Stoning of St Stephen (circa 1660) by Pietro da Cortona (from here)

Over the years I have noticed something mildly distressing. I receive the most compliments when I point my readers to other people’s blogs. So it is I have begun to understand why some writers become critics. Even if we cannot think and write as well as others, we can still criticize and receive praise for doing it. We just have to select better writers.  So here are some pointers.

On Friday, I read this in the newspaper.

Conservatives have come to expect that they might be protested, ridiculed and disinvited when they venture to speak on college campuses, but the penalty for telling students something they disagree with has taken a more violent turn.

Buttressed by an ideology that views “hate speech” as violence and its suppression as self-defense, students increasingly are resorting to the destruction of property and assault to keep conservative speakers quiet. (continued here)

That news article went on to discuss an editorial in , Free speech is not violated at Wellesley. That editorial contains this self-contradictory paragraph.

This being said, if people are given the resources to learn and either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs, then hostility may be warranted. If people continue to support racist politicians or pay for speakers that prop up speech that will lead to the harm of others, then it is critical to take the appropriate measures to hold them accountable for their actions. It is important to note that our preference for education over beration regards students who may have not been given the chance to learn. Rather, we are not referring to those who have already had the incentive to learn and should have taken the opportunities to do so. Paid professional lecturers and politicians are among those who should know better. (from here)

Fortunately, many (like that article in the newspaper) have begun pointing out that this excuse for hostility is just that, an excuse.

So how does that relate to some blogs I have read lately?

dpatrickcollins has written a couple of my favorite posts on this subject: A Social Justice Warrior Meets Jesus and A Social Justice Warrior Meets Jesus, Part 2. These posts provide a fictional account of irate students stifling free speech. Unfortunately, reality is stranger than fiction. posts stresses the inability of student Social Justice Warriors to argue their case, but this on only partly true. Because their instructors have taught them to be almost totally intolerant of  “hate speech”, few students have practiced debating those they self-righteously hate. Yet there are those who have been, and we kid ourselves when we forget that. Therefore, when we read ‘s posts, we must not forget that the students protesting “hate speech” actually do possess a coherent ideology. However, because the mainstream news media supports and does not challenge the social justice ideology, relatively few students think deeply about it. So relatively few have the capacity to articulate what they believe. Most have been indoctrinated, but only a few have been educated.

From where did the social justice ideology originate? Oddly enough, I think it has its roots in a distorted version of Christianity. The Social Justice Warriors have made a fetish out being “nice”. It is love, love, love…. The great sin is offending or hurting anybody’s feelings. After all — goes the thought — Jesus would not do that. Jesus is not hateful. Jesus would not make anyone unhappy.

Are the Social Justice Warriors wrong? I think so. Jesus hated sin, and He angrily criticized the conduct of those He saw sinning. Rather than be silenced, He died on a cross.

Yet what is true Christianity? I have some definite ideas, but I don’t claim to have the one true vision of TRUTH that stands out above all the others. What is the problem? How would we know the TRUTH? We can each point to Jesus, but we don’t all see the same Jesus.

Some will say the TRUTH is the Bible. However, it is not quite that simple. We have to “interpret” the Bible. Consider, for example, Subversive Jesus by Mel Wild. reminds us that God is love. stresses how we must set aside our excuses and strive to love God and each other. Subversive Jesus (and the posts to which it links) focuses upon the fact God is love, and He expects us to be loving.

Does deal with the subject of God’s hatred for sin? That Jesus was not just about how we are supposed to be nice to each other? Yes. God said what?! – Part One begins a six-part series on the wrathful God of the Old Testament. However, does not accept what he calls the hidden underbelly of Scripture at face value. Instead, what his six-part series provides is a justification for interpreting scripture in a particular way.

In the series that begins with God said what?! – Part One, uses as his example God’s command to the Hebrews to exterminate the Canaanites. He quotes this verse.

“When the Lord your God brings you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you, and when the Lord your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them. (Deut. 7:1-2 NKJV) (from here)

finds such statements from the God of the Old Testament incompatible with the Jesus of the New Testament. So he is anxious to resolve the conflict, and he has adopted a method of biblical exegesis that allows Him to do that.

Is ‘s method of biblical exegesis correct? He has put much thought into it, but I have my doubts.  When I read Romans 9:14-29, it occurs to me I am no position either to judge God or Scripture. Like I cannot help but wonder why God did some of the things He did. Nevertheless, God is the potter. In His Hands, we are only clay. So I am somewhat more inclined to swallow my pride, accept my ignorance, and be thankful God has chosen to be merciful to me.

Would agree with the student Social Justice Warriors? No. What ‘s posts illustrate is how we can develop a scheme for interpreting scripture that leaves us considerable leeway. As explains, each of us seek ways around the complex difficulties the Bible poses. Nonetheless, there is a profound difference between and the Social Justice Warriors.  Whereas questions God’s call for violence in the Old Testament, the Social Justice Warriors seek an excuse for unjustified violence. What the Social Justice Warriors are looking for is anybody guess, but ‘s posts call for us to seek the narrow gate.


A Pembroke Welsh Corgi, the more common of the two breeds of Welsh Corgi (from here)

What is the most fearsome beast of the jungle? Do you think it is an animal with razor sharp claws? Perhaps a predator with big teeth? You would be wrong. Read on.

An Englishman went on safari in Zambia, taking his faithful corgi along for company. One day the corgi decided to go do some exploring on her own.

As she was wandering around, she saw a leopard approaching with the obvious intention of having her for lunch. Just in time, she noticed some bones on the ground nearby, and settled down to chew on the bones with her back to the approaching leopard. (continued here)

“Jesus Will Judge You?”

