A journalist must always be proud of his children’s managing to show up in other media, so read about the UW–Oshkosh Discover Firefighting Academy. (Particularly photos 10 and 16 in the slideshow.)
This probably needs music:
Proving that there is no accounting for taste, I present the number six song today in 1972:
Twenty years later, Billy Joel got an honorary diploma … from Hicksville High School in New York (where he attended but was one English credit short of graduating due to oversleeping the day of the final):
Barack Obama has gotten several awards for helping promote gun sales. Every time Obama blames the gun and not the shooter, gun sales increase.
And here’s another new customer, Wayne Allyn Root (italics and boldface his):
I already own handguns. Now this Jewish Ivy Leaguer is going to buy my first assault rifle. My relatives willingly marched to the gas chambers in Germany.
I’m not allowing a pathetic Neville Chamberlain-like Muslim sympathizer in the White House to ever put me in that position. I will arm myself, train and be ready, willing and able to defend myself, my family and my country. There is no bigger or more powerful threat to radical Islam than every American armed, trained and ready to defend ourselves.
That’s the only answer to radical Islam. …
Obama, Hillary, and the Democrats are ignorant, hopelessly compromised, or worse. The GOP leadership is hopelessly cowardly, ignorant, or scared of being called names by the media. …
And I have a contrarian strategy for any politician smart enough to listen. Be a breath of fresh air, go against the grain and tell the truth to the people- admit the U.S. government can’t protect us from radical Muslim terrorism. It’s time for contrarians to give bold and useful advice. Tell the American people that government cannot protect you, this administration is delusional or complicit, the borders are open, Obama won’t let the FBI do their job, this administration is going out of its way to purposely recruit Syrian refugees into America (and into YOUR neighborhoods) even though his own Homeland Security admits they can’t be properly vetted, and one more thing- ISIS is here.
Tell the American people they need to arm, not disarm.
Stand up and campaign for more guns in the hands of law-abiding U.S. citizens. Stand up and admit the people need bigger guns to match the firepower of the bad guys Obama is purposely letting in.
Tell the American people to ignore the pathetic, ignorant politicians. It’s time for a politician and patriot to lead a national campaign to arm the citizens. And educate them to do more than arm themselves to the teeth, but to also train and learn gun safety.
I believe any politician who goes against the grain and campaigns FOR gun ownership will win their election and become the most popular politicians in America.
Are you listening to Donald Trump? Do not back down. Ignore the fools, cowards, traitors and losers. Tell the people to arm themselves to the teeth, because if the government won’t fight radical Islam (or name it either), it’s up to the people to protect and defend our homeland.
This is the perfect moment in time for all Americans to arm themselves, not disarm. Because if the citizens don’t do it, who will? We are under attack. Police are either worried about being called “racist” or “Islamophobe.” Besides, they’re always too late to save us. The FBI is useless- except to investigate a terrorism scene after we’re already dead. They’ve been de-fanged by this President- ordered not to investigate Muslims out of political correctness. The NSA listens to you, me and grandma, but is ordered not to conduct surveillance on mosques- where all the Muslim terrorists are plotting our deaths.
Our enemies like ISIS are here- because of Obama’s wide open borders and the billions of taxpayer dollars he has purposely spent to import his Muslim friends. They are heavily armed with automatic weapons. And Obama’s reaction is to be far more angry at Donald Trump’s words than at the Muslim mass murderers. His instincts are to use this crisis to disarm the people, at the very moment we need to be armed.
We are at war with radical Islam. And last I checked “moderate Muslims” have not said a word. Where are the mass protests by American Muslims? Where is the “Million Muslim March” to condemn Muslim violence, murder, and terrorism? There is none. There will be none. Just as Germans never protested or marched against the Nazis. They were complicit in their silence.
This has only just begun. Gays aren’t the only targets. Soon it will be mass shootings at Jewish schools…or synagogues…or Jewish delis…or mega churches…or shopping malls (like Kenya)…or airport terminals (like Belgium)…or concert halls (like Paris). I know what’s coming. It doesn’t take a genius to know what we are facing. And I didn’t even mention a dirty bomb killing thousands and contaminating an entire American city.
ISIS is here thanks to Obama- an extreme Muslim sympathizer in the White House who refuses to even say the name of the enemy. And we all need to prepare to do what our lame government cannot, or will not. …
And in the middle of this mess, Obama and Hillary want to either disarm us…or in the best case scenario keep legal, law-abiding, tax-paying American citizens from buying the only weapons that would put us on equal footing with heavily-armed Muslim terrorists.
Sorry Obama, I said those words again. Muslim terrorist. Muslim terrorist. Muslim terrorist.
