Just Another Blog in the Wheel
May 22, 2020 - A larder full of implications, a commentary upon what we have become. Law and policy are no longer determined by Almighty God, nor objective reality. Nor are laws supposed to be binding upon all alike. Instead, right and wrong, together with actual enforcement, will henceforth be determined solely by what identity politics' darlings indicate are within the realm of things they are willing to comply with. This effectively means right and wrong are defined ex post facto. This is unimaginable at any prior period of American history. And it is but one component drawn from a spate of proofs that abiding, lawful justice has been replaced wholesale by..by what? An outrageous and insufferable, unpredictable, arbitrary tyrrany. Measures were put in place supposedly so that we ALL might be rescued from consequences of irresponsible behavior (*as the tyrants themselves had defined things*). But after "the law"the was put into effect, the darling preferred class preferred not to abide by the recently enacted practices which just a few weeks back were declared "necessary for all our health, necessary for the safety of our very lives." So what then? What indeed! Read this WSJ paragraph (5-21-20, P. A11A) to learn "Just what next"!!! Why, a REFOCUSING (who can keep up with the ever-expanding glossary of weasel words?) on other practices which, the puppets in power today think, or hope, might be more popularly received. But if not, no worries--if the "right people" defy enforcement of what is made the new focus, that too will be sacrificed, along with the entire population, favored and unfavored. Is this any way to run an airline? Sure, if an unbounded increase in fatal crashes is not too concerning. But this anti-just insanity is the only way Atheism knows to govern. Think!! If right and wrong, good and evil, are not anchored in a transcendant realm, if they are not received by all, recognized as necessarily meant to govern ALL alike, that means the SOURCE of all law is from BELOW. Comforted? I hope not! No society predicated on chthonic forces--arbitrary ones at that-- can long survive. It can't even "keep the peace." So work out the syllogism, please. If the peacemakers are blessed, Democrats are accursed of God. They are. They are. Read the paragraph again.
May 13, 2020 - 1) The most consequential element of this news preview from the 5/12/20 WSJ, is the ominous and revealing choice of words used to frame it. As a departure from our founding principles, this extends it to 180°. The Declaration unambiguously grounds our freedom in *God* alone, the SOLE and original bestower of genuine rights. The institutions which FREE men then form--especially *Christian* free men, according to the explicit assertions made in most State Constitutions --the institutions formed into governments are said to be for the purpose of guarding and preserving THOSE GOD-GIVEN rights. But it's come to this: a plain declaration by the nation's leading newspaper holds the Supreme Court now to be in possession of the power to grant to churches their freedom, and to define--without reference to God's Law--the limits of those freedoms. If this were true, the entire American experiment may truly be said to have expired. 2) Though the same obnoxious and ignorant presumptions are found in the fuller Page 3 story, it seems pretty clear that in THIS particular instance, the Court will find for the churches. At issue is the right of religious organizations to set the terms and conditions for employees' hiring and tenure, i.e., to determine what considerations the church uses in determining whether particular employees are likely to contribute to or hinder the achieving of the church's goals. You may expect all conservatives and one or more NYTwit justices to sign on to the correct decision. 3) Yet, if the decision is made upon the outrageous premise indicated in the preview--that it is the Court which confers freedom--then it is only a matter of time for the following to become the reality of the United States: In 1962 the Supremes said acts associated with religion are unfit to be present on any of THEIR turf. But when the winds are favorable for consistency from "the freedom-givers," the Court will decree that ALL schools--even church schools-- operate in accord with the values and beliefs of the government's atheistic, anti-Christian religion. No one should be surprised: God was not banished to keep schools religiously neutral. In a world created by the Almighty, that is impossible. He was booted to make room for their preferred deity. A nation can serve but one God, one ultimate authority. You can tell who that is by finding out just who it is they believe makes people free.