Here is a post about the “Berkeley meltdown”. The focus is a big guy knocking out a little woman. There is also a bit of commentary about a guy wearing a bright yellow “Jesus jacket”, “JESUS will judge you!”

The three fingers that point back from “you” to “me” should give us all cause for a thoughtful pause. It is not a “you” that will be judged; it is a universal “we”.

Acts 17:30-31 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

30 Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

So why the reblog? We have a supposedly conservative talk show host in the DC area who positively reveled in the foolishness of the woman who attacked the guy at the Berkeley Trump rally. His point was what else should she have expected. However, the video seems to show that big guy attacking the woman (=> She was stupid enough to show up at that rally dressed in black and masked, but she apparently was not crazy enough to go looking for a big guy to punch. The big guy most certainly showed no bravery when he punched her. The silly woman posed no danger to him or anyone else. She just had no good reason for being there; neither did he.

When a guy takes down a foolish woman that way, it is nothing to brag about. All it indicates is a profound failure of civility. At some point we are all weak. At some point we are all strong. So it is that our peace depends upon the strong protecting the weak. That did not happened in that riot.

What these riots at Berkeley show is that the police are not being allowed to do their job. So we have undisciplined people creating a disturbance. The authorities are allowing these people to use the campus as their battleground. The people in charge should be ashamed. The parents of the students at Berkeley may as well find another university for their children.

See, there's this thing called biology...

So, about the Berkeley meltdown, what can I say, there’s just something in the water. Berkeley is infamous for frequent foolishness. There’s something I want to say however about some aspects of the alt-right, especially the red pill Christians. Currently quite a few of them are busy glorifying in the pure pleasure of having gotten to watch this sleezeball punch a woman in the face. I’ve seen so many blog posts, links to the video, just gleeful celebrations of violence.

So when is it okay to punch an unarmed  5’1″ woman in the face? How about never. Yeah, never. Unless your life is actually in danger you’re just being a punk, a thug, a bully.  Nightwind777 actually provides a breath of fresh air denouncing this behavior. So hat tip there. It’s nice to know the whole world hasn’t gone totally mad.

I’m not going to link to Dalrock, to…

View original post 326 more words


Here is the last of my posts on the special election we had yesterday for the Prince William County’s Clerk of the Court. Our choice was between these two people.

Who won? Well, our “objective” local newspapers reported it this way.

Prince William County has long been friendly territory for Republicans when it comes to off-year special elections. Not this time.

Democrat Jacqueline Smith beat long odds and big money today when she emerged victorious in the special contest for Prince William County Circuit Court Clerk, a low-profile, eight-year post that rarely gets much attention amid other races in Virginia’s off-off-year local elections.

Smith’s opponent, Republican Del. Jackson Miller, was widely favored to win today’s election both because he had the name recognition of elected office and a lot more cash. (continued here)

After eight years of rule by the likes of President Barack Obama, we should know what we are going to get from anyone calls themselves a Democrat. Yet we are still electing Democrats.  What is sad of about this election is how few people cared. With 13,905 votes, Smith got almost 54 percent of the vote.

Jacqueline C. Smith 13,905 53.93%
Jackson Hunter Miller 11,871 46.04%
Write In 9 0.03%

(from here)

What is sad is only 25,785 people showed up to vote. There are 270,703 people registered to vote in Prince William County (from here). Even if we just consider the 256,468 listed as active, that means only 10.05 percent of us showed up to vote.

Much is being made of the special election in Georgia (see Ossoff falls just short in Georgia special election as GOP gets wakeup call), but what that election shows is the importance of runoff elections. What the election of Democrat Liberal Jacqueline Smith illustrates is the importance of paying attention and showing up.

What were the stakes in special election we had yesterday for the Prince William County’s Clerk of the Court? What do Democrat Liberals have a reputation for? Don’t we know that what the law says does not much matter to Democrat Liberals? Doesn’t that mean that every time we elect a Democrat Liberal we risk electing an official who will abuse his political office? Don’t we know Democrat Liberals will twist the law to mean whatever he or she wants it to mean?

Are you a Republican, maybe even a Conservative Republican? Then please start looking ahead.

6/13/2017: June Primaries – Governor, Lt. Governor, House of Delegates, and Local offices

11/7/2017: General Election

(from here)

Can we count upon a biased news media to inform us? No, but we can check occasionally to see what is on our ballot (see => We can also occasionally visit the Prince William County Republican Committee‘s web site (here) and see what’s happening.

We can look into the records of the candidates and our elected officials. Here in Virginia our governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general are all Democrat Liberals. Have the actions of these men honored the rule of law or have these men blatantly twisted the law to get what the want?

What should motivate us?

  • Those parts of government which touch us most often and most deeply are state and local government. State and local government are also those parts of government which we can most easily control. We can actually talk to state and local politicians. We can also most easily organize with neighbors either to help them get elected or to defeat them. If we want public officials who will protect our rights instead of trying to enslave us to their wishes, we must participate in state and local elections.
  • Our constitutional republic depends upon an informed, active, and honorable citizenry. When we throw up our hands and quit — give up — we allow people who just care about benefits them to seize control. We allow the selfish and self-righteous to enslave our family, friends, and neighbors.

We never forget why constitutional republics are so rare. Such a government requires a people who honor the rule of law.  Such a government requires a moral people who respects each others God-given rights.

We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. — John Adams, 1798, Address to the militia of Massachusetts (from here)

So think again. Did you forget to vote yesterday? Odds are good you will regret it.  Somehow, some way the Office of the Clerk of the Court touches all our lives, and we could have elected someone who would just done the job properly. As it is we elected yet another Democrat Liberal. Therefore, repent. Participate in the next election. For the sake of your family, friends, neighbors, and countrymen, please become an informed and active citizen.