The Overlooked, Under-Reported and Ignored Stories of 2016 - The Safety Net Keeps 38 Million People Out of Poverty

Found here. My comments in bold.

----------------------

This is one of the stories deemed undercovered.
-------------------

The most undercovered story of this year is one that goes virtually ignored year after year: the fact that poverty would be nearly twice as high without our safety net. It was overlooked last year, and it was missed again this year too, when we learned that 38 million people escaped poverty thanks to public investments. (It is a mystery as to how this figure was calculated. The poverty rate is currently 13.5%, which means 44,550,000 are under the poverty line. The author suggests that 38 million are not in poverty because of government programs, so that means less than half of the poor are not poor now.

The poverty rate history is as follows:

Time our society look toward decency and manners - By Jay Moor

Found here. My comments in bold.

----------------

My recent letter on political correctness brought a reader’s huffy response. Puzzled, I did a little research on the topic, wondering why someone would react so negatively to a call for social decency. (Term-switching. "political correctness" is not the same as "social decency.")

First, I googled “politically correct, images.” That produced scores of cartoons and posters, 95 percent of which were sarcastic justifications for overt racism, bigotry and xenophobia. (I just googled the exact same thing. The letter writer is lying. I barely found any racism, bigotry, or xenophobia.)

Most say what my respondent said: Political correctness is a liberal plot to divide the country by submerging “the truth.” Only a few images defended the phrase, but those that did argued, as I did, that being politically correct is one of the main ways to reduce friction in a diverse society. In other words, it is the political expression of good manners. (Actually, it is the political enforcement of arbitrary rules regarding offenses. The offender learns he is an offender after the fact, because the "expression" is judged by the offend-ee and deemed offensive at that point. Therefore, political correctness is a control and manipulation technique which attacks unwitting offenders arbitrarily.

Laying On of Hands - by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Found here. My comments in bold.

---------------------

I have entertained many writers in this blog in my quest to find a compelling scriptural case for cessationism. In this particular example, we have a Dr. Dave Miller offering us his explanation for the cessation of the miraculous. Yet like so many cessationists, he is loathe to quote Scripture. In fact, he only manages to quote two scriptural passages. 

--------------------

The ability to perform miracles in the first century church was granted by God in essentially two ways: baptism of the Holy Spirit and the laying on of the apostles’ hands. 

The Bible only mentions the former avenue as occurring twice (Acts 2 and Acts 10), and then only for special and limited purposes, with a third occurrence implied in connection with Paul’s unique calling (Acts 9:15; 22:21; Romans 1:5; 11:13; 1 Corinthians 15:8; Galatians 1:16; 2:7-8; et al. See Miller, 2003). (Unfortunately for the author, his very first claim is false. He makes a definitive claim ["occurring twice"], then lists several Scriptures to support his claim. But those Scriptures aren't relevant to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Prayer for the climate deniers

Oh, government, thou art great.

Thou dost preserve us from the evil ones who burn the hellfire of fossil fuels. All your judgments are just. Your mighty acts silence the mockers and the dissenters.

Yea, they deny the truth, the truth that is handed down from on high; therefore they are unrighteous and unlearned, worthy of your wrath.

They warm themselves with petroleum, they drink deeply with plastic straws, they flush the yellow water.

They are evil doers, doubters, and haters. Therefore, awesome government, shut their mouths. By thy great law, silence their heresy. Bring thy judgment against them so that they shall not utter their untruths.

Destroy their citadels of commerce. Bring to ruin their greed. take their land and their crops. Make them barren and futile in their works.

Take their unrighteous wealth from them, and give it to the righteous ones, those who love your dictates. Yea, to those whose footprint is small, whose recycle bins overflow, be kind and benevolent.

To them who shout loudly of your perfection, O be gracious to them.

And we will serve you all the days of our lives, and give generously and joyfully of the fruit of our labors, that you would continually increase and we would decrease.

Amen

"You must be born again" is not the same as "You must be baptized." - John 3:3 - 3:6

There are those who have a curious take on this passage in order to support their contention that water baptism is required to be saved. Unfortunately for them, this passage does not teach this. It's not even about baptism at all.

The Constitution of the United States has failed - by Ian Millhiser

Found here. Our comments in bold.
---------------------------

The Left actually doesn't care about the Constitution, so the author's complaints are irrelevant.

The author is going to explain to us how evil America is, a common trope of the Left. It is mystifying how we could all be so evil, yet the Left bristles when accused of hating America.