April 24, 2020 - I noticed a book on one of my shelves, The Great Plague by Walter George Bell, about the devastation wrought upon London in 1665. It is, to say the least, instructive to learn of other epochal bouts with disease in Western history (and not limited to the famous flu pandemics of the last 100 years). London, a truly huge city when compared to any other in England at the time, was estimated to have a population slightly under a half million. As the rat-flea plague began eating away the lives of Londoners, mainly the poor, those of means hightailed it out of town. Estimates hold that about 100,000 died that year, a number representing about one-third of those who remained in town. (Applied to NYC now, such proportions would have us looking at a loss of roughly 1,900,000 neighbors. Thought of that way, we'redoing pretty great. But, as we know, there are MANY factors.) An impression that lingers when reading this sort of material is how, despite nearly immeasurable our progress in scores of fields, man is, after all, fallen, fallible and just full of foibles. I think especially of the cacophony of shrill voices so supremely confident that, if only everyone would listen to THEM now, well, then we'd be weathering all this just fine, thanks. I can throw my hat into that ring, but with a difference: I'd be right. For my approach would be a national HUMBLING before God Almighty, all leaders offering explicit repentance for 50 years of massive provocation on our collective part, led by successive abominations concocted by the Supremes, from banning God from public school and life to the dismembering of scores of millions of babies, to the enshrinement of base perversion and sodomy--marked at every step down by tagging it as a newly discovered "right." We rejoice in our having abandoned faith in Him. Measured against our sin, THIS plague is on the level of a candy-coated warning, way below even a tit-for-tat. Has God gotten our attention yet? Christian leaders: try focusing on that concerning which you cannot be wrong. Use your advantage in having His clear Word! Our founding spoke of those rights a government is authorized to protect only as those coming to us FROM GOD. Life and liberty, sure. But He never said a word about a "a right" to make believe there is no Creator-Redeemer, or a right not to be offended by being reminded of His presence and righteousness, and so on. But apart from that necessity, awareness of prior battles makes clearer that we ought to be patient and prayerful, especially for those in authority, that they'd enjoy guidance from the One who knows and is rich in mercy. Christians, especially, should show how well they can shut up and pray. One observation from Allen's book jumped off the page at me: "Trade within the city almost wholly ceased for nearly half the year..." Anyone who thinks any leader WANTS to destroy our economy is playing with half a deck. People HAVE blundered in similar circumstances, and doubtless we have racked up big time boo-boos. But there is a huge difference between being in error vs. being "illegitimate." Hold your horses--and your tongue--and familiarize yourself with the range of disasters frightened man has put in motion, doubly so if he deludes himself regarding autonomy. Nothing about our response to this threat, nothing about our flawed assessments of it, is pleasing to me. One thing that is, is this: It is NOT MY JOB. Thank the Lord for that. And may He superintend over all whose job IT IS, even to the overruling of what may be their best-but-wrong guesses, and well-intentioned policies which our Lord may KNOW to be folly. Amen. Even a fool, if he keeps his mouth shut, may be thought wise.