The government won’t save us. They’re too busy worrying about WORDS. They’re too busy spending billions to bring our radical Muslim enemies here legally- and give them welfare and food stamps and free healthcare while they plot our death.
It’s up to the citizens. Someone needs to stand up and tell you the truth. Only we can protect, defend and save ourselves and our country. That’s clear now. Clear as a bell. It’s time to arm like never before. That’s the ONLY defense against radical Islam. Our Muslim enemies must know in every American home is an arsenal of AR-15’s. It’s time to fight back.
Erick Erickson wants you to buy guns too:
The right to own guns in the United States is a constitutional freedom that the Senate Democrats and some Senate Republicans are perfectly happy to deny to some Americans without a due process hearing. …
Whether the left likes it or not, the genie is out of the bottle in the United States. The left cites Australia, which rounded up all their guns, but Australia does not have a constitutional right to own guns. In fact, all the cases the left cites involve countries where there is no constitutional right to own guns and in the United States there is one. …
As a result, there is roughly one gun for every American in the country. Not all Americans own guns, but many Americans own many guns. The left keeps losing on the gun issue because the reality is most Americans actually support gun rights. It is time to acknowledge that given our constitutional framework and constitutional rights, Americans need to go in the opposite direction from Europe and Australia. We need more, not less, guns.
The government is not going to save us from terrorists. The government cannot even save us from a robber at our home. A 911 call will dispatch police who may arrive in a timely manner (heavy emphasis on may). But the police will not arrive on time for a terrorist or nut job intent on inflicting mass casualties.
The gun control argument is premised on the lie that the government can and will protect us. The government did not protect the children in Connecticut or the men in women in Orlando or the soldiers in Chattanooga who were required to be unarmed or the people in the theater in Colorado. And the government cannot offer that protection. A government that is big enough to be anywhere and everywhere at all times is a police state.
Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and we should all stockpile guns and ammo. Disarming the population is not a solution in a country with a constitutional right to gun ownership. But deterrence can work wonders.
Lastly, and as an aside, someone noted the other day and I agree that it is deeply ironic liberals believe Trump is the second coming of Hitler and are concurrently actively trying to take away Americans’ gun rights.
It is also deeply ironic that liberals believe Trump is the second coming of Hitler and are concurrently trying to take away Americans’ constitutional rights, not just gun rights. Prohibiting those charged with (as opposed to convicted of) crimes or on no-fly or terrorist-watch lists from owning guns is a blatant violation of due process rights. And who is most likely to end up on one of those lists? Someone with an un-American-sounding (however you define that) last name.
Ed Krayewski reports on what happened in the House of Representatives yesterday:
Democrats are holding a sit-in on the floor of the House, demanding action on gun control.
“The time for silence and patience is long gone,” said Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a former civil rights leader who’s taken the lead in the sit-in. “The American people are demanding action. Do we have the courage, do we have the raw courage to make at least a down payment on ending gun violence in America?”
Details are scarce. Vox.com reports that House Democrats would like to force a vote the way Senate Democrats did through a filibuster. The Senate votedon four gun bills on Monday night, with all four failing. The most egregious wanted to deny the right to bear arms for anyone who was put on the federal government’s terror watch list, a list the federal government can put any American on without even the pretext of due process.
But there do not appear to be any bills similar to the ones in the Senate that have actually been submitted to the House. I called the DC office of Rep. Lewis to ask for which legislation the sit-in was intended but was told there was no “specific” legislation but rather a push to get some kind of vote. After asking a follow-up, the person who picked up the phone told me he did not speak for the office and gave me the contact information for Lewis’ communications director, who has not responded*.
It’s not surprising that there’s no specific gun bill House Democrats have in mind. Despite their rhetoric, gun control has not been high on their legislative agenda, and appear to be simply exploiting emotions surrounding the Orlando shooting, an exercise I noted was dangerous for the way it can be used to limit civil liberties, restrict immigration, and even expand America’s military interventions abroad.
Sit-ins were used in the 1950s and 1960s to protest segregation. Activists would “sit in” places they weren’t welcomed in order to demand equal treatment. Today, Lewis and other Democrats are sitting in a chamber that they are a part of and that they controlled not so long ago.
Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency from 2009 to 2010 but did not pass any gun control legislation then. The four bills considered by the Senate all violated the civil liberties of Americans to one degree or another. Democrats’ hobby horse in the gun debate this time around is demanding that people on the terror watch list (which could contain more than a million names) be stripped of their constitutional right to bear arms, a basic violation of due process.