As you read you will note that we gave up commenting on the author's facile presentation. There's only so much ignorance we can stand.)
-------------------------

What kind of nation allows the loser of a national election to become president — and then does it again 16 years later? (A nation that follows the Constitution, sir.)

What kind of nation retains an electoral process that was originally designed to inflate the influence of slaveholders? (That is, it is the opinion of the leftist being quoted in the supplied link. However, one man's opinion doesn't establish the fact of the matter.

The Electoral College isn't in any way racist simply because it resulted in the election of a president from a southern state 200 years ago. Indeed, what are we to make of California's disproportionate influence in the 2016 election, which was swayed by its large population of of non-native residents?

He then recycles the incorrect argument that the 3/5 compromise is a racist provision. However, the clause was inserted to diminish the power of the slave states. Slaves couldn't vote, yet the South wanted them counted for the purposes of representation. Had this occurred, the South would have disproportionate representation in the House of Representatives, and thus more power to fight against freeing the slaves. 

Thus, the Founders cleverly resisted the influence of slave owners by limiting the power of the southern states.)

This is how republics fall - By Paul Krugman

Found here. My comments in bold.
---------------------------

There are so many problems with this it's hard to know where to begin. I'll give it my best shot.
-----------------------

The sickness of U.S. politics didn’t begin with Donald Trump, any more than the sickness of the Roman Republic began with Caesar. The erosion of democratic foundations has been under way for decades. (Problems start with the teaser line. We don't have "democratic foundations" in America, since we are not a democracy. Our foundations are predicated on rights that descend from God, politic power arises from the people, limited government restrained by the Constitution, and private property, all in the context of liberty.

Regarding democracy, the founders abhorred it. John Adams, for example, wrote: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.” James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10 that democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” 

We therefore have no democratic foundations.)

On victory lap, few signs Trump focusing on unified nation - By JONATHAN LEMIRE, Associated Press

Found here. My comments in bold.

----------------------

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump on Saturday wrapped up his postelection victory tour, showing few signs of turning the page from his blustery campaign to focus on uniting a divided nation a month before his inauguration. (Waaait. Upon what basis should Trump focus on this? Did Trump make unity his central campaign theme? 

And why, may we ask, is the nation so divided after Obama and his promise to unite us?)

At each stop, the Republican has gloatingly (This is a news report, not an opinion piece.)

recapped his election night triumph, reignited some old political feuds while starting some new ones, and done little to quiet the hate-filled chants of "Lock her up!" (Again, this is a news report, not an opinion piece. How could the author know the chanters we hate-filled?)

A nativity scene without Jews, Arabs, Africans or refugees.

Found here, and posted on FB by Scott:

A conversation ensued:

Julie: Explain. I guess I am on holiday overload. Dismantling a sacred Nativity scene that is in Millions of homes every Christmas to make a point. Unreal.

Me: Julie, Joseph and Mary weren't refugees, they lived in Nazareth and were obligated to travel to Bethlehem for the census. Luke 2:4.

Dare for Democracy: Three Essential Steps - BY FRANCES MOORE LAPPÉ AND ADAM EICHEN

Found here. My comments in bold.

----------------------

This is a long article filled with leftist tropes and unsupported assertions.

-----------------------

Many Americans remain in shock and outrage, unable to grasp how a man who told bald-faced lies, who ridiculed and defamed others, and who boasted of sexual assault could yet ascend to the presidency of the United States. (Oh. I thought they were talking about Hillary.)

Despair isn’t an option; it’s our greatest enemy. (Yes, of course. This hysterical emoting is quite unseemly and frankly, unexplainable. It's an election, and they lost., nothing more, nothing less. But I suppose when your hope is founded upon government, its every ebb and flow is cause for alarm. But for the rest of us in the real world, we live our lives with little regard for the religion of government, except for when it forcibly intrudes into our day to day.)

The Equal Protection Argument Against “Winner Take All” in the Electoral College - BY LAWRENCE LESSIG

Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------------

This is a long and frequently pedantic article. We will try to wade through the author's verbally incontinent presentation.

*Update* Dr. Walter E. Williams objects to the idea that the electoral college is anti-democratic, since nearly all the features of the federal government violate democracy. He explains the situation well: 

51 senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The president can veto the wishes of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto. To change the Constitution requires not a majority but a two-thirds vote of both houses, and if an amendment is approved, it requires ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. Finally, the Electoral College is yet another measure that thwarts majority rule. It makes sure that the highly populated states -- today, mainly 12 on the East and West coasts, cannot run roughshod over the rest of the nation. That forces a presidential candidate to take into consideration the wishes of the other 38 states.

