense is that? If the claim is that they're not getting enough funding as is, who in their right mind is going to decrease one tax enough to, in their own words "offset" the new tax? How stupid do they think people are? There is no way that adding a tax will lead to decreasing a different tax.
It's odd, I thought it's already been established that there are neurological differences between men and women. I just assumed they were just ignoring the clear and proven data in favor of their feelings. What makes me think that this new research will make any difference? They will continue to selectively embrace and deny Science as they so choose. The fear from the liberals that this might some how "set back" "equality" shows that they don't even understand how their side works.
FBI, Special Prosecutor, the news media, the Internet ... lots of people who hate anything and everything Trump and wish to do whatever damage they can. It's okay in the case of Trump; it wasn't in the case of Obama.
On the text tax, we're talking "California government" here. It's nonsense by definition.
The current mode of operation is "If we like it, it's good; if we don't, it's not." Not, "Is it true?"
Post a Comment