Sniperhunter2012:

ya think?

Originally posted on The Daley Gator:

This is just sad

Western Washington University sent a questionnaire to students asking them for advice on how the administration could succeed at making sure that in future years, “we are not as white as we are today.”

The question notes that WWU’s racial make up does not perfectly reflect the nation at large, and asks students to consider strategies that other universities have used to focus on skin color as the paramount indicator of a student-applicant’s worth.

The president of WWU has stated that his explicit goal is to reduce the white population on campus, according to Campus Reform.

“I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, that we as a faculty and staff and student body, as an administration, if we 10 years from now are as white as we are today, we will have failed as a university,” said Bruce Shepard, president of WWU, in a…

View original 20 more words

image courtesy of google images

image courtesy of google images

[Previously published on And Then the Darkness Fell]

 

Have been thinking a lot about this, particularly after the post-Mozilla hub bub regarding President Obama’s ‘flip flop’ on gay marriage.

When and how often do folks change their minds on crucial moral issues?

In 2008, at the same time Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich donated money to the infamous anti-gay marriage initiative Prop 8, then Presidential candidate Barack Obama went on record saying that he was against gay marriage based on his religious convictions.

He has since changed his mind.

Do folks change their minds on moral issues such as these – and how often? Do we reexamine our moral convictions, and do we ever challenge them? Clearly the President has, but still…

In a powerful and astute observation on this, the controversial philosopher Ayn Rand observed that

“In spite of all their irrationalities, inconsistencies, hypocrisies and evasions, the majority of men will not act, in major issues, without a sense of being morally right and will not oppose the morality they have accepted. They will break it, they will cheat on it, but they will not oppose it; and when they break it, they take the blame on themselves” (The Ayn Rand Lexicon)

Conservative commentator and former Governor Mike Huckabee recently called out Obama on his flip-flop, observing “He {Obama} said it was because of his Christian convictions,” and then added “Does he have them or does he not? If one has them, they don’t change depending on what the culture does. You don’t take an opinion poll to come up with a new point of view.”

With all due respect to the Governor and those others who criticize Obama on this, but is it not possible that the President has genuinely reexamined his prior convictions? Is it not possible that he felt ‘without a sense of being morally right’, that perhaps he then ‘opposed the morality he [had] accepted’ and, thus,  changed his mind?

Why does the Governor insist on presuming it was the culture that changed Barack Obama’s convictions rather than Barack Obama himself?

 

With all due respect also to Ms. Rand, but some of us do occasionally ‘oppose the morality [we] have accepted’. True, as she noted, it is likely not very many.

Perhaps President Obama has rejected this portion of the ‘morality [he had] accepted, and thus his current support for gay marriage.

Your’s truly has gone through not one, but two of such evolutions in previously held moral views. He changed once by examining and then rejecting his young adult Liberal political convictions and, later, underwent another change,  when he rejected portions of his Objectivist philosophy.

Even given Ms. Rand’s recognition that  ‘the majority of men will not act, in major issues, without a sense of being morally right and will not oppose the morality they have accepted’ many, though a minority, do in fact change their minds – when offered an alternative position they recognize to be True.

Such flip-flops may well, particularly in the case of elected officials,often be acts of political expediency.

In the case of Barack Obama, however, this is unlikely, as his earlier views were widely known. Changing his position for public consumption would not have born him much in the way of either negative or positive political consequences. He’d have had no political motive for doing so. The President’s change in position appears to be born of a genuine case of introspection and reevaluation.

This or else he lied about his moral convictions in 2008, which is unlikely.

Morality – or ethics – is a tricky thing.

Ayn Rand defined ethics as “a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life” and observed that “ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man’s survival.”

Despite the protestations of some that ethics are a social convention, or of others who say that ethics derive from rules dictated from above, ethics are in fact a necessity based on our unique nature – our nature as beings of ‘volitional consciousness’. In contrast to other living beings, we as humans must make conscious, self-directed choices in order to survive. Our standard of value determines our ethical choices.