April 13, 2020 - We are perplexed to learn of many self-imagined "mouths for God's Law" condemning and denouncing or defying the policies of our civil leaders concerning their efforts to mitigate deleterious consequences of COVID-19. Their jobs may be burdensome and trying, but ours, as citizens under their lawful rule, is simple. This is not rocket science. Their calling certainly includes the matter they hope their actions will effectively address. Thus, they are God's appointed instruments. Our part, therefore, is to honor God by honoring their good-faith efforts. They need not be perfect--or even RIGHT--in all their prescriptions. And, needless to say, a free people need not extend extraordinary deference of this sort PAST the time of extraordinary threat (i.e., it is NOT "Do whatever they say to do whenever they say to do it" --not at all). We may be "righter" regarding this or that, but ours is not the authority. Therefore, pray God guides. People who sincerely recognize God's authority and love it, along with all His attributes, should find their path a clear one. Do what the lawful authorities direct us to do and make their job a pleasure as far as we are concerned. Sadly, it appears not a few (who sure love their own wisdom), when they talk about obeying God's Law, instead really mean, obeying whatever they agree with. But that, after all, means it was never God's Law they were obeying-- at any point. The plague of egalitarianism has done more destructive, corrosive damage to the American Christian character and spirit than Corona could ever do. Honor those given rule over you. Unquestionably, our submission is valid and called for during times of crisis, concerning edicts and policies pertaining to interests legitimately in the task bag of duly appointed authorities. Less griping and more praying would be more suitable--and more recognizably Christian. -Pastor Steve
January 26, 2020 - The Question... Dear MessiahNYC, Should I go to church? From, Considering The Answer... Dear Considering, This is Steve Schlissel, pastor of Messiah's Congregation, attempting to answer your good question. I hope you are true to your name, for an answer to your question requires “consider-able” work along at least three axes: You need to consider, first, why you are “considering” church; second, just which church you are “considering;” and third, what the Lord of the church has to say on the subject. Third Axis Taking the last first, in view of God’s thoughts about your church attendance, I’d say He’s said enough about the topic to encourage you to continue thoughtfully along this path. But before saying more, let us make a distinction: My answer to you assumes you are not a Christian and do not pretend to be one. Why? Because if you were this is a matter which God has already, preemptively decided for you. “Do not forsake the assembling of the saints.” Hebrews 10. The New Testament uniformly describes the behavior of those who had become Christian as propelled toward the fellowship of believers. In one place conversion is described as getting “added to the church.” A Christian who is not a member of a local covenant community is, minimally, an aberration, maximally an abomination. In any case, the profession of his mouth to be a follower of Jesus is put to the lie by his feet. Perhaps he mumbled words he thought would serve as fire insurance. Who knows? But those who live autonomous (self-lawed) lives may love themselves, but they surely do not love Jesus. He said, “If you love me, obey my commandments.” If you are troubled, not knowing where in the Bible to find Jesus’ expectation and instructions concerning the normativity of believers’ gatherings, write separately about it. In the meantime, we’d all do well to recall the Lord’s words, “Not everyone who says to Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom.” For many will be told at the Judgment, “Depart from me, evildoers. I never knew you.” Those who belong to Jesus want to please Him, to do what He wishes. So on this matter, if you are a Christian you have no choice. He has made it. Before leaving this axis, let me add, multitudes today deceive themselves about their relationship with God. They often give themselves away by their mouths, which bloviate about what they want or what they need, or about what satisfies them. Missing from their thoughts—because missing from their hearts and lives—is God Almighty. After all, Jesus taught us the whole Word of God may be boiled down to a summary commandment: Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. Despite what some may think about their religious condition, failure to reference what God wants is a pretty reliable indicator that they are in love with themselves—alone. Jesus said expressly, “God seeks true worshippers,” which He explained as meaning those who worship Him in spirit and in truth. (See John 4) Second Axis We may now work along the second axis indicated above. Remember, we have assumed you are not a Christian because a Christian shouldn’t need to ask what you did. This assumption helps us move with you to the next axis. Our concern will be to help you select the sort of church you should consider attending/joining. But our first business must again be to get free of some of the idiotic sentiments bandied about so freely today about