No, Dennis Prager Does NOT Rape His Wife

sailor_kissing_nurse_2Are you aware of types of behavior that are considered rape which, in my mind & anyone else’s mind who might still be in touch w/ REALITY, do NOT constitute rape.
When I became aware of this I was very angry. Why? Because women who actually experience this heinous crime are trivialized.

Case in point would be the French leftist females who call themselves feminists think a statue that depicts that famous photograph of a sailor kissing a woman needs to be destroyed because it represents sexual assault. (I see the scenes of Disney movies edited to have Prince Charming ask permission to kiss Snow White or Phillip ask permission to kiss Aurora.  Those guys are going to wait a long time cuz neither is going to wake up until they are actually kissed.)

So, of course, in response to Dennis Prager calling American feminists out in regard to the “culture of rape” narrative, they subsequently demonize Dennis. (see link below.) Why?  Because to admit their trivialization of actual sexual assault would perhaps cause them to think critically about their lies….and, gasp, realize the damage they’ve done.

I want to say unequivocally that the French women and their American counterparts do NOT speak for the majority of American women.

This also appears to be a world wide narrative. If you’ve read The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo you were exposed to some staggering statistics about rape in Sweden. I researched those statistics & it appears, among other things, that if a woman has sex with a guy one night and decides LATER that she did not really want to, the dude can be charged with rape. Do YOU think that’s right?

You may think Julian Assange is the scum of the earth, however, looking very closely at the Swedish charges of rape against him gave me pause. We don’t know the whole story but the reports I’ve read don’t add up to rape. He may indeed be guilty but the wide ranging behaviors that constitute rape according to Swedish law are suspect.

If you look closely at what kinds of behavior constitute rape in the feminist narrative you will see that an unwanted kiss is considered sexual assault.

Which brings me to this article written by Dennis Prager, titled The Left’s Tactics- A Personal Example.

An excerpt:

“First, truth is a not a left-wing value (though, of course, some individuals on the left have great integrity). If you don’t know that, you cannot understand the left. Truth is a conservative value (though, of course, some individuals on the right lie). From the Bolsheviks to today’s left-wing, lying is normal. Not one left-wing comment or article (except for the HuffingtonPost reference to the MIT report) even dealt with the issue of the truth of the claim that one out of every five female college students is sexually assaulted/raped, or the truth of the charge that our universities are a “culture of rape.”

Indeed truth is not something the left-wing folks seem to value.  They appear to prefer the convenient lie and emotional manipulation.  When you call them on this many respond viciously as this article points out.

Seriously, Snow White AND Sleeping Beauty would never wake up….unless they signed a Snow Whitecontract BEFORE eating the apple and pricking the finger….notarized by a feminist lawyer.

Even more seriously, I think we should think twice before we trivialize the pain and trauma women experience when they are violently assaulted.


Posted in Collectivist Narrative, Feminist Bullies, World View | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Climate Change: Science or Politics?


Whether it be the CIA, the Mafia, BOSS, the SS, the NKVD or any other instrument of coercion, once its growing power puts it beyond the reach of John Citizen and the Commonweal, the lamps of freedom go out and darkness descends.” (G.A. Clayton)

I’ve been called: flat-earther, denier, idiot, brainwashed and a whole host of other names over the past few years.  Yeah, I know name calling isn’t really conducive to dialogue and vigorous debate but it seems those who disagree with my questions about their “settled science” have no other comeback.

This name calling happens every single time I pose a question or offer an opinion.  It is sometimes couched in seemingly civil language but the underlying message is that I am a fool if I do not buy into their “settled science.”

The fact that they  resort to this type of response does not make me feel stupid or embarrassed.  It makes me question them all the more. When some of them give me the talking points they’ve gotten from 3-minute sound bites I respond with some fact or issue I’ve read about.

That’s when it usually gets ugly.

Today I read an exceptional column by Gary McCallister on the Daily Sentinel website.  I’d like you to read it:

Pitfalls of government intrusion on science

As unbelievable as it sounds, there hasn’t always been a National Science Foundation, Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Health, Environmental Protection Agency or a slew of other government agencies whose purpose is to support the sciences. 

(Since this column is for the lay audience, I should point out that the word “slew,” in this context, is a technical, scientific term derived from the Gaelic “Slough” which means “a large multitude.” This should not be confused with the use of the term as a verb describing a dangerous, uncontrollable sliding motion, or a noun with the alternate meaning of sloppy, muddy ground, despite the seeming applicable definition of the latter.)