Yet Lewis manages to use the language of “injustice,” tweeting that what were Democrats were doing was “speaking out against injustice.” It’s as good an opportunity to remind Lewis and others who are leveraging their connections to civil rights movements from the 1960s to the present day to push their partisan agenda that gun control has an indisputablyracist history. “Crazy negroes” with guns helped defeat Jim Crow laws, while fear of guns in the hands of black people drove gun control laws in the 1960s. Even today, while mass shootings are convenient high-profile events on which to pin a gun control push, gun control advocates often cite inner city violence as a reason to act on gun control. Many cities with significant African-American populations, like Chicago and New York City, have among the strictest gun control laws in the country.
Anti-gun advocates point to island nations like Australia or the United Kingdom or largely ethnically homogenous, small countries in Europe as examples of gun control working, instead of countries like Brazil, which are closer in population, demographics, and history to the U.S. Voters in Brazil rejected a law to ban guns, understanding it was just another way to exacerbate the income inequality gap. Cops in Brazil and even Uruguay have been suspected of selling weapons to gangs. Strict gun control laws in that country, and elsewhere in the Americas, have been ineffective in lowering gun violence. Donald Trump is called a racist for insisting he’s going to build a wall on the border, but given the availability of firearms in the Americas, anything approaching “effective” gun control measures would require something like a huge wall to stem the flow of traffic of weapons that become highly controlled in the U.S.
Similarly, the results anti-gun advocates demand would require a ramping up of enforcement in inner cities, where a disproportionate amount of gun violence occurs, by the very same cops the anti-gun left just a few short months ago insisted it understood were engaged in systemic brutality of marginalized communities. Today John Lewis and his colleagues are sitting in on the House Floor to demand just that, cloaking themselves in emotional fervor and exploiting a culture of fear, not that far from what white supremacists in the 1960s did when they demanded more laws to control African-Americans and deny them their rights.
U.S. Rep. Justin Amash (R–Michigan) tweeted:
Democrats are staging a sit-in on the House floor. They refuse to leave until our Constitution replaces due process with secret lists.
Today in 1956, perhaps the first traffic safety song, “Transfusion,” reached number eight:
Today in 1975 was not a good day for Alice Cooper, who broke six ribs after falling off a stage in Vancouver:
Today in 1979, the Knack released “My Sharona”:
The short list of birthdays starts with Myles Goodwin of April Wine …
… and ends with Joey Allen of Warrant:
Brian Fraley has a message for Republican National Convention delegates, starting with a clever graphic of a building I’m familiar with:
Having gained the most pledged delegates, Donald Trump wants you to now enter into a political suicide pact with him. Please do not oblige him.
My grievances with this repugnant, vulgar authoritarian, major donor to the Democrats are well known, but let’s take his personal shortcomings off the table.
His general election campaign is a disaster in the making.
- Trump has the highest unfavorable rating of any candidate for a major party on record — 70% in the latest Washington Post-ABC poll. His unfavorables with Hispanics is 88%, with African Americans 87%.
- Here in Wisconsin, voter enthusiasm among Republicans is plummeting. It’s down nine points since March according to the latest Marquette University Law School Poll.
- Whereas the GOP had a 10 point advantage in voter enthusiasm four years ago, we’re presently suffering a six point deficit and trending in the wrong direction.
- This enthusiasm gap puts the seat of our own Ron Johnson, the Senior US Senator and chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, in jeopardy.
- Trump continually says he does not need you…does not need us…does not need the Republican Party. Rather than reach out and attempt to unify the party, he continues to push a divisive and dismissive tone, which damages the brand and hurts down-ticket candidates as they seek independent voters.
- As of last month, Trump had only $2.4 million in the bank, raised a mere $14 million and refused to build a small-dollar or large donor operation. Instead, he floated his primary efforts through $44 million in personal loans. In comparison, in 2012 Mitt Romney had already raised nearly $100 million by that time.
- Trump’s cult of personality and earned media advantages got him this far, but have reached their limit. He now refuses to build a data operation that would help him and our fellow Republican candidates in November. In 2016, we Republicans were in a position to bridge the digital divide between the parties, but Trump refuses to invest in the nuts and bolts of data collection and analysis. As you know, data is the key to fundraising and get-out-the-vote efforts.
- Still, it’s not just a data team Trump eschews. His campaign has less than three dozen paid staff working on its behalf across the country. That’s not a typo. He’s ‘estimated’ he has ‘about 30’ employees. Hillary Clinton has more than 730.
- Trump proclaims he’s growing the party, that his record number of votes this Spring is evidence. Yes, he did bring more voters out this Spring, but have you seen an increase in donors on the county level? Do you see a surge in volunteers showing up for party activities in your area? Where are the Trump voters?
- Despite the raw numbers, Trump’s 44.7 percent of the GOP Primary vote represents the lowest percentage for a presumptive nominee in more than three decades. Then, to make matters worse, he has done nothing to unify this party. Because it’s not HIS party. He doesn’t care about the GOP, but expects you to do his bidding nonetheless.