churches. What I mean is, if, upon discovering that an offering is collected during the service, you knee-jerk into a mental tirade about how all these Christians are money hungry phonies, etc., then our job just got easier. If, upon the discovery of imperfect people in a church you visit, you feel yourself ready to shout, “Just as I thought! There’s nothing but hypocrites in churches,” well, again, answering your question is a breeze. Absolutely do not bother going to any church. However, if the above excuses reasons are sincere, then be sure to bring the same standard to your place of employment. If you are in manufacturing, work only for companies that give their products away. And don’t expect your boss must pay you, either. Ahh, but you’ll say, “That’s different! We expect money to be a concern in the world. But the church is spiritual and its mind must be confined to that spiritual character.” Yeah, but apart from the heretical Manicheanism which undergirds that objection, just where would the spiritual church be that you are considering visiting? If they occupy a space., i.e., real property, just how are they to pay for it? Or the salaries of those the community of faith engages to be their ministers and helpers? Moreover, Jesus spoke more about money and our attitudes toward it than you seem to realize. St. Paul, too. Understand, I agree you’d be right to be suspicious of any church which overemphasizes money matters, or is focused on little else. But the modest scheduling of a brief interval where God’s people may freely, without external compulsion, give money as a sincere offering to their Lord (and to the poor through His church-related servants and ministries), clearly as an act of worship—such is not only acceptable, it is desirable. Condemning that is to make oneself holier than God; such a one would not be comfortable in any honest church. And—lastly on these cursory items—if the discovery of a hypocrite or two puts you off, don’t fret. There is always room for one more—and you should be quite comfortable. Beyond these generic concerns, matters which could help shrink your list indicating safe destinations to visit: A church should be able to tell you how it differs from the world. This is more important than might be realized, since the first movement God made toward forming a community of redeemed folks was to place an antithesis between the two groups: those who live to please God and those who live to please themselves. It is important also because today, many churches fall all over themselves to give the appearance of being so cool and in step with the world and its concerns, so egalitarian, so environmental, so tolerant. All of which means, so ignorant, so blind, so lost. Let the dead bury their dead. And if the pastor is female, let the women welcome the women, for that is all who will gather there, regardless of XY considerations. A self-respecting church must hold to the “undoubted Christian faith” as summarized in the Apostles’ Creed, but they should also be able and happy to tell you where their community fits in to the rather complicated family tree of churches which has grown over the centuries. Much will be gained from a careful reading of their doctrinal formulations, which could be in the form of Confessions, or Catechisms, or Church Councils, or Doctrinal Summaries. Any or all are fine. What is not fine is a church that doesn’t know its beliefs, from whence they arose, or how they differ from other genuine Christian communities. A church should be a place where families are comfortable, i.e., family as the primary social institution must be given more than lip service. Sure, singles are always welcome, but most should be inclined toward marriage if God permits. That means the importance of family will be unapologetically evident in the church’s organization, structure and programming. In the heat of today’s unrestrained, socialistic assault on all things family, a church showing no awareness of or sensitivity toward this crisis is definitely part of the problem, not part of the solution. And awareness of the crisis shows itself in honoring the male headship which the Almighty Lord God built into all social structures over which He would be honored as ultimate Head. No reserved place for men today = no place for God, which means it ain’t no church at all. That should make things easier on this axis. First Axis We arrive at the first line of “consider-ation,” the one I know least about, for it is all about good old anonymous you. Still, the material derived from our work along the other two axes does equip us to make certain observations which we may justly expect to be helpful. What I mean is, your query was, should you go to church. A grasp of what we’ve learned from the other axes seems to warrant at least these conclusions: To be a good individual candidate to “go to church,” you ought to be humble. If you are all hunky dory, then what would you want church for? It has nothing for you. But your unchristian status says you sure do need instruction—minimally, in how to “put off the old self” with its sin, corruption, shame and error. Simultaneously you need to be encouraged and taught to put on the new self, designed to restore in you the image of God which had gotten mangled (by the stuff you’ll be putting off). This process is