When folks ‘change their minds’ on fundamental issues it is their standard of value that has often changed. Others find that it is the application of their convictions to that same standard which need be addressed. In the case of Obama and gay marriage it is likely the latter. Obama likely considered his entire set of Christian convictions along with his political convictions. He likely determined that  as a Christian called to love others, and to not ‘cast the first stone’, he needed to reevaluate how he applied those moral standards to his own political convictions.

As Christians all of our moral choices are under God’s scrutiny, not merely those we ourselves deem worthwhile.

On the issue of gay relationships (and gay marriage) folks often resort to quick judgment, pointing out the clear delineations on sexual  conduct in both the Old and New Testament. Observe, though, that in Matthew 5:16 – 5:19 & Matthew 7:1 – 7:2, Christ reminds us 1. to refrain from judgment lest we be measured by our very own standard, and 2. that all God’s commandments, including the ‘least of them’, must be obeyed. On the so called ‘sexual sins’ (esp gay marriage & gay relationships) many folks consider these larger issues so critical they tend to ignore the smaller ones, such as the command to ‘love our neighbor’ or to refrain from judging the conduct of others. On the issue of circumscribing into law a ban on gay marriage they ignore as well Matthew 22:21.

It was these ‘smaller’ moral commandments, however, that Christ tended to focus on – precisely because so many choose to ignore them for the ‘larger problems’ of the Law.

God’s word – and Christ’s teachings – were never intended to be merely a rule book (we’d all fall short), but rather a manual for living. We are left in the position of applying this manual and our moral standard in the full context of our lives – not as a set of circumscribed rules but as calls to action.

Our moral convictions are indeed a ‘code of values to guide [our] choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of [our] life.”

Many Christians seem to have defined for their purpose and for the course for their lives a moral crusade to apply their standard to those around them – by force if need be.  In doing so these folks bear a striking resemblance to the High Priests of old. Perhaps they need reminding that Christ warned that “except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Some, as when they criticize the President on his flip-flop, go so far as to question the inner most convictions of another, failing to remember they are called to ‘judge not lest ye be judged.” These folks need reminding that ‘whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.’

Morality is a tricky thing – occasionally folks change their minds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sniperhunter2012:

love this!

Originally posted on tomfernandez28's Blog:

TownHall.Com: Top 15 Examples Of “White Privilege”

We all know now that white men have it easy. The liberals call it “white privilege” and it means that white men are not permitted to discuss race, gender or sexuality.

Doing so comes with terrible repercussions. Unless, of course, you’re a liberal. Liberals are given carte blanche to do or say anything – as long as it furthers the cause of “progressivism,” shames white males, heterosexuals or (especially) conservative blacks.

Our friends at townhall.com have compiled a list of the top 15 examples of “liberal privilege:”

1) You can commit a crime and your local newspaper usually won’t mention what party you’re in if you’re a Democrat.

2) You can be a white liberal who viciously mocks black men like Clarence Thomas, Allen West, and Ben Carson without being called a racist.

3) You can be a Communist or a radical Islamist, you can hate America or even engage…

View original 419 more words

This ongoing series is not intended as ‘gotcha’ style one-upmanship on the issue of racism, but rather a counterargument to the view that racism is part and parcel of the Conservative/Republican movement as well as an indictment of the agenda of Liberals.  It will integrate the statements and the policies of liberals and will demonstrate that both  the policies and the statements are of a whole cloth – the very same race-obsessed cloth which stained the early Democratic Party. The series is a demonstration that Liberals and Democrats have not only not left their racist views behind them, but rather have developed a different strategy to achieve the very same ends of those early racists within their ranks.

The following are quotes attributed to prominent liberal and Democratic leaders and activists regarding blacks and Jews. All of these (with the exception of the Truman quote) date after the alleged switch in party affiliation based on racist leanings that is often alleged by Liberals today.