In fact, much of our foundational knowledge of the sciences was pursued and discovered by men with little or no government support. Often scientific discovery was the result of singular curiosity. (Although curious, I personally haven’t discovered any foundational science, but I never had government support either.  I guess this makes me about a third of a scientist. I do appreciate CMU because they tolerated my research as long as I didn’t get in the way.) 

Anyway, the unfunded approach usually led to accurate information because ensuing argument and verification between scientists led to better and more accurate understanding. Historically, much scientific discovery has also been driven by commercial interests as well. I have received funds from business for research. Contrary to popular opinion, it’s probably more lucrative to fund research than to do it. Once again, though, failure of theories or ideas causes financial loss, and losing money generates accuracy and honesty. 

Today a lot of research is funded by the government. However, government involvement in scientific research carries a certain risk. That risk is exemplified in a dense but remarkable book written by Zhores A. Medvedev and published in 1969. The book is entitled “The Rise and Fall of T.D. Lysenko.” I don’t actually recommend the book, as it is dull and convoluted with what many would think is irrelevant Russian political events under Stalin. I suppose the fact that I actually read the book says something about my dullness and convolutedness. 

The book is pertinent to our modern world because T.D. Lysenko, through politically influenced science that supported communist ideology, set Russian genetic research back by a century. In fact, Russian genetic research and agriculture have never caught up with the West. In the process, his fraudulent theories also caused the death of perhaps hundreds of thousands of Russians from famine. (I, on the other hand, have never really harmed humanity through my research. I suppose the jury is still out about the value of this column to science.)

When the government is allowed to determine what is scientifically true, there is often no discussion, no alternative point of view, little verification by independent experimentation, and no economic failure that would help verify accuracy and reliability might be delayed. As a reviewer of the Lysenko book observed, “When fear born of tyranny stalks the land, men become corrupted and perverted along with their science and society. Whether it be the CIA, the Mafia, BOSS, the SS, the NKVD or any other instrument of coercion, once its growing power puts it beyond the reach of John Citizen and the Commonweal, the lamps of freedom go out and darkness descends.” (G.A. Clayton)

I like this quote because it makes it sound like science is really important to freedom. That sounds a lot more inspirational than just being curious or making money. In reality, I am not entirely sure that science is important to freedom, but I am very sure that freedom is essential to science. 

When alternate points of view, discussion, or testing against the actual world are discouraged by regulations, withholding funding, or political-style informational campaigns, science suffers. There is a whole slew of government agencies involved in science today. A slew is probably too many.

Gary McCallister,, is a professor emeritus of biological sciences at Colorado Mesa University. 

As some of the comments indicate, there is concern about the motivations by private funding of studies as well. However, Mr. McCallister gives us something to THINK about when it comes to government agencies dictating policies that impact us in significant ways based on science that is anything but settled.

No amount of insults, derision or political power and control can negate reality.  Shutting down debate and alternate points of view by silencing those who would point out the inconsistencies in regard to the “settled science” does nothing to settle the issue.

Bottom line? This is yet another example of the need for us to restore honor and integrity in our culture.  There will still be people who will impose their agenda on scientific discovery but perhaps we will be able to hold them accountable.

As Mr. McCallister says, freedom is essential to science.  If we add honor and integrity I think we will all win.

(Note:  I love his column.  You might want to check some others out as well.)

You might also want to read this as an example of government intrusion.

Posted in Global Warming Theories, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Everybody’s Talking At Me But I Can’t Hear All of Them

Everybody’s talking at me
I don’t hear a word they’re saying
Only the echoes of my mind

Everybody’s Talking by Harry Nilsson

I found a post titled: Facebook Is Censoring Your Feeds and This is Why! I would alter that title to read: Facebook is Censoring Your Feeds and This is Why It’s Hurting Us All.

The first video explains something I’ve been pointing out on my various Facebook pages.

Viva Capitalism!  I understand a business needing to generate revenue.  Got that.  However, this guy makes some pretty good points as to why it is a bad idea for any platform to TELL YOU what you want to see and what you do not want to see.  It’s SOCIAL media but you gotta PAY to actually share socially!

The second video is the one I really want you to think about.

This guy is a Progressive and my experiences in many ways confirm his premise.  He takes it a step further to point out the danger in this “personalizing” of what information we are permitted to see.

Yes, you cannot possibly read through all those posts on Facebook, however, do we really want an algorithm controlling what we see?  Ed Pariser says that Editors have a set of ethics that an algorithm does not.  Today that is debatable but that is a discussion for another post.

