Archive for the ‘Love’ Category

The backwards thinking of “regressives”

September 13, 2015

Marriages were originally IMPLICIT contracts between two parties, and often withh the families engaged. Most were common law marriages, they just moved in together, the aspirant having had the okay of the father. (Fathers know guys better than the daughters do, at least back in those days).

The fact of the matter is, the natural nuclear family (husband, wife, children) is the institution that cultivates the strongest protection against state oppression. That went out the window with the push for state indoctrination of the next generations disguised as “free” academic education and then “forced” induction into the indoctrination centers.

The other institution that cultivates protection against meek pushover subservience to oppressors’ memes are religious institutions, this according to prominent agnostic economist and libertarian writer Murray Rothbard and atheist economist Walter Block.

No wonder Karl Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto that they had to exterminate the “bourgeois” institution of marriage and family. Total devotion to the collectivist mentality of worker ants is their goal.  The lying viper never wanted a “workers’ paradise”, he wanted his own special groups to dictate.

The modern heirs of Malthus and Marx think there are too many poor people in the world. That’s why they want to “protect” us from bad people, push groupthink, collectivist mentality. They think like the Orwellian uppermost crust of the “Inner Party”, like the Animal Farm where everyone has to be EQUAL but SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

So they push Groupthink disguised as “diversity”;

Inequality disguised as “equality”;

Unemployment disguised as “minimum wage”, now morphed to “living wage”;

Racism and racial preferences disguised as “anti-racism”, “affirmative action”,

Censorship and enforcement of group-think disguised as “equality” under the law;

Bullying libertarians, whistleblowers, pro-lifers and those of religious faith, and those who think differently under the guise of “equality” as a meaningless rant and “non-discrimination”,

Violating religious liberty under the guise of claiming to defend it;

And generally wearing sheepskin while inside they are “ravenous wolves”.


50 Reasons I’m Thankful for my Husband

March 9, 2015

Originally posted on follow the light:


 50 Reasons I’m Thankful for my Husband 

Eighteen years ago I said “I do” to the most wonderful man I have ever met. I would do it all over again. We’ve had our share of ups and downs, joys and heart breaks, but our love and faith in God has sustained us. Today, I thought I would let you know why I love my husband so much. I pray blessings on your marriage, as you read about mine.

  1. I’m grateful he shares my faith in Jesus Christ.
  2. I am grateful to have a teammate as we face the challenges of life together.
  3. And reminisce over the life we have built together.
  4. I’m grateful he chose me to be his wife.
  5. I’m grateful he is an excellent father.
  6. And provider.
  7. And comforter.
  8. I’m grateful he’s good at things I’m not, like fixing computers and knowing what to do with…

View original 372 more words

The Golden Rule and the Non-Aggression Principle

April 19, 2014

Christians have the obligation -and privilege- to “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 7:12)

For everybody else, we can demand respect for the principle of non-aggression. This is at minimum the “law” Paul spoke of that everyone who is born (and pre-born) has written in their hears.

Everyone has the right to be free of aggression by others and to be “secure” (as the Bill of RIghts calls it) in their persons, possessions, papers, and effects.

The Golden Rule is a “superset” of the non-aggression principle. The NAP is a “corollary” of the Golden Rule.

Is the Non-Aggression Principle enough?

March 28, 2014

I haven’t read Hoppe (one of these days I will) but “follow the NAP” is truly not enough to resolve what we all know is “right”.

The NAP is basically just a minimum starting point and minimum requirement for an “ethical guideline” for interaction with others. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a better rule in my opinion. But that requires some active charity in some situations.

No one has the right to force others to do his bidding. We all prefer to do everything voluntarily. Ask a left-fascist (aka “social justice liberal”) to give HIS OWN money.

Another NAP gap is children. Walter Block did a great job of applying the NAP “ruthlessly” to its logical conclusion to come up with “evictionism”, but that falls short of what we all know is the minimum required for a minimal ethical baseline.

By the act of having sex, you take the “risk” of having the blessing (as I call it) of the appearance of a new individual. But as that individual is conceived helpless outside the womb until “viability”, and helpless outside the womb too after birth, the mother AND father have an obligation to that new life with all its implications until he is able to fend for himself.