-----------------------------

The Constitution doesn't require the Electoral College to count votes the way it traditionally has.

This post was originally published on Medium by the group Equal Citizens.

In 2000, Republican lawyers, desperately seeking a way to stop the recount in Florida, (That is, they wanted to put an end to the endless recounts and innovative ways to count ballots so as to respect the vote of the people of Florida. Left unsaid by the author is the fact the every subsequent recount done by the media yielded the same result: Bush won. 

It is ironic how the Left loves democracy and shames those who suggest that there was fraud or manipulation in the vote, but are quick to abandon democracy when it doesn't go their way.)

crafted a brilliant equal protection argument against the method by which the Florida courts were recounting votes. Before that election, no sane student of the Constitution would have thought that there was such a claim. When the claim was actually made, every sane lawyer (on Gore’s side at least) thought it was a sure loser. But by a vote of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court recognized the claim, and held that the Equal Protection Clause regulated how Florida could recount its votes. That conclusion led five justices to conclude the recount couldn’t continue. George Bush became president.

I’ve been struck in this election cycle by just how timid Democrats have been about thinking in the same way. I’m not (yet) saying they necessarily should. But it is striking to see how committed they are to allowing this train wreck to occur. And more surprisingly, how little careful attention has been given (at the top at least) to just how vulnerable — given Bush v. Gore — the current (system for counting votes in the) Electoral College is. (It wasn't vulnerable for 200 years. It worked perfectly, without contest, until the Left started their caterwauling.)

Evangelicals, your attacks on ‘the media’ are getting dangerous - By Sarah Pulliam Bailey

Found here. My comments in bold.

------------------------

The author uses the term "dangerous," as if she is soberly warning evangelicals about some sort of ominous peril they should take note of. They are attacking, apparently, and those attacks are rife with menace.

We will discover that the author never gets around to explaining why evangelicals' perfectly justified and easy-to-document distrust of the mainstream media (MSM) has nay danger for anyone.
---------------------

Dear evangelicals,

You tease about the mainstream media being “Satan’s newspaper.” (Apparently the author did not read the link. The writer there expressed some thoughtful commentary about the problems of being a Christian in a debased culture. He engaged in satiric hyperbole when he wrote about "satan's newspaper," which means that he wasn't actually calling the media "satan's newspaper. 

However, Ms. Bailey seems to think the writer was expressing a common way of characterizing the MSM. Ironically, Ms. Bailey is faking news-ing in her own article. If she can't get this right, we can rightly question everything else she says.)  

What Democrats Need: Something Old and Something New - BY SEAN POSEY

Found here. My comments in bold.
--------------------------

Here's a leftist who pretty much gets it. I wonder how long he'll keep his writing job.
---------------------------

To rebuild its winning coalition, a Rust Belt writer argues, the opposition party has to advance younger leaders and go back to its working-class roots.

Just a few weeks ago, the Republican Party was bracing for the end of what most observers considered a disastrous election season: Unlikely nominee Donald Trump, a Philistine of the highest order in the eyes of even many conservatives, appeared to be gleefully guiding the GOP to a third straight presidential defeat, combined with the distinct possibility of an ensuing internecine war.

Instead, it’s the Democrats who now face a reckoning. Hillary Clinton, one of last well-known names in the party, is exiting stage (center)-left. Defeat in the presidential race is compounded by the Democrats’ minority status in Congress, a body they dominated for much of the last century. And it gets worse. Democrats’ historic reversals in Congress have been accompanied by a breakdown at the state level.

Clinton’s loss exposed what two terms of President Barack Obama partially obscured: the party’s irrelevance across wide swaths of the country. Republicans control 67 out of 98 partisan state legislative chambers and hold 33 governor’s offices. By contrast Democrats have a “political trifecta” in only six states, all on the coasts. (Indeed, it goes far beyond Trump. Voters have rejected the democratic agenda en masse. Unfortunately for the author, tweaking the agenda to appeal to younger voters and going back to the Left's divisive tactics will do nothing. It's their agenda the voters rejected, not the way its presented.)

What is God? - John C,. Wright

Found here. An intellectual tour de force.
------------------

To answer the question is simple for anyone familiar with pagan writings: The God is not a god.

I am someone who has read myths and believes of ancient or primitive peoples all my life, so to me, even back when I was an atheist, the answer is quite painfully obvious.