You’ve spent years, in many of your cases decades, working to advance the principles and electoral goals of the Republican Party. You’ve stuffed the envelopes, licked the stamps, walked the parades, knocked on the doors, made the phone calls, rallied your communities, proselytized on social media. You’ve earned the right to be an RNC delegate and the responsibility that goes with it.There is a reason our Party empowers delegates like you. The primaries and caucuses are not national semifinals where each division champion automatically advances to the finals. No, here in Wisconsin at County and District caucuses across the state, party activists like you campaign for the right to use their discretion in Cleveland. You cast the votes that determine the nomination process and the nominee.
The choices you have before you are not pro-forma, ceremonial votes. You’ve been empowered by the grassroots Republicans across the state to do what is best for the Republican Party of Wisconsin, the national Republican Party and indeed what is best for the United States of America.
Right now, the Trump Train has merely happened to you. But if your votes elevate him to become our party’s nominee, you’ve not only bought your ticket, you’ve become one of the engineers.
Do the right thing. Promote and advance rules that free the delegates in every state, and then vote your conscience on the first, and all subsequent ballots in Cleveland.
The Party of Lincoln was founded here in Wisconsin. Now, it’s Wisconsin’s turn to save it as well.
One would have thought Wisconsin had already saved the GOP by (1) a majority of self-identified Republicans not voting for Trump in the April primary and (2) a majority of self-identified Democrats not voting for Hillary!, but others apparently didn’t take the hint.
Jennifer Rubin reports that the delegates-dump-Trump movement is gaining momentum:
The RNC delegate revolt is reaching the boiling point. As unprecedented as it might be, and as far-fetched as it might have once sounded, it is becoming the logical solution to the Republicans’ conundrum.
Aside from Trump and his true believers, fewer and fewer Republican operatives, activists or donors think Trump can win. As CNN reports, “Interviews with more than a dozen donors, party, campaign and congressional officials make clear the concerns have moved beyond bruised feelings over personal slights — and even beyond the top donors who simply won’t give to the New York billionaire.” The report quotes a former Jeb Bush donor who intends to give to Trump as saying, “This isn’t a triage-type of situation. This is a massive, full body surgery type deal and we just don’t have much time for that.”
If there were a simple fix to the problem, a delegate revolt would not be needed. But that is not where things stand right now. Tim Miller, former communications director for Bush and for the Our Principles anti-Trump PAC, says, “My view is an extremely unqualified candidate calls for an unprecedented response.”
The Post reports on the Free the Delegates effort:
Having started with just a few dozen delegates, organizers also said Sunday that they now count several hundred delegates and alternates as part of their campaign. . . .
The group is led by delegates seeking to block Trump at the GOP convention next month in Cleveland by changing party rules so that they can vote however they want — instead of in line with the results of state caucuses and primaries. It is quickly emerging as the most organized effort to stop Trump and coincides with his declining poll numbers.
Concerned Republicans also are increasingly alarmed by Trump’s rhetoric, including his racial attacks on a federal judge, a fresh call made Sunday to begin profiling Muslim Americans, and his support for changing the nation’s gun laws in the aftermath of a mass shooting in Orlando.
The group is starting to organize and raise money. (“Chris Eckstrom, a Dallas-based businessman and founder of Courageous Conservative PAC, an organization that once supported Cruz’s campaign but is now backing the new movement. . . . Steve Lonegan, a Republican consultant from New Jersey who is advising the campaign on fundraising and media outreach.”)
Other groups involved in efforts to stop Trump and field a third candidate tell me they are now willing to help fund the delegate effort. However, it does not appear the original #NeverTrump groups are running the operation. The #NeverTrump groups may have made the case for getting rid of Trump, but the delegates now seem to be driving the train.
“I am delighted to see so many delegates insisting that they have a right to vote their consciences,” says conservative columnist and #NeverTrump advocate Quin Hillyer. “I think they may well succeed — and if the RNC tries to quash conscience, the blowback against the party will be enormous.”
On one hand, there is not much time to pull off such an effort. On the other, Trump is making their job infinitely easier. “My view is the worse the polls get, the more courage people will have to take this action,” Miller says. “Trump’s behavior has already met the threshold for preventing his nomination; it just takes the will and convincing delegates that his candidacy is not viable.” Trump’s serial missteps and his minuscule fundraising ($1.3 million cash on hand compared with Hillary Clinton’s $42 million) have shaken party regulars. More and more, Trump’s campaign looks like a Little League team trying to play in the Major League — or a garish Trump hotel with cheap fixtures trying to masquerade as a truly posh Four Seasons.
Moreover, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has, intentionally or not, assisted the delegate revolt in two ways. First, he declared that he wouldn’t tell anyone to violate their “conscience” — the magic word for delegate rebels — when deciding whether to support Trump. Second, his complete and reform-minded agenda gives a substitute nominee a ready-made platform on which to run. (“In the first four of the six policy papers, Ryan has released 137 pages of proposals on battling poverty, bolstering national security, easing regulations and scaling back executive power. Those have included new ideas on improving retirement plans, cybersecurity defense and offense, and imposing regulatory limits on each agency, and stepping up enforcement of congressional subpoenas of agencies.”)
There is no question that Hillary Clinton would be a disaster to this country generally, and conservatives specifically, as president. There is no question that Donald Trump would be a disaster to this country generally for different reasons as president. It is the GOP delegates’ patriotic duty as Americans to dump Trump and nominate a presidential candidate to defeat Hillary Clinton.
The New Albany, OH, chief of police is advising parents not to let their kids go outside on their own until they are 16.
According to this piece on News10:
New Albany’s police chief wants parents to understand that kids younger than 16 simply cannot defend themselves against an attacker.
Chief Greg Jones says 16 is the appropriate age to allow children to be outside by themselves.“I think that’s the threshold where you see children getting a little bit more freedom,” he says.
Not a lot of freedom, mind you. Just a “little bit.” His stay-close-to-mommy rationale?
While the ultimate decision comes down to parents and personal preference, he says no matter how mature a child may seem, it’s what happens after a child is abducted that is the greatest concern.
Not if, but WHEN a child is abducted. That’s how he’s thinking of childhood: You go outside, you get abducted and then you have to deal.
So let’s take a little look at New Albany’c crime record. Here it is. Last month the town of 8,829 logged, hmmm, let me get out my calculator…one plus one…TWO counts of criminal activity. One case of burglary/breaking and entering, and one “other.”
Unless that “other” was “crimes against humanity,” I’m not sure just how many kids are being abducted right and left by strangers. But the Chief insists: “What if you were to allow them to take off at 7 or 8 and you don’t hear from them for a while, where would you begin? What would you do? How would you even know what happened to them?”
This is just a classic an example of worst-first thinking: You think of the worst-case scenario FIRST, no matter how far-fetched, and proceed as if it’s likely to happen. (And by the way, not even to a teen. To a 7-year-old.)
The article goes on to describe the over-subscribed SafetyTown lessons the police are giving kids, and quotes moms who are eager to instill stranger danger in their kids (even though more than 90% of crimes against children are committed by people they know):
“We’ve never really had the talk with him about what to do to be cautious with other people that he doesn’t know,” says Shannon Jap, who enrolled her son Oliver, who is 5-years-old. “My son loves to say hi to everybody and he just goes up to people when we’re in restaurants and we just want to make sure that he knows to be careful when he’s talking to people,” she adds.
Chief Jones says that’s the ultimate goal of safety town is to teach children than bad people can seem nice too.
“Strangers aren’t always mean,” says the Chief.
And nice people, like police chiefs, aren’t always sane.
Here’s how New Albany’s website describes the town:
[A] vibrant, pedestrian-friendly community with an unparalleled commitment to education, wellness, culture and leisure that inspires and enriches families and businesses alike.
I’m not sure that wellness and leisure correspond to keeping kids indoors, frightened, unfriendly and infantilized. I’m not even sure that anyone in a town that terrified would ever be a pedestrian. But boy are they safe…
From the boogeyman.
According to Jones’ logic, a child is mature enough to leave the house, get a job and get a driver’s license on the same day. And, as a comment put it:
If Chief Jones thinks the town is that dangerous under his watch he should be embarrassed, admit failure and resign.
Today in 1959, along came Jones to peak at number nine:
Today in 1968, here came the Judge to peak at number 88:
Today in 1985, Glenn Frey may have felt the “Smuggler’s Blues” because it peaked at number 12:
Birthdays start with Howard Kaylan of the Turtles:
Todd Rundgren (the last selection a song that Packer fans know when they hear it at Lambeau Field, something good is guaranteed to happen):
Larry Junstrom, bass player for .38 Special …
… was born the same day as Gary Moffet of April Wine:
Derek Forbes of Simple Minds:
Garry Beers of INXS:
Mike Edwards of Jesus Jones:
Mollie Hemingway reports on the latest demonstration of the divide between the media and normal people:
Journalist Terry Mattingly wrote a great column back in 2006 noting the trouble many journalists have understanding the finer details of religion news. His column, “Reporters, crow’s ears and Karma Light nuns,” begins with an anecdote about how The New York Times covered the funeral of Pope John Paul II the prior year:
“The 84-year-old John Paul was laid out in Clementine Hall, dressed in white and red vestments, his head covered with a white bishop’s miter and propped up on three dark gold pillows,” wrote Ian Fisher of the New York Times. “Tucked under his left arm was the silver staff, called the crow’s ear, that he had carried in public.”
Get the joke? You see, that ornate silver shepherd’s crook is actually called a crosier (or “crozier”), not a “crow’s ear.”
Sometimes I check in on this April 4, 2005 piece to see if the Times has gotten around to correcting it. As of today, they have not! Sometimes I hope they never will.
But crozier mistakes are understandable. Less understandable? Saying Jesus is buried in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, that Easter marks Jesus’ “resurrection into heaven,” that St. Patrick is known forbanishing slaves from Ireland, or that William Butler Yeats is the author of the Book of Hebrews.
Then there’s what New York Times political reporter Jeremy W. Peters wrote for his piece “After Orlando, a Political Divide on Gay Rights Still Stands.” Peters is a reporter who struggles to cover issues fairly. He’s known for helping Nancy Pelosi avoid questioning on her abortion stance and other instances of being almost comically partisan in his reporting.
The article is less reportage than it is fuel for what it purports to describe:
The massacre, with stunning speed, has been transformed into a political wedge, beginning with fierce disagreements over just what the crime should be called. An attack by “radical Islamic terrorists,” as Republicans insisted? A hate crime in a place seen as a safe haven by gays, as many Democrats said?
Peters highlighted, among other things, the shameful Anderson-Cooper-avoidance theater.
And then this:
A Republican congressman read his colleagues a Bible verse from Romans that calls for the execution of gays.
Come again? Wait, what? What? What in the world is he talking about? A “Bible verse” from “Romans” that calls for the “execution of gays”? Way to bury the lede there, Peters. You found something that no one else has ever found in two millenia! Though maybe you should go ahead and show your exegesis if you’re going to make such an amazing claim.
Instead he links to a Roll Call story that makes a similar claim. That one is written by one Jennifer Shutt and claims that “House Republicans at a conference meeting heard a Bible verse that calls for death for homosexuals” before a recent vote.
Another story by Shutt says it’s a verse “calling for the death of homosexuals.” The stories say that the passage “discusses what types of penalties the Bible says should be applied to those who are not heterosexual.”
If you have even a passing knowledge of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Christianity in general, heck, the Western canon, or Western Civilization itself, you are probably confused. If you have met a Christian in your life, ditto.
Turns out … well, it turns out that reporters and editors at these two papers apparently do not have this knowledge.
The passages Rep. Rick Allen, R-GA, read were from Romans 1 and also a few verses from the Book of Revelation. It should go without saying, but sadly doesn’t in 2016 America, that neither call for the execution of gays or for their deaths.
Some Background, In Case Members of the Media Are Reading This
In Romans, Paul is defending Christianity and its mission. It has “law” themes and “gospel” themes. The “law” themes include believers’ struggles with sin, our hardened hearts, God’s wrath against sinners, death’s reign through sin, our submission to authorities, and the love we owe one another. But that’s not all! We also learn how God declares us righteous through faith in Christ, how we are made alive in baptism, how God bestows gifts such as the forgiveness of sins upon us, and how we are united in Christ. Those are the “gospel” themes.
It’s very much a 101 type book in that it’s a great introduction to Christianity, but that doesn’t mean it’s simple. It’s very challenging, for about a million different reasons. And it’s regarded as Paul’s greatest work. In any case, Romans 1 is a favorite chapter of mine because it includes the verse I was given when I was confirmed in the faith: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Yay, Romans 1:16!) It also has great prose such as, “Claiming to be wise, they became fools,” in verse 22.
Anywho, the member of Congress read the section on idolatry. It talks about how God is revealed in nature and how God reveals laws to His people. But the people’s hearts are hardened and they reject God. Paul writes candidly about how homosexual activity exchanges a natural desire for the opposite sex with a lust for one’s own. And yes, he really is talking about homosexual activity.
Which is funny, because when Lisa Miller wrote the Newsweek cover story mocking Christians for opposing the redefinition of marriage, she couldn’t find hardly any biblical evidence to back Christians’ stated views on marriage. (See Sola scriptura minus the scriptura.) She wrote, “The apostle Paul echoed the Christian Lord’s lack of interest in matters of the flesh.” Here’s what she had to say about the passage thatThe New York Times alleges calls for the execution of gays:
Paul was tough on homosexuality, though recently progressive scholars have argued that his condemnation of men who “were inflamed with lust for one another” (which he calls “a perversion”) is really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery. In his book “The Arrogance of Nations,” the scholar Neil Elliott argues that Paul is referring in this famous passage to the depravity of the Roman emperors, the craven habits of Nero and Caligula, a reference his audience would have grasped instantly. “Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all,” Elliott says. “He’s talking about a certain group of people who have done everything in this list. We’re not dealing with anything like gay love or gay marriage. We’re talking about really, really violent people who meet their end and are judged by God.” In any case, one might add, Paul argued more strenuously against divorce — and at least half of the Christians in America disregard that teaching.
Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition (and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument).
Isn’t that interesting? That when the push for same-sex marriage is in full heat, the media condescendingly explain that Christians are wrong to think Paul was speaking against homosexuality in any way, but when an Islamist terrorist is murdering scores of people in a gay club, the real culprit for the attack might be St. Paul?
Anway, Roll Call‘s Shutt writes:
Passages in the verses refer to homosexuality and the penalty for homosexual behavior. “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet,” reads Romans 1:27, which Allen read, according to his office.
“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them,” read lines 28-32, which Allen also recited, according to his office.
If you’re going to do the exegesis, Right Reverend Shutt, I might recommend knowing that we don’t call verses “lines.” Also, maybe notice that the listing of sins indicts literally every single human on the planet. So if you’re thinking that Christianity calls for the execution of gays, you have to think, on the basis of the same passage, it calls for the execution of everyone. And if you’re thinking that, and you know anything at all about Christianity, maybe ponder whether everything you’ve written is embarrassingly wrong.
Instead, Shutt specifically said, falsely, that this passage “discusses what types of penalties the Bible says should be applied to those who are not heterosexual.” Wrong. Wrong. And wrong, wrong, wrong. It doesn’t discuss types of penalties. It doesn’t say penalties should be applied at all. And the passage applies to everyone.
There’s no mention of whether Shutt’s cited translation is the one Allen used, but the “worthy of death” phrase (in my Bible, it’s “deserve to die”) is simply a restating of a basic teaching of Christianity. Let’s hop on over to Romans 6:23. (But read the whole chapter because it’s amazing.)
“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
This is the good news of Christianity! We’re all sinners who deserve death, but in Christ Jesus, we receive forgiveness and eternal life. If Revs. Shutt and Peters go just one verse past the “execution” passage they claim to have discovered, they would also find:
For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.
Which is important to note when considering the passages that are so offensive to people who have different sets of doctrines than traditional Christians.
Yes, Paul says God’s created order should not be corrupted and that to alter it is a result of idolatry. Remember that the book is called Romans because Paul is writing to them. Many Roman citizens thought that homosexual behavior had undermined Greek civilization. So when they hear Paul making a point about it, many would have been inclined to agree readily in a self-righteous manner. But then he “springs a trap” as my Study Bible puts it, by listing all these other things that they do. Let’s look again:
“Since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”
Now who’s got standing to be self-righteous? Not a single one of us.
The ever-changing sexual doctrines being handed down by our media and other elite institutions are at odds with many Christian teachings. On sexual distinctions, knocking boots, procreation, marriage, divorce, and much else. We may wish it weren’t so, but it is.
If we are to live in a tolerant society where people are allowed to hold views about sex that deviate from the priestly councils at the media corporations and in academia and in politics — if we are to live in a society where people are allowed to be Christian — we have to deal with that. A good training for tolerance is to understand and accurately convey the views of those sexual revolution heretics who stubbornly keep following their ancient teachings no matter how much the forces of conformity bear down.
Let’s work on that, New York Times.
This music …
… opens Greg Sargent‘s report:
Donald Trump’s slide in the national polls is becoming so obvious that even he may not be able to deny it for much longer. Or will he?
Politico’s Steven Shepard has a good analysis of all the recent polling that makes two basic points. First, the polls now “unanimously” show that Hillary Clinton is building a real lead over Trump. And second, a look at all the recent polls showing him upside down — which are detailed at length in the piece — reveals that Trump’s personal unfavorable numbers are not just bad. They are actually “setting modern records for political toxicity.”
But there are two additional key points. First, note the intensity of dislike of Trump:
It’s not just the overall unfavorable numbers — it’s the intensity of the antipathy toward Trump, and the lack of enthusiasm for him. In the ABC News/Washington Post poll, 56 percent of respondents had a “strongly unfavorable” opinion of Trump, compared to just 15 percent who had a “strongly favorable” opinion. In the Bloomberg poll, 51 percent had a “very unfavorable” opinion of Trump, with only 11 percent having a “very favorable” opinion.
And the second key point is that, while Hillary Clinton is also disliked, there is just no comparison to Trump:
Clinton’s image ratings are also “upside-down” — but compared with Trump, she’s more than likable enough. The ABC News/Washington Post poll pegs her favorable rating at 43 percent (25 percent strongly favorable), with 55 percent viewing her unfavorably (39 percent strongly unfavorable).
Crucially, note that in the WaPo and Bloomberg polls, a majority of Americans has a strongly unfavorable view of Trump. But the WaPo poll shows only a minority of 39 percent has a strongly unfavorable view of Clinton. That’s true of the Bloomberg poll, too, in which 40 percent view her very unfavorably.
This is another way in which there is simply no equivalence in how disliked Trump and Clinton are, which cuts against one of the punditry’s cherished narratives, i.e., that gosh, it’s just so awful that the parties are foisting two deeply hated candidates on the poor voters!
One is strongly disliked by a majority of Americans (at least in those two polls), and the other isn’t. That’s a key distinction: It suggests that Trump could be inspiring a level of mainstream antipathy and even revulsion that could prove harder to turn around than the less intense dislike Clinton is eliciting.
Yet all indications are that Trump is still so caught up in the glow of his GOP primary victories that he may not even be capable of acknowledging what’s happening right now. In a key tell, Morning Joe aired some footage of Trump at a rally in Dallas last night, in which he launched a lengthy soliloquy about how the polls had underestimated his strength in the primaries. At one point, he said this about those polls:
“When I run, I do much better. In other words, people say, ‘I’m not gonna say who I’m voting for’ — don’t be embarrassed — ‘I’m not gonna say who I’m voting for,’ and then they get in, and I do much better. It’s like an amazing effect.”
It would not be surprising if Trump is telling himself something similar about the general election polling, if, that is, he even takes it seriously enough to bother thinking about it at all.
Sargent must be correct on that last point given that Trump tweeted a poll that shows him … losing to Hillary.
The polls are further evidence that primary voters for Trump really weren’t particularly committed to Trump, and that they voted for Trump as the easiest Republican candidate for Hillary Clinton to beat in November. It’s like Democrats were voting in Republican primaries for Trump (even changing their voter registration in states with closed primaries).
But Trump’s poll numbers are far from Trump’s only numbers problem. Philip Bump has the other bad news for The Donald:
Supporters of Donald Trump got an unexpected plea on Saturday: a request to send the billionaire money.
It was an “emergency” request, the Hill reported, representing an urgent need for an infusion of $100,000 to put ads on the air in battleground states. Why Trump couldn’t simply write a check to cover the costs apparently wasn’t explained, but the missive was useful regardless: It demonstrates clearly the difficult position of the Trump campaign with only 142 days to go. …
“[T]here’s no way to look at Trump’s national polling that avoids the grim reality that he is at a lower ebb than any general election candidate has hit in the last three elections,” the National Review’s Dan McLaughlin wrote last week.
Not only are Trump’s poll numbers slipping, they are at a low that no one, Republican or Democrat, has seen in the past three election cycles. Looking at the window of time between 200 and 100 days before each of those elections, you can see that Trump has consistently polled worse than George W. Bush in 2004, John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012. He caught up briefly after clinching the GOP nomination — and then sank again.
The margin by which he trails Hillary Clinton now mirrors McCain’s deficit to Barack Obama in 2008. McCain rebounded after the Republican convention — but it’s important to remember that we’re comparing Trump to the worst Republican performance in a general election since 1996.
There’s every reason to think that those numbers will get worse. Trump essentially has no campaign at this point; there’s no sign that he has started staffing up significantly. We looked this month at how his staffing compared with the two final Democratic candidates. His campaign was never a traditional, national effort.
He has indicated that he doesn’t plan to increase staff, either. On Friday, the Associated Press reported that Trump intended, in effect, to outsource his campaign to the Republican Party. As of right now, “the campaign estimates it currently has about 30 paid staff on the ground across the country,” according to the report.
On Sunday morning, NBC News’s Mark Murray shared numbers on ad spending by Trump and Clinton. In June 2012, the Romney campaign and PACs supporting it spent about $38 million on ads in battleground states — a bit behind the $44.6 million spent by Obama and his allies.
This June? Trump is getting skunked.
In their look at the 2012 election, our John Sides and UCLA’s Lynn Vavreck found that ads made a difference in the race when the balance was lopsided, as it is now. They also found that the presence of staff on the ground made a slight difference in the margin for a candidate in that region. (Without his field operation, they estimate, Obama probably would have lost Florida.) It’s very early; Sides and Vavreck also found that ads right before the election made the biggest difference.
The current gap in ad spending exists because Trump can’t or won’t spend money on ads, just as he can’t or won’t spend money on staff. He will probably trail Clinton in fundraising even if he were to focus on it, and he has said in the past that he didn’t need to spend because he got so much free media.
In essence, Trump is running a real-time experiment in a new form of presidential campaigning. And the early numbers suggest that the experiment is shaping up to be a failure.
On Monday, Trump fired his campaign manager, which is tantamount to firing the captain of the Titanic as it’s sinking, or a baseball team owner firing his manager with his team 30 games behind first place.
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 