Excluded from this page are the myriad of anti-white statements from white, black, and Hispanic leaders and activists. These views are widely known. Inclusion of them here would be both redundant and counterproductive, as it is the alleged bias against blacks, Jews, and Hispanics of Conservatives and Republicans which draws the ire of so many liberals.

 

 

 

image owned by wikipedia

image owned by Wikipedia

 

 

“(Obama’s) a nice person, he’s very articulate this is what’s been used against him, but he couldn’t

sell watermelons if  you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.” — Dan Rather

(for the video go here)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

image owned by wikipedia

image owned by Wikipedia

 

“A few years ago, (Barack Obama) would have been

getting us coffee.” — Bill Clinton to Ted Kennedy

(Game Change by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann)

 

 

 

 

imaged owned by tellmenow.com

imaged owned by tellmenow.com

 

 

 

 

 

“Let me see one of you adopt one of those ugly black babies.”

– Abortionist Ashutosh Ron Virmani

(for the video go here)

 

 

 

image owned by wikipedia

image owned by Wikipedia

 

 

 

 

“You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless

you have a slight Indian Accent.” — Joe Biden

(for the video go here)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

image owned by wikipedia

image owned by wikipedia

“I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from

West Virginia [Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter]

that he would have been a great senator at any moment. . . .

He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation.”

– Former Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd (D.,Conn.)

(quoted in the Washington Times, go here)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

image owned by wikipedia

image owned by wikipedia

“(Harry Reid) was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that

the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially

one such as Obama — a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless

he wanted to have one.”

– Harry Reid’s comments reported by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann

 

 

 

 

 

image owned by wikipedia

image owned by wikipedia

 

“I think one man is just as good as another so long as he’s not a n*gger or a Chinaman.

Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a n*gger from mud,

then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese

and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion

Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America.”

-Harry Truman (1911) in a letter to his future wife Bess

 

 

 

 

 

image owned by wikipedia

image owned by Wikipedia

 

 

 

 

“You’d find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they’d

just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.” — Fritz Hollings (D, S.C.)

(reported by the New York Times, go here)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

image owned by wikipedia

image owned by Wikipedia

 

 

 

“Blacks and Hispanics are “too busy eating watermelons and tacos”

to learn how to read and write.” — Mike Wallace, CBS News

( during preparation for a 60 Minutes TV program on insurance fraud in 1981.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

image courtesy of google images and is owned by John Morrison (flickr)

image courtesy of google images and is owned by John Morrison (flickr)

 

 

 

 

“‘Hymies.’ ‘Hymietown.’” — Jesse Jackson’s description of New York City

while on the 1984 presidential campaign trail.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

image owned by wikipedia

image owned by wikipedia

 

 

 

 

 

“You f*cking Jew b@stard.” — Hillary Clinton to political operative Paul Fray. This was revealed in “State of a Union: Inside

the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton” and has been verified by Paul Fray and three witnesses.

 

 

 

 

 

And perhaps the most relevant quotes. This from President Lyndon B. Johnson, Liberal hero and signer of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

 

“I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years”

(from Inside the White House by Ronald Kessler)

 

and this

 

“Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.”

– Mary Frances Berry, former Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights

 

This is by no means a complete quotations page, and it will be updated continuously and as needed.

Originally posted on tomfernandez28's Blog:

HAPPY LABOR DAY! HERE'S 5 EXAMPLES OF LEFT-WING RACISM

Racism, like evil itself, will probably never go away until God finishes His work with this planet. It’s a form of hateful stupidity that will characterize certain elements of humanity for a very long time.

In spite of their rhetoric to the contrary, there are racist liberals. They won’t admit this, of course. They will also cover up the overt racism of fellow liberals because they’re all on the same team and they don’t want to give us conservatives any more ammunition to throw at their movement.

Here’s 5 examples of left-wing racism.