The God, the one God of monotheism, claims to be the eternal, all knowing, benevolent and all powerful sovereign creator of the universe as well as being the source legislating and the legitimate authority enforcing the universal moral law. He is, in short, the Supreme Being.

A being is called Supreme when there is none equal to him in age, power, wisdom, benevolence nor authority, and none above him.

Zeus, Odin, Osiris, Vishnu and any other pagan god one might name from the ancient world, the Far East, or the American Indians, make no claim to be the Supreme Being.

We can no longer afford to ignore overpopulation - letter by Robert Lashaway

Found here. My comments in bold.

-------------------

The author doesn't seem to be aware that the birth rate of the developed world is less than replacement level. The population boom is occurring in third world countries, where they don't give a rip about the environment or population.

It also appears that the author doesn't understand what "increasing exponentially" means. I suppose he means the world population is exploding, but "exponentially" actually means that the rate of change requires the use of components, which would be represented in a graph as a curve upward rather than a straight line.

This is the world's actual rate of population change:

I Will Not Shut Up. America Is Still Worth Fighting For - by HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

Found here. My comments in bold.

----------------------

In typical leftist form the professor dodges the issues and misrepresents the situation.

------------------------

So, yes, I have the dubious honor of being on the “Professor Watchlist”** — a list published recently by a young alt-right provocateur who knew that such a list would get media traction because of Sen. McCarthy’s attacks on academics during the Red Scare. (Whaa? This fellow "knew" he would get traction because of McCarthy? If this is what the professor thinks, she belongs on the watchlist.)

I made the list not because of complaints about my teaching, but because of my public writing about politics. (Again the professor presumes to know what the "provocateur" is thinking.)

It is ironic that this list would label me “leftist.” (From our reading of her, it is clear she is most definitely is a leftist.)

In fact, in my public life, I do not identify with a political party, (Misdirection. "Leftist" is not a political party.)

and I work with politicians on both sides of the aisle. (Misdirection #2. Her work across the isle is irrelevant to being a leftist.)

I also teach the history of American conservative beliefs, as well as those of liberalism. (Misdirection #3. No one has claimed that she does not teach these things.)

I believe that the nation needs both the Democratic and the Republican parties to be strong and healthy. (Misdirection #4. Her described belief in the necessity of both parties does not address the issue of her leftism.)

Trying to Think through the Logic of Abortion Rights - Justin Taylor

Found here.  A very good thought experiment.
-------------------

The logic of the landmark abortion ruling Roe v. Wade was that ignorance about when human life begins entails that the government not impose restrictions upon abortion practice.

If you go back to August 16, 2008, Rick Warren asked presidential candidate Barack Obama when a fetus gets human rights, and Mr. Obama (who opposes any abortion restrictions for any reason, in line with Roe v. Wade) famously responded that the answer was “above his pay grade.”

Disabled People Will Die Under Trump: An Emergency Plea to Allies - by Carolyn Zaikowski

Found here. My comments in bold.
----------------------

As I read this I thought it was a parody. Every single leftist talking point, rhetorical technique, characterization, and tedious trope is contained therein.
-------------------

This is an emergency plea to those upset about a pending Trump presidency. I’d like to especially address intersectional feminists, radicals, anarchists, socialists, and others in the USA who are able-bodied and drawn towards systems-level analysis and organizing for radical change. (This sentence seems to be composed of words that are strung together in attempt to sound intellectual. I had to look up "intersectional," and discovered that it is a descriptor of supposed divergent groups that have an overlapping interest in the author's cause. I suppose this means that feminists, radicals, anarchists, and socialists who are not intersectional [as if there are such people] are not being addressed by the author and therefore should ignore her call to action.

What I also find interesting is that the author calls for radical change, which is represented by Trumps ascendancy. Apparently the election of Hillary, which would not have represented radical change, would have been preferable to the author. We therefore conclude that the author is not actually in favor of radical change, but is in favor of more of the same kinds of policies that have characterized the governance of the country for the past 8 years.

Also, I had to laugh out loud at the idea of anarchists organizing...)

FB Meme - Nobody who works 40 hours per week should be living in poverty

A FB friend shared this meme, and a Bernie supporter responded:




K.A.F.: Well the majority of people who are in poverty are children.... So.....

Me: I don't see Bernie or his supporters getting out their checkbooks and helping the disabled or mentally ill.

K.A.F.: Bernie supporter here. I have worked 40-50+ hours a week for almost a decade with the mentally ill and disabled populations in various social work positions. I think my occupation reflects those values and while I may not be able to pull out my checkbook, my financial contribution is foregoing a better paying career in order to work in this field.

Me: Your service to them is appreciated. However, my point stands.

K.A.F.: Only Bernie supporters care about the mentally ill? Or only Bernie supporters should pay to help the disabled? Both?

What does that imply about the attitudes of people who didn't support Bernie about the mentally ill and disabled?

Me: My point is that seldom does a supporter of government social programs ever feel personal responsibility to help those in need with their own money. They always seem to be in favor of helping people with others' money.

Government programs aren't compassionate, people are. But paying your taxes is not compassion. Directly helping people is compassion.

Progressives, Take Hold of American History - by HARVEY J. KAYE

Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------

The election results may have been different had Democrats embraced America's past and its radical imperative of freedom, equality and democracy.

Americans were ready to make history anew in 2016 — and in a tragic way we have. We elected to the presidency a man who represents not “the better angels of our nature,” but the worst. If we slept at all election night, we woke up on the morning of Nov. 9 chilled and tearful. (The author affirms the childish, immature, self-indulgent reactions to Trump's victory as if they are valid and proper.)

But as others have written, now is not the time to retreat in sorrow. (That is, the push for failed leftist initiatives must continue, despite the fact that voters soundly rejected their agenda and not only elected Trump, but also gave a historically high 33 governors and 32 state legislatures to the Republicans.

Perhaps the sorrow felt by the Left is an unconscious realization that their views are starkly unpopular, perhaps even on the wane [We hope]. They are being rendered irrelevant, and thus are forced to do one of two things: Abandon their position [unlikely, as it is very nearly a religion to them], or try to press on in the context of substantial cognitive dissonance.)

THE UNHAPPY FATE OF OPTIONAL ORTHODOXY: NEUHAUS’S LAW

Found here. A very good, but long article.

------------------------

The Public Square

Richard John Neuhaus died on January 8, 2009, at the age of seventy-two—a great loss to the magazine, to American public discourse, and to his many friends. We present here a few of our favorite items from the nineteen years of his work in The Public Square. The next edition of First Things—the April 2009 issue—will contain tributes to his extraordinary life and career.

I’ll presume to call it Neuhaus’s Law, or at least one of his several laws: Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed. Some otherwise bright people have indicated their puzzlement with that axiom but it seems to me, well, axiomatic. Orthodoxy, no matter how politely expressed, suggests that there is a right and a wrong, a true and a false, about things. When orthodoxy is optional, it is admitted under a rule of liberal tolerance that cannot help but be intolerant of talk about right and wrong, true and false. It is therefore a conditional admission, depending upon orthodoxy’s good behavior. The orthodox may be permitted to believe this or that and to do this or that as a matter of sufferance, allowing them to indulge their inclination, preference, or personal taste. But it is an intolerable violation of the etiquette by which one is tolerated if one has the effrontery to propose that this or that is normative for others.

A well-mannered church can put up with a few orthodox eccentrics, and can even take pride in being so very inclusive. “Oh, poor Johnson thinks we’re all heretics,” says the bishop, chuckling between sips of his sherry. The bishop is manifestly pleased that there is somebody, even if it is only poor old Johnson, who thinks he is so adventuresome as to be a heretic. And he is pleased with himself for keeping Johnson around to make him pleased with himself. If, however, Johnson’s views had the slightest chance of prevailing and thereby threatening the bishop’s general sense of security and well-being, well, then it would be an entirely different matter.

Dear bitter clingers

Dear bitter clingers, you who cling to the outmoded and discredited ideals of progressivism:

I'm praying for you to the God you don't believe in,
for the comfort, grace and peace you seldom extend to others,
I'm praying for you that you would be healed and shown mercy,
though those things seem only to be granted by you to those who agree with you,

A leftist expounds on the free market - FB Conversation

A FB Conversation about Trump's campaign promises, morphing into a discussion about healthcare and the free market.

--------------------

Newt Gingrich admits Trump probably can't get Mexico to pay for his wall. 'But it was a great campaign device.'

Me: Yup, and my health insurance went down $2500.

B.L.: My insurance is going up, and has gone up. It's going to be cheaper now to pay the fine than have insurance. The good of the ACA is offset by the bad. The only way to control health care costs is single payer.

Me: The only way to control costs is the free market.

K.J.: Right, because when you're having a heart attack you're sure to shop around for the lowest prices.

Me: Which of course has nothing to do with my comment.

A Democrat's pledge to be civil

A FB friend posted this passive aggressive comment:


My contract with my fellow Americans:

So yes, I am horribly disappointed in the outcome of this election.