His points should anger you…..and chill you to the bone.  Ed says that this happens to his Conservative and his Progressive friends but I would say that the experience of Conservatives is much, much different.  Yes, both feeds are personalized according to the individuals online behavior but I’d be interested in knowing if his Progressive friends have had trouble sharing things.  Have their posts been censored by FB?  Have their pages been inaccessible during certain intense news cycles? I would bet not.

That, however, is not the bottom line.  The bottom line is that we all end up living in an echo chamber of our closely held views and beliefs.  I believe that the testing of your world view needs to happen to either strengthen those beliefs or present you with views you had never considered….that can lead to an alteration of your views.

I’ve said many times that there are two world views at war for the hearts and minds of We the People.  Our Constitutional Republic was built on the belief that the war should take place in the Arena of Ideas.  For this to happen we need access to all the information about those ideas and their possible and actual consequences.

I believe most people hear more from the Progressive world view than the Conservative world view.  When they DO hear a Conservative view it is usually in an attempt to demonize said view and the entire group of people who hold those beliefs. This perhaps works in reverse as well, however, the MSM is clearly broadcasting the Progressive World View the loudest.

We have gotten to the point where entertaining an alternate view means we have to abandon all of our Principles and Values.  We have also gotten to the point where we are screaming at each other and neither side is hearing any of it.  They only hear the echoes of their minds.  All of which gets us nowhere. Our discourse has become destructive and many times juvenile.  Some read a post that points out a concern about those who are violating the law of our land, our Constitution, and the only response is something on the order of: “they are all idiots” or worse.  Yeah, THAT’s going to help.

I cannot even remember the last time someone who holds a different world view than I do was able to discuss things without personal insults.  It seems it is becoming the default response of many Conservative voices.  This may be a reaction to the attacks from the Progressive voices but it is still not useful.  There are things I’d like to share with those who disagree with me but I know the insults and ad hominem attacks will turn them off even before they get to the information I want them to think about.

This should frighten us all.  This kind of behavior alienates us from one another and the things we can truly come together on never get considered.  While we are yelling at each other there are people who are using that cacophony of voices to silently amass the power to achieve ends which would horrify us all.

Which brings me to an article I found about People Who Were Erased From History.  This appears to be a favorite pastime of Dictators throughout history.  And you thought Orwell’s 1984 was FICTION! Somewhere behind every dictator is an army of Winstons changing history.

If you do not think this could possibly happen now….here in the United States of America…you are sadly mistaken.

It already is.

Posted in Christian World View, Collectivist Narrative, Media Bias, Remembering History, Social Media, World View | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Who’s up for mapping ‘diversity data’ in every U.S. neighborhood?

When I lived in CA a Care Facility Opened for Seniors. Problem was, it was ONLY for Chinese seniors. There was a bit of an outcry, mostly because if one had been opened for Caucasian only there would have been an earthquake as a result of the Progressives stamping their feet and throwing their tantrums.

Let us think about this, though….at the time I agreed that this portion of our senior population would definitely feel more comfortable around people who shared their culture, cuisine and language.

This “fair-housing” regulation is just the tip of the insane world view of Progressives. I like Doug’s suggestion, however, I think I’d like to start with George Soros’ neighborhood, then move on to Kerry’s and then to Nancy Pelosi’s. Good idea!!

Posted in Agenda 21, Collectivist Narrative, Global Governance, Planned Economy/Central Planning, Progressive Bullies, World View | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Face of Fundamental Transformation

A short video….that provides information and food for thought…..and you get to listen to some great music while you ponder.

No, it does not cover everything in seven minutes….but it provides a pretty good summary of the things an informed citizen needs to think about.

Posted in Agenda 21, Balanced Budget & Debt Ceiling, Christian World View, Collectivist Narrative, Economy and National Debt, Freedom of Religion, Global Governance, Global Warming Theories, Government Regulations and the Constitution, Gun control, Islamic/Socialist/Communist Revolutionaries, Media Bias, Planned Economy/Central Planning, Restoration of our Constitutional Republic, World View | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

[VIDEO] D-Day Anniversary: Ronald Reagan speech, 1984

Ronald Reagan’s thoughts on D-Day. A great post worth a read.

Flyover Culture

D-Day: American soldiers

“The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge — and pray God we have not lost it — that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.”

“Here, in this place where the West held together, let us make a vow to our dead. Let us show them by our actions that we understand what they died for. Let our actions say to them the words for which Matthew Ridgway listened: “I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.”

View original post 27 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Bloom Where You are Planted

We discussed a video this morning in church that helped me focus on what it is I wanted this post to say.  It is a TED talk given by Brene Brown: The Power of Vulnerability. It is 20 minutes long.  If you don’t watch it right away, do yourself a favor and watch it another time.