similar to the rescue of a man nearly drowned: it is a case of 1) out goes the bad air, 2) in goes the good. And a man being thus rescued is not at his prettiest. Right? But who cares about that when life and death are on the line. Along with humility, you should measure your capacity for being honest with yourself. “Know thyself,” for us is not a Socratic rubric, but a safety precaution for any who would dare “take up their cross to follow Him.” This is particularly important for a man in your position (or, if you are a woman, a woman). Why? Because the Lord Jesus, the Head and Cornerstone of the church, has set a high bar for those who would follow Him. Yes, you’d be quite right if you said, “You’d never know it from what you see and hear in churches today.” So many seem clearly to have embraced a corporate (rather than a covenantal) model of church. You walk in and are made immediately to feel that you have a mark on your forehead which says “Potential customer.” But no church leader was taught such commercialism by His professed Lord. He greeted His very first inquirers with a “What do you want?” He is no snake-oil salesman, believe me. His predecessor said to those who gathered before him, “What are you doing here? Did somebody warn you to flee from the wrath at your heels?” In other places, Jesus essentially tells potential followers: “Go away. I don’t have what you’re looking for. And you are not what I’m looking for.” Learn to count, instruction I submit as fit for completing the thought of #2, above. You ask if you should go to church. Well, at the end of all the things so far considered, we’ve arrived at the challenge of Jesus. He originally put it before those “considering” not just visiting a church, but becoming part of one, people considering owning the name “Christian.” They presented themselves as ready to take a place with His other servants. Did they realize they’d be thenceforth looking to the Lord Jesus as the eyes of a slave look to the hands of their Master, a position of dependence, not independence. To become a Christian, to join the church, to be joined to Messiah by faith—in a world such as ours which detests Him more daily—is not a promotion but a demotion. Look where you’re heading! Count the steps! And see the direction those steps are leading: away from the world, toward God. So take the Lord’s words seriously, as if they were addressed to you personally. Before you “go to church,” count the cost! Are you ready to deny the demands of everyone beside, including yourself, and live by every word proceeding from Him? If you count this cost to be too high, then surely you lack the determination needed to finish the course. In that case you have your answer: have the good sense not to put your game-piece on the board. But if, once counting the cost, you know that were it ten times more, it would still be within the means of your determination—then you have found your answer. And you won’t be dissuaded, even by the fear that your funds may diminish for you know from Whom you may turn for more. You will turn to where the axes converge, converge upon “Yes.” More Good Questions
August 27, 2019 - This piece requires serious, laborious thought and consideration. In other words, the price of profiting from this report is beyond the means of most, despite the rather clear truth that what is here dealt with is a real, and an almost incalculably enormous, problem. Of those who capable of digesting the material and ordering it properly, few are inclined to weigh its import beyond its benefit or harm to specific pet views, party interests, or narrow agendas. Then, those so inclined may, understandably, already be wearied beyond words, too weary, in fact, to rouse themselves to meaningful action. Isn't it interesting that, as we watch Western Christianity, i.e., historic Christian civilization, winding down toward zero, we have the greatest force for good in all world history dying, but it is dying without sufficient spectacle to garner any genuine, meaningful interest. Good is perishing sans even a sense that the indignation which should fill our nostrils and news columns is not merely missing, but it is not even slightly MISSED. That says to me that we are already dead. Have a nice day. And yet, for all that, I nevertheless urge this material upon any and all who a) love the idea of liberty, and b) hope someday to have great grandchildren who had been instructed about the mechanisms which figured prominently in liberty's demise. Let me add what should go without saying: That anyone could imagine liberty surviving robust Christian faith, is evidence that our EEG flatlined before our EKG. Thus, all talk of freedom-loving not rooted in Lord-loving is folly and deceit. Original YouTube Video