1. Gay rights mafia members calling African Americans the n-word after the passage of Proposition 8.

Back in 2008, then Presidential candidate (and African American) Barack Obama inspired many African Americans to come out to the polls to vote for him. In the wake of this historic election of the first President of his race, one might…

View original 758 more words

Sniperhunter2012:

awesome! Well put.

Originally posted on tomfernandez28's Blog:

10 Concepts Liberals Talk About Incessantl​y But Don’t Understand

Written By : John Hawkins

“It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.” — Ronald Reagan

”You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.” — Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

1) Being Open Minded: To a liberal, this has nothing at all to do with seriously considering other people’s ideas. To the contrary, liberals define being “open-minded” as agreeing with them. What could be more close-minded than assuming that not only are you right, but that you don’t even need to consider another viewpoint because anyone who disagrees must be evil?

2) Racism: Liberals start with the presumption that only white people who don’t belong to the Democratic Party can be racist. So, for example, even if Jeremiah Wright can make it clear that he hates white people because of their…

View original 704 more words

image courtesy of google images and is owned by wikipedia

image courtesy of google images and is owned by wikipedia

On his Sunday social issues column Hunter wrote about the possibility that there could soon be a Constitutional Convention. On the possibility of a Constitutional Convention (Con Con), Hunter observed that

“As history is made around us, we are called to great acts of self-governance and personal responsibility. These are a high calling, and ought not to be taken lightly.”

Here he will make his case for one.

One of the reasons Hunter supports a Con Con is precisely the one that most folks give for their opposition to it – the off-chance it could become a runaway Convention – a convention that is not limited to one or two specific, previously identified Amendments.

Not only does Hunter not fear such a thing, he welcomes it.

He welcomes a Con Con despite the other, barely disguised reason that many oppose it, the alleged inability of the general populace to govern ourselves and our supposedly limited intellectual and moral development. Put bluntly, today, as in the past, many of our intellectual and civic leaders believe us too evil or stupid to govern ourselves. They believe that in a Constitutional Convention there runs the risk of stupid, evil people running away with government power.

In making the case against a Con Con, the John Birch Society, as do most of those who object,  oppose it on the grounds of fear of a ‘runaway convention’. They maintain that a runaway Convention would likely occur due to the theory of popular sovereignty, asking “how could any limits be placed on a convention for proposing amendments representing the sovereign people [emphasis mine] convened according to Article V?”. One’s immediate response should very will be “why would you limit the sovereign people’s authority if a Convention is called?’

The implicit reason for most folks’ opposition can be found in the words of Jefferson when he discussed those who were reticent in giving authority to the people:

“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion,[emphasis mine] the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of Constitutional power”

 

We need not look just to the past to find those who fear we, the people are ‘not enlightened enough to exercise…control with a wholesome discretion’. Another prominent opponent of a Con Con, Chief Justice Warren Burger, explicitly says as much.

In his letter, dated June 22, 1983, to prominent political and moral activist Phyllis Schlafly, Burger wrote of his fears of a Con Con. Burger expressed his concern that ‘such a convention would be a grand waste of time’, adding that there would be  ‘no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention’. One is tempted to ask,’Mr. Chief Justice, if the Constitution was designed for ‘we the people’, why do you believe that we ourselves do not recognize or understand the things that ‘need attention’? The former Chief Justice is kind enough to give us his answer.

The honorable Chief Justice observed in his letter that a Con Con might be ‘a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation’. Before we move on to his more notable objection, let’s pause for a moment and reflect.

Since ‘special interest groups’ are nothing more than collections of individuals with specific, concrete concerns, given his complaint that a Con Con of the people offers ‘no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention’, one can assume that the Chief Justice considers the focused interests of such people unworthy of concern. The good Chief Justice acknowledges thus, stating his worry that  ‘after a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda’. Presumably the ‘we’ in this statement is not ‘we the people’, but rather such elites as the good Chief Justice and Ms. Schlafly, the moneyed and politically influential ‘elites’ who of course have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Presumably also, given the Chief Justice’s worry regarding ‘television coverage and press speculation’ he’d prefer a Con Con, were one to occur, be hidden from public view. Why? Perhaps the good Chief Justice believes we, the people may not like the issues discussed were we to learn of them. Perhaps he prefers a government that operates in secrecy.

On the issue of a runaway Convention, the honorable Chief Justice plays his hand, exposing his actual beliefs regarding we, the people. He lets us know what he believes ours and the governments respective roles are. Mr. Burger complains that ‘Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey’. ‘Obey’?

Mr. Chief Justice, we, the people are not your servant, you are ours. We have no need to ‘obey’, but you do. We recognize that your authority comes solely at our consent. It is past time that our leaders recognize this fact, and act on it.

This, not some ‘lack of attention’ to ‘issues that need be addressed’, is the reason most folks, particularly those in elected and appointed positions, oppose a Convention. They understand that we the people are the government. They fear that once the reins of power are firmly in our grasp, as would occur in a Con Con, their influence, authority, control, and interests may well become moot.

Hunter supports a Constitutional Convention because he understands that we, the people recognize, perhaps better than those in Washington, precisely the ‘subject(s) needing attention’.

62% of citizens polled say that the nation is on the wrong track. 72% identify the size of government as the biggest threat to the nation, and 78% of U.S.  disprove of the job the U.S. Congress is doing. These numbers, which cut across party or ideological affiliation, demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens have identified our government as the cause of the bulk of our problems. When the good Chief Justice shows concern that Congress might not ‘be obeyed’ at a Constitutional Convention he is certainly correct – they would not be.

The Chief Justice and the good folks at the John Birch Society, like many elites from our past,  fear that we are ‘not enlightened enough to exercise…control with a wholesome discretion’. They are mistaken.

Hunter concluded his Sunday column with this

“As history is made around us, we are called to great acts of self-governance and personal responsibility. These are a high calling, and ought not to be taken lightly. Our future – and that of our posterity – is watching to see what we do with the awesome responsibility that awaits us”

Are we prepared to ‘exercise…control with a wholesome discretion’? Are we ready to answer the call of “great acts of self-governance and personal responsibility”?

What do you think?

Originally posted on International Liberty:

To put it mildly, I’m not a fan of the so-called Tax Justice Network . In a moment of typical understatement, I referred to the U.K.-based group as “…a bunch of crazy Euro-socialists.”

And to give you an idea of why I don’t like them, here’s some of what I wrote about them two years ago.

…the Tax Justice Network [is] closely allied with governments in left-wing nations such as France, and they share the same goals as statist international bureaucracies such as the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. If they succeed in crippling tax competition and setting up some sort of global network of tax police, more politicians will raise tax rates, causing more misery, and bringing more nations one step closer to Greek-style fiscal collapse.

With this bit of background, it goes without saying that I very rarely agree with…

View original 749 more words

Sniperhunter2012:

reblogged this

Originally posted on tomfernandez28's Blog:

Top Ten Questions To Ask A Liberal

To say that I don’t understand liberals would be an understatement. It’s not just that I disagree with them on everything; I can’t even comprehend where they are coming from. It’s inconceivable to me that a person could think the way a liberal does. In an effort to gain some insight into the liberal mind, I’ve compiled this list of questions I hope one of them can answer:

10. How many people should we let into this country? Liberals want amnesty for the 11-20 million illegal aliens currently living in America. Let’s say that happens, then what? Do we grant amnesty to the next 20 million illegals that come looking for a better life? There are over 7 billion people on the planet, most of which would certainly have a better life if they moved to the US. I’ll ask again: how many of these people should we let immigrate…

View original 872 more words

OBAMA VS. FIREFOX CEO

Posted: April 8, 2014 in Uncategorized

Originally posted on tomfernandez28's Blog:

OBAMA VS. FIREFOX CEO

View original