Of course, one of the things that struck me first was that in trying to decide how she was to be described to potential audiences, the event planner wanted to call her a Storyteller.  I believe that is an excellent description of what she does.  The power of story is a critical tool for whatever you wish to achieve. Her realization that perhaps “stories are just data with a soul” allowed the researcher in her to believe you could have both things when you use story to convey your message.

941199_4699814061422_1946785697_nThis brings to mind what I began writing about in this post.  It was inspired by a sermon by Alistair Begg called, “Bloom Where You are Planted.” 

He discusses 1 Corinthians 7:17-21.   In this section Paul takes on two topics that were very controversial and probably lead to some uncivil debate.  You know,  like some topics we try to discuss in present times. The overarching issue discussed is “status.”

We all would agree that we want harmony with one another.  Songs are written, poems are composed, books explain, and speeches are given that point to our need for harmony.  However, there are barriers to achieving said harmony. God is able to overcome barriers as He works in the heart of everyone of his children.  Sort of like “restoring honor starts here”…with me. Alistair says:

“God is able to overcome barriers as He works in the heart of both Jew and Gentile.  He doesn’t need our help in trying to sort it out. God does not desire that amazing, sought after cultural demise of ethnicity of that which He established in a world for His own sovereign purpose in the variegation of humanity.  And it is a dead end street to try to bring about that reconciliation from the outside in.  And you see it is only in the Church…that there is any hope in our culture for that harmony for which men and women long….longing that we may all be one, but on the basis of what?”

We cannot use the world’s agenda to make the changes that only God can create, but accepting this does not introduce the chaos of having everyone conform to arbitrary external standards.  Alistair explains:

You ought to retain the place in this life that the Lord has assigned to you…God can address the issue of race. God can address the issue of status. God can address the issue of education.  It’s not dealt with by some kind of pseudo-communism.  You cannot do that. It doesn’t work. You can’t make everybody the same. God never intended it to be so.

I think the bottom line for Paul was that the goal is not to change your external circumstances as much as it is to allow God to change the attitude of your heart. Christ came to change the hearts of individuals, not to change them into “discontented revolutionaries.” He came to change their hearts….one at a time…where they were. THIS is the way Jesus wished to render religious and social barriers null and void.

We, as Christians, need to not look to changing external circumstances first, but to the power of the Gospel to change hearts and lives.  So, we bloom where we are planted because God assigned us our place and there is something that we are to do that is something that only we can do. That changing of our hearts gives us connections to God and to each other.

With regard to the connection we all need with others, Brene says in her talk that she came upon an obstacle to that connection:

And it turned out to be shame. And shame is really easily understood as the fear of disconnection: Is there something about me that, if other people know it or see it, that I won’t be worthy of connection? The things I can tell you about it: it’s universal; we all have it. The only people who don’t experience shame have no capacity for human empathy or connection. No one wants to talk about it, and the less you talk about it the more you have it. What underpinned this shame, this “I’m not good enough,” — which we all know that feeling: “I’m not blank enough. I’m not thin enough, rich enough, beautiful enough, smart enough, promoted enough.” The thing that underpinned this was excruciating vulnerability, this idea of, in order for connection to happen, we have to allow ourselves to be seen, really seen…..”

There was only one variable that separated the people who have a strong sense of love and belonging and the people who really struggle for it. And that was, the people who have a strong sense of love and belonging believe they’re worthy of love and belonging. That’s it.”

When talking about those people who seemed to believe they were worthy of connection Brene goes on to say:

The other thing that they had in common was this: They fully embraced vulnerability. They believed that what made them vulnerable made them beautiful. They didn’t talk about vulnerability being comfortable, nor did they really talk about it being excruciating — as I had heard it earlier in the shame interviewing. They just talked about it being necessary. They talked about the willingness to say, “I love you” first, the willingness to do something where there are no guarantees, the willingness to breathe through waiting for the doctor to call after your mammogram. They’re willing to invest in a relationship that may or may not work out. They thought this was fundamental.”

I believe being able to be vulnerable in order to travel into places where uncivil debate lives is important.  That is why I write this blog.  It is uncomfortable sometimes, but I am willing to speak about issues in an environment where debate is many times not debate so much as it is a shouting match with insults hurled at opponents with abandon.  When I am there I try my best to attend to the attitude of my heart and I believe that my faith in God is the only thing that helps me speak the Truth in Love…as well as embrace that vulnerability that is sometimes so very difficult.

Posted in Christian World View, Stories, World View | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment