This is inconvenient

A new report from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on Friday revealed that homelessness is on the rise in the U.S. and that Democrat-controlled California is the main force behind the overall increase of the homeless population in the United States.

“While the rest of the country experienced a combined decrease in homelessness in 2019, significant increases in unsheltered and chronic homelessness on the West Coast, particularly California and Oregon, offset those nationwide decreases, causing an overall increase in homelessness of 2.7 percent in 2019,” HUD said in a statement. “Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia reported declines in homelessness between 2018 and 2019, while 21 states reported increases in the number of persons experiencing homelessness. Homelessness in California increased by 21,306 people, or 16.4 percent, which is more than the total national increase of every other state combined.”

The report found that 567,715 persons experienced homelessness on a single night in 2019, which was an increase of nearly 15,000 thousand people from the previous year.

Regarding the CT Op-Ed

“Political Christianity can't attach itself to left or right. 

It parts ways with a right that disdains social justice.

It part ways with a left that imagines social justice can be achieved without regard for man's final end.”

I thought the biggest flaw in the CT Op-Ed was failing to acknowledge that the attachment of Christianity to politics was that it was one sided on the right.   I’m not totally sure I agree with this simplistic view on social justice, but I think he’s in the ballpark.

I want to dig a little deeper with this.

While I do agree that the evangelical (right wing) church did get to a point that it was focused on personal salvation to the exclusion of engaging on social issues, I believe that there was a moment where this mistake was acknowledged and that there has been a move in the evangelical church to engage with both physical and spiritual needs.   Further, I'm seeing progressive christians continue down the road toward excluding the spiritual even more from the social.    What's interesting is that both extremes failed to grasp that Christianity includes loving God (spiritual) and loving neighbor (physical).    

Where I see a continuing difference is that progressive christians tend toward government solutions for these problems.   The ongoing problem with this approach and a healthy balance is that once care for neighbor is turned over to the government, then the spiritual piece of the puzzle is forcibly removed from the conversation.     

To get back to the CT op-ed, and what it misses, is that as Christians or hope is not in the government, it's not in political candidates, it's in God.  Whenever either side chooses to put more hope in politics than in God, we see problems.   

Mutually exclusive

So, which is it? Live and let live, "knock yourself out..."? 

Or, "This is NOT a Christian song. Period. I have decided."..?

What you see above is a false choice.   The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

The fact is that the song Hallelujah by Cohen is not a song intended to communicate a Christian theology, philosophy, or worldview.  Further, none of the lyrics or themes of the song explicitly references Christmas.  I suspect that if Cohen were asked he’d agree.    That part shouldn’t be controversial.

The question then becomes, is it wise for an individual or a church to incorporate this song in particular, but secular (not explicitly Christian lyrics, themes, or worldview) into personal or corporate worship?    As far as personal worship goes, that’s pretty much up to the individual.   If the song points them to God in a healthy way, then who am I to tell them no?   If someone wants to enjoy a song (or any piece of art), then I say live and let live.     If an individual chooses to worship or engage with God through art that isn’t necessarily Christian, that’s their choice.   But pointing out the reality that the song isn’t Christian doesn’t negate or suggest criticism of the choice.    It’s simply pointing out the reality that a song that uses Biblical language and stories isn’t automatically Christian,   In this specific case, if the song was referred to as Jewish, I wouldn’t quibble, there’s a sense that it’s even sort of Biblical.   But in either case, that’s not specifically Christian.

As far as corporate worship using secular songs or art. I think it depends on context and intent.  But that doesn’t negate the reality that the art isn’t specially Christian.

I’m guessing that if the song in question was Disciple by Slayer, instead of a song that uses Biblical language, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. 

Impeachment

I haven’t said much about the impeachment for multiple reasons, but there are two things that lead me to believe that this isn’t serious.

1.  The refusal of the senate dems to accept the rules passed 100-0 that controlled the Clinton impeachment trial.

2.  This playing games by passing two vague articles of impeachment, then refusing to send them on to the senate for action.

The first is simply confirming that this is petty and political.   The second indicates both a disdain for constitutional responsibilities, and (seemingly) a strategy designed to play on people’s ignorance of the process.    It’s equivalent to charging someone with a crime, but not following through on the constitutional process of allowing the accused to face their accuser and put forth a defense.

I’m not sure how this’ll play out, but it’d be ironic if this is what gets Trump re elected in 2020.

It’s ironic the DFL expert in impeachment, Noah Feldman, has clarified that Trump hasn’t been impeached until the articles are sent to the senate.

Affirmative Action

The solution proposed to increase the “diversity” for the DNC debates, is to lower the standards for inclusion.   I guess that’ll teach those racist dems.

Silence of the Libs

 So, Cenk Uygur is running for congress, and apparently he's a fan of bestiality and has a problematic history of what seems like inappropriate behavior.    Although Berine did rescind his endorsement, we've really heard nothing from the majority of the political left.   

 https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-rescinds-endorsement-after-womens-groups-blast-misogynist-cenk-uygur

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxp76bwIogQ


Probably some of us have seen the video on social media of the 14 year old boy, brutally attacked for wearing clothing that indicated support of Trump.   I point out that we've probably seen this in Social media because I haven't seen much, if anything, from the mainstream media on this story.   I certainly haven't seen any of the lefty bloggers of social media commentators I follow spend any time on it.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7787635/Florida-school-bus-bullies-pummel-14-year-old-boy-Trump-hat.html

Of course, we have seen the violent protests in the UK after the liberals went down in flames against the CW.



Clearly the left has set up a climate where it's ok to engage in violence against folx on the right, because folx on the right are the functional equivalent of NAZIs, or racists, or evil, and therefore it's appropriate employ an "ends justify the means" strategy to win. 

Anyone who says that nonviolence is an essential tenet of modern political progressiveism is simply  ignoring the reality that we see played out on a regular basis on video.  It's why they make excuses to justify ANTIFA, and remain silent whenever possible on the violence we see from the left.  I’ve been assured for years that there are certain things that are anathema to the left, yet the left seems to increasingly be engaging in exactly those things.    My pointing out the silence on these stories isn’t intended as anything but a note of the hypocrisy of those on the left.   I’ve also made a point of only including stories that have spread beyond the local area.  I’ve never had a problem criticizing folx on the GOP side of things for moral/character failings.    I’m just surprised that the leftists I read aren’t willing to criticize their own with a fraction of the vitriol they unleash on their enemies.

While I'm not sure I totally buy this, it's an interesting look at the back and forth between God's sovreignty and human free will.


https://winteryknight.com/2019/12/12/making-monergism-make-sense-reconciling-divine-sovereignty-and-free-will-2/

Abortion Analogies

Some “celebrity” I’ve never heard of decided that the best analogy she could come up with to justify abortion on demand was the landlord/tenant.   That the baby is a tenant and the mother the landlord.

Superficially this seems apt.   Except that she’s arguing that the tenant should be summarily expelled at the whim or for the convenience of the landlord at any time for any (or no) reason.

The problem is that this isn’t how a landlord/tenant relationship works.   In that relationship there are numerous safeguards to prevent the landlord from summarily ejecting the tenant.   We protect the rights of the tenant, we make it difficult for the landlord to capriciously evict a tenant.   Not only that, but we certainly don’t allow the landlord to dismember the tenant.

What’s amusing is the she probably supports the laws that protect tenants.   She would be outraged if she was kicked out of her rental for no reason.

I’m not sure if it’s just a case of stupidity or the lack of good arguments for unrestricted abortion.

FYI, if you feel the need to tell strangers how happy you are, it might be reasonable to conclude that maybe you aren’t that happy.

The Right Side of History

 For quite some time, those of us who don't wholeheartedly buy into the LGBTQWXYZPDQ agenda have been told that we are on the "wrong side of history" and that the tide of "millennials"  and subsequent generations would submerge would overwhelm us with increasing support for the LGBTQWXYZPDQ agenda.

But a strange thing happened, GLAAD conducted a survey, that gathered data about LGBTQWXYZPDQ acceptance, and found something interesting.    That the jury may still be out on the "right side of history".  

Blaire White wrote an interesting piece which I copied and linked to below.   If you read the piece, you'll understand why Ms White is unlikely to be categorized as a right wing homophobe or anything similar.  

This makes you wonder about people who treat opinion polls as something significant when it comes to things like right and wrong, morality, or the "right side of history".   I'll let Ms Wright give her thoughts rather than add mine.  I also posted the link to the study itself below.






"There appears to be some turbulence ahead for the LGBT community. According to a national survey by GLAAD, LGBT acceptance appears to be declining in America. Interestingly, it’s declining among a group that is often touted as the most accepting and socially “woke”—millennials.
The survey reports that the percentage of young people who reported being “somewhat” or “very” comfortable with LGBT people dropped from 53% to 45%. This is the second year in a row that the number has fallen. While many gay publications have shared this survey and rang the alarm, I’ve yet to see anyone online offer a measured opinion of why this is occurring beyond “ORANGE MAN BAD.”"

"I am a transgender woman and YouTuber who has witnessed LGBT discourse become more extreme and intense year after year. What used to simply be a conversation about marriage equality and treating those who are different than us as equals has become a cultural hailstorm. Our community’s most popular and decorated activists often preach the most extreme of our ideas rather our most practical. Buzzwords and genders are added into the community’s vernacular at such a rate that even I can’t keep up with them. What does that say about someone who is not within the community and their ability to keep pace with the dialogue?"

" I believe it is the T in LGBT (or whatever the current acronym is) that has contributed the most to the erosion of society’s understanding and acceptance of the community at large. When I transitioned 6 years ago, I remember being fearful of receiving rejection because of who I was. Now, I find myself fearful of rejection because of who trans activists have led the general public to believe I am. The push for 5-year-olds to transition, mandatory dating of trans people (unless you want to be called a bigot), and forced acceptance of biological males destroying female athletes in sports are among the most toxic ideas pushed by trans activists in 2019. As a trans woman myself, I believe none of them but often find myself anxious when meeting new people that they may think I do as a default."

"To be clear, these are also all ideas that are incompatible with the general public. It is society’s natural inclination to protect children and women. So why is it that the trans community has made it their mission to brand themselves as something that at best disregards the harm to both children and women and at worst willingly inflicts it? If this is the route the community insists on going down, I don’t see much hope at all. I expect the decline of acceptance to continue.
There is an LGBT fatigue that has fallen on many in society that is a direct result of the constant bullying, shaming, and virtue signalling that comes out of the community—or at least, the activists that are placed on a pedestal to speak on our behalf. As the GLAAD survey reveals, it is particularly millennials who feel this fatigue the strongest. Millennials tend to be the most plugged into the culture war, so it only makes sense that many are beginning to question—what if this LGBT thing is derailing a bit? Why must I be forced to accept drag queens teaching sex ed to my children, and why am I feeling my heart race at the mere thought of questioning or challenging it publicly?
At some point, the community is going to have to address the overreach and bad ideas we are currently spouting. I am personally exhausted with all of it, but hey—all I can do is continue to try to sound the alarm myself."

 https://www.thepostmillennial.com/this-is-the-reason-why-lgbt-acceptance-is-declining/

https://www.glaad.org/releases/annual-glaad-study-shows-further-decline-lgbtq-acceptance-among-younger-americans

Polling data

“New axios poll, which is a far left pollster, has Trump beating every Democrat in the key Battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, by an average of 6 points. Keep in mind that this is with oversampling Democrats.”

“Poll: Impeachment is helping Trump in 3 key battleground states”

Axios.com

How pathetic is it that the DFL can’t our poll the least appealing GOP president in the last 100 years.   

The namesake of my blog

Every so often, I check in on the person my blog is named after.  Briefly, when I first started reading blogs, Mr Shuck was afraid to allow commenters on his blog who didn't have a blogger account.  So, I created one and ended up writing much more than I ever thought I would.

So, when I went to Mr. Shuck's blog today, I was greeted with his final sermon at the PCUSA church that has employed him most recently.  While light on details, it appears that he is being involuntarily separated from his position as "Minister of Word and Sacrament".   I have no idea what drove them to this point.  Clearly it was fine with them to employ someone who denied the existence of God, the divinity of Christ and virtually every other Christian doctrine.    Perhaps his apparent foray into Islam was the final straw.

As I read his final sermon, I was struck by how a self described atheist,   continues to cling to the terminology of the very thing he denies the existence of.   He talks of a "Reign of Divine Values", while denying the existence of The Divine.   He talks of prayer, while denying the existence of someone to pray to.  

It will be interesting to follow Shuck's descent further into apostasy, but I'm impressed that there is a line that a PCUSA church will hold fast to.









https://shuckandjive.blogspot.com/2019/11/final-sermon-at-southminster-reign-of.html

Keaton Hill

I’ve now seen multiple videos of this idiot physically and verbally attacking conservatives, yet it seems as though he’s pretty much protected from consequences,    I’d love to see Dan do the research and specifically denounce this scumbag.  I guess being gay and liberal protects you from all sorts of thing.

I've been told

I've been told that if I'd just spend more time listening to POC that I'll end up with some sort of undefined benefit.  Now, what I think that that when these folx say POC, they reall mean "POC who agree with me and share my political views".   So what I do is to talk to POC regardless of any preconceived notions about their views on politics or anything else.

Now, in doing so I'm confronted by this excerpt from a blog post by Wintery Knight, quoting Walter E. Williams, neither of whom are white.  Further, they refer to a recent study.  (we know how much certain folx like studies with data).   

If the past repeats itself, I'll be told that these particular POC don't count, are racist, are Uncle Toms, or some other reason why they don't count, yet they represent what appears to be a growing segment of the black population.   (Recent polls show Trump support at 34% among blacks)

So, with that, here we go.

https://winteryknight.com/2019/12/04/economist-asks-whether-policies-of-white-liberals-will-protect-blacks-from-crime/

Let’s… turn to a recent article by Heather Mac Donald, who is a senior fellow at the New York-based Manhattan Institute. She is a contributing editor of City Journal, and a New York Times bestselling author. Her most recent article, “A Platform of Urban Decline,” which appeared in Manhattan Institute’s publication Eye On The News, addresses race and crime. She reveals government statistics you’ve never read before.
According to leftist rhetoric, whites pose a severe, if not mortal, threat to blacks. Mac Donald says that may have once been true, but it is no longer so today. To make her case, she uses the latest Bureau of Justice Statistics 2018 survey of criminal victimization. Mac Donald writes: “According to the study, there were 593,598 interracial violent victimizations (excluding homicide) between blacks and whites last year, including white-on-black and black-on-white attacks. Blacks committed 537,204 of those interracial felonies, or 90 percent, and whites committed 56,394 of them, or less than 10 percent. That ratio is becoming more skewed, despite the Democratic claim of Trump-inspired white violence. In 2012-13, blacks committed 85 percent of all interracial victimizations between blacks and whites; whites committed 15 percent. From 2015 to 2018, the total number of white victims and the incidence of white victimization have grown as well.”
There are other stark figures not talked about often. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting for 2018, of the homicide victims for whom race was known, 53.3% were black, 43.8% were white and 2.8% were of other races. In cases where the race of the offender was known, 54.9% were black, 42.4% were white, and 2.7% were of other races.

So, what are the policies proposed to protect blacks from being the victims of crime? Well, there are three.

1. white liberals want to encourage black women to raise fatherless children by normalizing sex before marriage, and paying black women to have children outside of marriage.
2. white liberals want to confiscate the weapons that law-abiding blacks use to defend themselves from criminals.
3. white liberals want to deny blacks school choice, trapping them into failing schools so that they can’t get out of dangerous neighborhoods by rising in education, career and finance.

No, it’s not a joke.

Someone with a penis and testicles is upset because a gynecologist won’t schedule an appointment for them.    Apparently they think it’s a good idea to get medical treatment from a Dr. that most likely hasn’t had any relevant experience with this person’s genitalia since med school.  

It’s like something trying to schedule an appointment with an ophthalmologist to have their heart looked at,

Or, it’s just an excuse for a lawsuit.

The party of white folx

The next DFL debate is only between white people.   The majority of these white people are old and male.

Which party has the race problem?

“No matter your candidate, you have to recognize that going from the most diverse field ever in January to a potentially all-white debate stage in December is catastrophic. 

The implicit racism and sexism of "electability" is deeply damaging to democracy.”

Leah Greenberg

Guess that racist

“The white liberal is the worst enemy to America, and the worst enemy to the black man."

 "They are fighting each other for power and prestige, and the one that is the football in the game is the Negro, 20 million black people. A political football, a political pawn, an economic football, and economic pawn. A social football, a social pawn. The liberal elements of whites are those who have perfected the art of selling themselves to the Negro as a friend of the Negro."

 "The worst enemy that the Negro have is this white man that runs around here drooling at the mouth professing to love Negros, and calling himself a liberal, and it is following these white liberals that has perpetuated problems that Negros have. If the Negro wasn’t taken, tricked, or deceived by the white liberal then Negros would get together and solve our own problems."