July 6, 2019 - by Irving Tremellius The Wall Street Journal is not a conservative voice. Nor is it an “objective voice of reason.” Sure, compared to the New York Times, Pravda could be considered more restrained. But if you are looking for sane presuppositions, moral integrity, fidelity to American Christian traditions and positions, look elsewhere. Not that you’ll find these anywhere in a paper of quality, but… So, two examples from July editions of the WSJ. On July 3rd, right column, above fold, feature story headline, reporting on the administration’s change of plans following the latest 5-4 Supreme Court intrusion on the Constitution, the betrayal of that document’s mandated separation of powers, and another long step away from consistency: “Citizen Question Dropped From Census.” Subhead: “Move marks a reversal for the administration and is a victory for civil-rights advocates.” This is the kind of barf journalism encountered daily from this would-be paper of record. But how much reflection is required to see through the alleged reporting and sense instead the smirks on their faces, their protruding fangs, the glee in their tone as they do another frontpage dance celebrating one more “defeat” for our president—and sanity. Yet, apart from (almost) all the above, dwell instead on the way the featured opponents are set up. The changed plan is interpreted by the Journal as a victory for civil-rights advocates. Well, if it’s a defeat for the administration, what does that make them? Opponents of civil-rights. Inescapable. They didn’t need to say it; its implication is unavoidable, yet they are able to plead, “We never said that.” Sure you did, Slewfoot. But where is justification found for the calling of this reversal a “victory for civil rights”? Hello? Nowhere. The matter at hand was re-introducing a question on the every-ten-year, constitutionally-required census. If the Constitution is the rule-book (barely) kept in place to guard the civil rights of the citizens of the United States of America, how is it a threat to the civil rights of those citizens to ask if they are citizens?? In fact, this could only be regarded as a challenge to civil rights if the author of the statement first presupposed that a) the census conducted by the USA is supposed to be a counting of everyone, regardless of their citizenship, in which case, b), from whence cometh the civil rights these “advocates” are advocating for? Seriously. Does not consciousness require that this question be addressed in an article with that subheading. The Journal said it was a loss for Trump and a victory for civil rights advocates. What particular RIGHTS were they advocating for? If you cannot name one, you lied ion your subhead. If you can name one, was it a right specified as belonging to citizens of the USA? If not a right enjoyed in virtue of USA citizenship, then what right is being advocated? I trust you see this. The subtext here is “open-boarders” incoherence. For these clowns, there is no such thing as a country called the United States of America. That’s right. Seriously. Follow the logic of their rhetoric. The rights they imagine are being contended are not rights of citizenship. Else, what possible objection do you have to the citizenship question being included? But honesty and plain speech would show them to be the fool, so they lie and paper over truth. They are detestable. For them, the USA is a punching bag, to be used and abused, but never to be honored, never to be accorded the respect which is utterly fundamental—obeying the laws of the land. For them, law itself is a joke, a device, a trick. They are despicable, these writers and editors. Moving right along, it also says in the paper, this time in the July 6-7, 2019 edition, that there were “Founders Who Opposed the Constitution” (page A11). The headline is, in fact, false as far as it goes, but I’m not going to quibble about that. What I mean is, the piece is concerned with familiarizing readers with the Anti-Federalists, leaders during our founding period who were highly suspicious and critical of a federative government which they feared would inevitably grow in power until it became tyrannical. So it was not opposition to the constitution, per se, that best describes Anti-Federalists. In fact, the Constitution, and in particular the Bill of Rights, testifies to the involvement of the Anti-Federalists in its formulations. But as I said, all that is beside my point. What I’d like you to know is, at the end of five full ¾ page columns speaking about Federalists and Anti-Federalists and their respective concerns, suddenly, out of the blue, without warning, and for no discernible reason, that is, related to anything that had been said in the long article, the writer leaves us with a last shocking sentence. “The election of Donald Trump ought to bring home the risk that the devil may one day turn round on them.” That is a deeply offensive sentiment, the making of which, according to the writer and his editor, necessitated not a shred of evidence nor even a predicate of having discussed anything about Mr. Trump anywhere in the piece. These bozos are so convinced by their own conceit, by the power of their own endlessly recycled lies (lies about Trump of quality roughly equal to what I’m citing here), they presume no warrant needs to be produced, no evidence appealed to, for them to suddenly blare out, baldly and without provocation or allusion, and completely out of context, that the President of the United States is the devil we’ve so often been warned against. Where they got their notion, I don’t know. I can only say, the more they blather like they do, the firmer is my support for this great president, the more respect is due him, if only for putting up with ignorant hick idiots like these writers and editors at the Wall Street Journal. “Fake news” is a brand they fully earn daily.
July 3, 2019 - It says in the paper... Why am I CERTAIN there is no human possibility that the moral destruction of America will be meaningfully abated? How about this?--- The nation that embodies consumerism in its most active and toxic, most virile and viral forms, had repeated opporunities to express disapproval-- with no cost or loss to themselves-- of the ignorant and systematic disrespect of America and its virtues. These disdain sessions consistex in public displays led by Colin Kaepernick and his NFL player followers. Week after week, they openly flouted American tradition, defied the flag, were irreverent toward those who bought with blood the very liberty the protesters were using, and used it to publicly pour their bile on Old Glory. It mattered not that each of these ungrateful clowns hadn't the dignity to be thankful for political liberty, but how about the fact that each had become a millionaire here, though working with IQs ranging from 11 to 42. Cursing a nation that bestowed glory on these vermin should have prompted sane people to at least be determined to bestow no further reward. But the simple, simple act of turning off NFL games was too high a price. What does that tell you? Then, Nike determined to reward the ringleader even more: kaepernick was given a huge shoe-endorsing contract. Well, surely, America's 200,000,000 christians determined to buy shoes from one of the other outstanding manufacturer's? Nope. Nike "gambled" on patriotism and faith being a worthless commodity in this republic. And they won. Nike shares kept growing. Now Kaepernick told Nike they shouldn't sell a USA-themed sneaker which featured an early version of the American flag. Surely Nike said, "Now you're going to far, bimbo brain." Nope. They yanked them, in effect agreeing that America is evil. And what may we expect now from consumers? Absolutely nothing. Their patriotism, and where present, their Christian beliefs, are held by them in the lowest possible esteem. They wouldn't roll over in bed to back up something they SAY they honor. They're good for nothing anymore except to be trampled. And it will happen. Mark my words. It is OOOOVER.
June 22, 2019 - by Irving Tremellius It says in the paper today that the Feds have successfully forced Walmart to agree to pay them $282 million in order to settle charges. What charges? The Feds say Walmart, in order to carry on business, paid bribes in several countries (including China, Brazil, India and Mexico) The deal caps negotiations with the US government which have gone on for years, following charges that the world's largest retailer ran afoul of US government rules when it, for example, paid bribes to Mexico to get permits to build stores there. The fines and penalties are going to an entity (our federal bureaucracy) which suffered no direct harm from Walmart's alleged deeds. Sooooo, Walmart is getting fleeced by bureaucrats here for getting fleeced by bureaucrats elsewhere. Makes perfect sense. Huh?
June 22, 2019 - by Irving Tremellius It says in the paper today that gender reveal parties have become the rule for many expectant Americans, and the gimmicks used to make the gender known are becoming more elaborate and expensive. The problem with this trend, of course, is how it flies in the face of the latest set of demands from the demented, God hating, woke revolutionaries intent on destroying what's left of our Christian civilization. Not only are blue and pink (in newly abundant forms) the fundamental means employed to communicate the news at the parties, but the fact that the colors number just two (as opposed to, say, the 52 genders Facebook users were once encouraged to choose from as their own) is, inescapably, a hug of the normal while a defiant dismissal of the insanity being incessantly shoved down every American throat. At a time when "pronoun revision" and enforcement have emerged from America's contested toilets to settle into seats in board rooms and executive chambers, about-to-be-moms are saying "less is more and three is too many." How NORMAL! Whether the moms don't have the energy to walk the "politically" correct walk just to make room for such profound "Duh"-ness, or they simply don't care, is not clear. Thank the Lord that, whatever the reason, sanity still somehow manages to show up here and there, now and then. And speaking of which, I mustn't forget to note the entire absence of any concern to distinguish between "sex" and "gender." Speaking of which, I hope to write a small piece on the sudden ubiquity of the phrase "sex assigned at birth." This new favorite of the Hateful Destroyers is REALLY stupid. By imposing THAT phrase as the preferred designator of the two--and only two--"sexes"--they are going high risk. The phrase invites a dangerous consciousness to develop among the zombie-brained overturners. To speak of a life-determining element as something which had been ASSIGNED at birth, well, how long can it be before hordes of the hellhounds find themselves confronting the implication inherent in the phrase: Assigned by Whom? Evolution has not proven sufficiently plastic to comfortably own such a PERSONAL characteristic. Something ASSIGNED inescapably suggests an ASSIGNER. There is sovereignty in there. Yet that is precisely and exactly what the gender-benders have put their brains in storage in order to escape. It is ever hard to kick against the goads. Or the gonads.