That obligation can be fulfilled of course by finding adoptive parents that will take care of that child and rear him reasonably well, but one of the basic tenets of libertarian (and anarchist) philosophy is that each one of us must take responsibility for our own actions. The principle of restitution can teach us here that if our act results in the conception of a helpless new person, we owe that new person to care for it.

That principle would not apply strictly to cases of rape, but applies to some 98% of pregnancies. However, even in cases of rape, where it is not the result of a mother’s own action, in the case of an infant, there is still a forcing of harm on that infant (both before and after birth) if the parents neglect the proper care.

However, I still oppose any extraordinary measures to seek out and punish parents for abortions. In this case, cultural shame would be the most effective strategy.

Even more effective is a strong Christian influence, as this has made slavery a dirty word around the world today, along with gladiator battles, extreme baby abuse, and so on.

// <![CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>

Christians and government, Romans 13, taxes, and Caesar

December 15, 2013

What so many Christians get wrong is that they think government helping the poor is the same as a person helping the poor. They don’t consider that taxes are theft, misinterpret Jesus’ response to Pharisees about Caesar’s image on a coin and Romans 13. And misapply the laws of Moses.

They also forget that Caesar was divinity by government decree, and the coin was idolatry. The question was about taxes, but he wisely told them to pay to Caesar whatever actually belonged to him. But “The Earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof”.

Plus in Matthew 17, where Jesus did indeed pay taxes, he told the disciples that it was a form of involuntary servitude, to paraphrase, by reminded them in a question that the kings and nobles and the people who tell you how much to pay up, do not put that burden on their own children. “Then are the children [of your taxman] free”.

They also forget that Romans 13 does not apply when any government does not meet the description as “God’s sword” to stop evil.

The anti-government campaigns of the earliest Christians against infanticide (by adoption), against gladiator battles (Saint Telemachus), refusing the decree to recognize Caesar as a god, against slavery (St. Patrick in Ireland), against aristocratic abuse (appeals in the Magna Carta to a divine natural law above kings), all these things are applications of the Christian Golden Rule.

The corollary subset of the Golden Rule known as the non-aggression principle is a natural law that binds all mankind, something that the growth in the libertarian movement today recognizes.  Christians have been slow to recognize this but they are increasing in numbers. Their main obstacle to understanding is that Pharisees and control freaks and unbelievers are diluting the application of the law of love,along with the dilution of the message of salvation.


The truth about the Pilgrims:

November 25, 2013

My reply to the Washington Post opinion about the Pilgrims:

About Point 2: In their own Mayflower Compact, they listed as a principal reason to come to America was as a witness to the Indians for salvation in Jesus Christ.

Point 3: It wasn’t “the first Thanksgiving“, exactly, but it is symbolically and significantly, because it was a thanksgiving celebration to thank first God and secondly to express gratitude toward the Indian neighbors..

Kudos for Point #4. The Pilgrims had fun, fun, fun…

About Point #5, you give too much overblown credit in your own mind to the “divine right” idea. Like one famous preacher said once about a drunk, he said “There but for the grace of God go I”, meaning he was not any better than that drunk. They were possibly thankful to God himself that the King had opened these new lands to them. And there are millions upon millions of Biblical Christians who regard it as an act of the grace of God that King James was the king during those years, because today we have the legacy, the evidence, the fruit, in the King James Bible. It is such a magnificent piece of literature, and as even the skeptical Napoleon recognized, much more than just literature, that even militant atheist proselytizer Richard Dawkins said he was honored to add his voice to a voice recording of it.

How about another great point or two:

Squanto was the first American Indian they encountered and in one of those “coincidences” he happened to speak fluent English, “the king’s English” as it is called, and became intermediary between the Indians and them, and he was Christian.


When the Pilgrims and the natives got together on that famous first at least most famous and earliest well-known day of giving thanks, to whom do you think the Pilgrims were giving thanks? Read this found at “”&#8230;

Turn your heart toward Thanksgiving

The Mayflower Compact, a painting by Jean Leon...

The Mayflower Compact, a painting by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris which was widely reproduced through much of the 20th century (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


// <![CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>

“Death with dignity” or “Useless Eaters”? Power and paternalism says “Go ahead and die!”

May 27, 2013

The title to the article found at the following link is a propaganda piece itself and a tendentious accusation, and the author is not stupid. She KNOWS that it is not true, because without even checking other articles, we know that she accuses pro-lifers of religious motivation. I don’t know, maybe she switches personalities depending on the issue. Her title: “Assisted dying isn’t contested on religious grounds – it’s about power, paternalism and control”.

On that site, they claim that the lay people of almost all religious self-identifying persuasions favor “assisted suicide”, and they point out that the clergy and other leaders oppose. They love to use a majority opinion when it suits their purpose, while saying a judge is “legally” correct in pointing out that a poll majority is no basis for law, they immediately contradict the concession by making it still sound like an elite imposition on the majority.

Polls have lost credibility a long, long time ago. Especially for making any argument for anything. I have been polled myself. The wording of the question, asking leading “questions” to change the mind of the respondent. They inflicted the same question upon me in three different ways in that poll. The “surveyor” only stopped because I stopped the questioning. They assured me my answers would count anyway.

Did they count my responses in their “results”? I’ll never know, and neither will you. The results of that poll were publicized in the obvious direction the pollsters were supposed to evoke, but they are usually useless. They certainly are real arguments for nothing at all. “Approval ratings” are also bogus, believable only when there isn’t too much at stake. Not only useless, they are in essence frauds meant to play with the public mind. Propaganda tools.

I do not have a big clergy salary or position, work as easily reporting to woman bosses as to men bosses, I hate control as a mostly anarcho-capitalist  libertarian, and I don’t think anybody should have cultural sanction to kill another person. That’s finality in the control category, killing somebody, and that’s exactly the problem that inflicts so many PATHOLOGICAL killers. No emotion at killing somebody.

Now we have advocates of “mercy” killing.  They do not deny their emotions, but here comes the “for your own good” rationale beating down on common sense.

Oh, but that stage is maybe to follow. The powers that be that are pushing this theme are not yet going to admit that their real goal is the elimination of what Hitler called “useless eaters”. For now it’s a “compassionate” [sic] concern for the desires of the suffering.

For now, they say they only want to “help” those who are of “sound mind” who want to go. Presumably who also suffer from terminal disease. That’s their main argument anyway.

Kid you not. “Help them” die instead of talking them out of suicide. Hello? Rational logic calling! Come back!

In this “Brave New World” drowning in drugs and the commercialization of pleasure and hedonist philosophies, instead of improving techniques for improving the lives of the suffering, they want you to think of just letting them die. What a psych trick to say “Death with dignity” rather than a “poor quality of life”. There is no “dignity” in either killing yourself, and there is a lot less dignity in helping someone you say you love to kill themselves. Or instead of talking them out of it, nod your head, knowing that it is your partner’s pride that does not want to be dependent for life.

The compassionate thing is to make them know that their lives are important to you, making them know that they are more useful to you alive than dead.

(Meantime, many of the same powers that be advocate dependency on strangers from government for the poor).

Not the new twist in the psych of that title. They added a new Doublespeak to the Newspeak dictionary, calling it “assisted dying” instead of “assisted suicide”. Suicide has a bad name. Suicide is a bad name. That’s because suicide is a very bad thing.

If you kill somebody else, it’s called murder. If you kill yourself instead, that’s called suicide. To some people that makes all the difference. But it is still somebody killing somebody. If it’s bad to kill somebody, it’s bad to encourage them or help them kill themselves.

But in the real world of rational discussion, the thing that makes it bad for somebody to be killed at the hand of another, is just as tragic a death if somebody is killed at their own hand.

The worst aspect of this is the degenerate drop of moral pretense here. While arguing in moral terms, the Powers That Be that want this expose themselves in that they show that they care not about life over death. They have other plans for you.

This is Pandora’s box. Their game is over, their gig is up, it’s going to start winding down. There will be some blowback from the Powers That Be that want to hold the power of life and death over the rest of us. People are beginning to wake up to their oppression, in spite of their tendency to hide in the shadows and behind secret societies, old boys’ networks and the like.

This paternalistic ruling clique wants us to believe that we the people have demanded the “right” to kill ourselves and get a doctor to turn upside down help us die instead of help us live. But there is a twist to this, just like with a “woman’s right to choose”. With a “woman’s right to choose”, it really becomes an invitation for a man’s “right to choose”.

A few women do jump into hedonistic behaviors and abortion is their “safety” net for avoiding motherhood (so they’ve been told). But nature tells them in the back of the mind and in the region of the heart that having a baby in the womb makes them a mother. The desire is there and the “Silent No More” movement of women who publicly confess and denounce their own abortions is a demonstration of this, along with the fact shown in surveys of the symptoms of post-abortion syndrome.

In one pro-abortion movie, in fact, it made light humor of one young girl bragging that she had told FIVE different guys that it was their baby so she could get the money not only for the abortion but a trip to Hawaii. Real funny.

A few women do jump into hedonistic behaviors and abortion is their “safety” net for avoiding babyhood (so they’ve been told). But surveys have shown that in the majority of cases, the women “choosing” abortion did it under pressure of a father, a mother, an uncle, or the boyfriend.

So it is a lie that abortion is simply a “choice” for women. It has made them more vulnerable to the demands of men, in fact. It has added pressure for them to approach sexuality in the same way as men. The long-term blowback is felt by the older feminists who yearn for motherhood. Connie Chung is one of the most famous of these, not exactly a “feminist”, but one who bought into the myth that a woman could have a fulfilling career same as a man without the naggings of motherhood. Too late, she sought motherhood. It is not paternalistic to understand this.

Denying your nature, denying who you are, denying the physical and natural testimony of your physiology, this is not a simple matter of “choice” or “law” or “decree”.

There is one more road to hell here, whether you want to think it’s paved with good intentions or not.

In a moral society, we expect doctors to heal us when we’re sick, alleviate our pain, and help us avoid death as much as possible. Doctors enter the profession with this orientation in mind. Part of the horrors of the Axis powers during World War II was the turning of this on its head. Medical knowledge was applied to death instead.

To legalize this will end the universal expectation of doctors. Some have already been indoctrinated by the fact of death in the baby-killing business, as in the Gosnell case in Philadelphia. Not even playing the race card saved him from the horrified reaction even from the partial-birth abortion advocates. Unsaid in the coverage was the fact that now President Obama uttered one of his few voiced opinions in the Illinois State Senate against strengthening the penalties for the kind of things that Gosnell did as a matter of course.

May God save us from this pro-death propaganda. That’s what it is.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: – Deuteronomy 30:19



Marriage is for a family, a family is for the children

May 5, 2013
education online

education online (Photo credit: Sean MacEntee)

This is a reply to the blog by Brian Roberts, a sociologist:

First this: “Functionalism and the New Right see this as detrimental to society, evidenced in the increase in crime, educational failure etc.” Then “This argument rests upon the assumption that a child needs to be raised within an environment of married mum and dad – dad being the key stabilizer here.”

If something is “evidenced in”, then it’s not an argument that “rests upon the assumption”. As a matter of fact, the “evidence” you mention shows the actual truth of the matter, something that actually some voices agree from among the more censored and suppressed voices ion today’s “sociology”.

In fact, the “evidence” is stronger than how it was presented. The studies –even from more “gay-friendly” survey organizations– show that the correspondence between a strong nuclear family of husband, wife, on one side, and less crime, more educational success, more psychological stability, and so on.

There are exceptions on all sides, depending on what measures you accept.

The damage is done when social and political pressures in the majority of social milieus impose the assumption that the family type doesn’t matter.

Besides, the historical evidence from millenia of recorded history shows us also that the tendency toward the true nuclear, natural family springs from nature. A woman is driven by her maternal instincts unless it is “socialized” out of her. Genders of man and woman are *most obviously* and self-evidentially natural, and not impositions of society, an idea some some “social disruptor forces” are trying to impose on the rest of us, mostly from positions of power.

A society with fewer stable children, after all, is more resistant to dictates from state decrees. Children raised by father and mother, less confused by gender confusions imposed unnaturally upon them, absorb more of their parents’ base values and are not so vulnerable to manipulation.

That’s why the powers that be demand state indoctrination centers for the children, and that’s why they assume that taxes extorted from the populace must be allocated there. That’s why from the beginning, free and forced education requirements were imposed early on. Instead of treating the education dole like they treat the welfare dole, they instead want to make it education by the state.

It’s not “for the children”, obviously. If it were “for the children”, they would look at the results of nearly a century of almost universal obligatory and government-provided schooling, and recoil in horror at it, and immediately insist on letting parents have those resources so they can have a choice as to where to put their children. Using the slower children as an excuse to put chains on the brighter ones to bind them to centrally planned failures is an outrageous atrocity, and not even based in fact, since the “slower ones” are often freed up in a different setting to thrive.

Michelle Shocked – Yes God is Real – – YouTube

April 28, 2013
Cover of the Communist Manifesto’s initial pub...

Cover of the Communist Manifesto’s initial publication in February 1848 in London. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


..just sharing…


But in an interview later, she backed off earlier comments because she was inundated by accusations of hate when she shared that members of her church were afraid for the country because of the lifting up of homosexual marriage in the nation. She was subjected to so much hate speech that she sort of recanted.


But take note. I heard the video (or audio) of the first comment that caused the firestorm. They were mild and did not carry the weight of conviction or authority.


The flood of hate that awaits anyone who has anything positive about the natural nuclear family as even an ideal, means that anyone who is going to make such a statement should know what he is talking about, know his subject, and have the firm conviction of being right.


Christians need to remember we are sinners and it’s not even just the soul of our nation that concerns us, but the harm that homosexual behaviors invite by the behavior, a vector for unwelcome effects. And the children of the next generation. Every child has a father and a mother who have a responsibility and obligation to the child. And every relevant study shows that by almost any measure, a child is best protected and cultivated if he has the benefit of a father and a mother who raise him together.


The attack on the institution of marriage got full steam ahead with Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto. The promotion of homosexual practices, with the demands for official same-sex marriage, abortion, these things were politicized in the 19th and 20th century by secularist leaders who of a truth are fighting marriage itself. This is something they are starting to feel safe now in saying out loud for an audience.


Karl Marx’ intent was to dissolve it. He called it a “bourgeouis” thing, although in fact it is a universal thing. Karl Marx had his own (neglected) wife and his children came to sorry ends, in fact. The real purpose is to make future generations safe for tyranny. They do this by having the state claim ownership of the children.

(By the way, the Kremlin has a bunch of writings by Karl Marx that are still kept hidden away in secret. What kind of dark stuff is it, you ask? We do too.)


Jesus loves the little children. God is love, and Jesus is his love manifest to us. If anybody “owns” the children, it’s God, regardless who has the blessings of raising them.






Homeschool parents have 1 shot to see son again

April 22, 2013
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011 film)

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011 film) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This family needs international support to keep their son.

The Swedish authorities have been brutal against the rights of the family to keep their child, based only on their home-schooling decision, despite testimony from numerous friends and neighbors they are a good family and the decision of a lower court in the family’s favor.

The child was taken from them even as they boarded an aircraft to go to the mother’s home country of India. Their Social Services, the agency that was portrayed as criminally negligent in the novel by Stieg Larsson, in his so-called “Millennium Trilogy“, the most famous being “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo“.

They are certainly living down to the horrendous performance of the treatment of the girl in those novels.

Of course Stieg Larsson was also wrong, wrong, WRONG, in his perverted portrayal of Nazil history. The Nazis, especially the Hitler kind, despised Christianity and hated the Bible. His fictitious evil socialist (“national socialist”) based crimes on verses.

Of course the crimes they committed were worse than the perversions portrayed, weren’t they, and he did not bring in the question of whether these people actually did it.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 195 other followers