I'll get over it.

And just as I'd hoped would happen in 2008 when my friends on the right were equally disappointed when Obama was elected, I will try my best to keep an open mind. After all, Obama's popularity rating is now higher than Reagan's was at the end of his term.....so there is hope.

I will continue to respect the office of President of the United States, and I will do my patriotic duty to be a member of the loyal opposition: supporting him where it serves the nation's interests, and opposing him where it also serves the nation's interests. My loyalty is to the nation and the principles it was founded on, not to party or to personalities.

Moreover, there are things I will NOT do:

- I will not question the citizenship of President Trump, and unless he gives me reason to believe otherwise, I will assume he has honorable intentions.

- I will not question his claim to be a Christian, though as a non-believer who has a passing familiarity with the teachings of Christ, I must profess that if he is a Christian, I don't understand what that means as I thought I did.

- I will not belittle or criticize his wife or family to make a political point that has nothing to do with him.

- I will not fabricate conspiracy theories about him, nor carelessly pass them along as truth

- I will not oppose his proposals on the mere basis that he proposed them. I will evaluate them on their merits as I see and understand them, not on their source.

- I may chose to call him derogatory names, but will limit that to conversations with close friends and family, and in public will address him as "Mr. Trump" or "the President", or if I'm in a bad mood, just "Trump"

- I will not criticize him for the way he stands or doesn't stand at attention, for whether he salutes or doesn't salute his Marine guard, or other silly things that have nothing to do with carrying out the duties of President of the United States.

I realize that this is a far greater courtesy than has been extended to our current president, but I believe that they are reasonable expectations of any civil person, and I may be disappointed, but I strive to remain civil.

How a massive campus Christian organization systematically purges staffers who support LGBT people - by Jack Jenkins

Found here. My comments in bold.

-----------------------

So if you have an organization with a stated mission and objective, why would you be required to retain those who do not share that mission or objective?
--------------------

“I don’t know if I even believe in God anymore,” one ex-staffer said.

In early October, Time.com published a story accusing InterVarsity Christian Fellowship USA — a campus organization that runs evangelical student groups at 667 colleges across the country — of adopting a policy of firing employees who openly support marriage equality. (That is, firing people who oppose what InterVarsity stands for.)

Cessationism - Episode 6: Only the apostles had "all truth."

Our next Episode in the cessationism series.

Additional Episodes:

• Episode 1, the Perfect.
• Episode 2, the apostles.
• Episode 3, prophecy.
• Episode 4, the closed canon.
• Episode 5, extra biblical reasons.
• Episode 6, only the apostles had all truth.
• Episode 7, there were only limited periods of miracles.
• Episode 8, tongues.
• Episode 9, the work of the Holy Spirit.
• Episode 10, does God speak only through the Scriptures?
• Episode 11, what about impressions?
• Episode 12, what is discernment? 
• Episode 13, the sufficiency of Scripture.
• Episode 14, Was the purpose of miracles restricted to the authentication of the apostles?
• Episode 15, Is revival excluded because of apostasy?
• Episode 16, is prophecy subjective?
• Episode 17, Could only the apostles confer miraculous powers or gifts?
• Episode 18, are charismatics functional cessationists?

Our criteria for the cessationism debate is that the argument must

1. be from the Bible
2. Not appeal to contemporary expressions of charismata
3. Not appeal to silence
4. Not appeal to events or practices of history

That is, any defense of cessationism must be Sola Scriptura.
-----------------------

Alfred Hitchcock Explains James Comey, the Media and 2016’s ‘MacGuffin’ - BY NEAL GABLER

Found here. My comments in bold.

It takes a master of suspense to decode the final plot twists of this election.


It is impossible to count the myriad ways in which the media botched FBI Director James Comey’s Friday announcement that the agency had found a cache of emails that seemingly (a key word) pertain to Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server. (Actually, the emails contents are the relevant factor. These new emails contain information that Comey decided was serious enough to re-open the investigation.)

Donald Trump Losing by a Landslide Would Heal the Nation - by Cody Cain - Time magazine

Found here. My comments in bold.
----------------

I've tried to resist writing about Donald Trump, because everyone is doing that. So this article, though about Trump, is posted here for its rich treasure trove of leftist fairy tales.

I almost don't have to comment on each assertion, because it is easy enough to point out how the author is projecting upon the Republicans the very things the Democrats are wont to do. But, I will proceed with my analysis even so.

------------------
It would signal that the GOP's scorched-earth political tactics don’t work

When our two-party system of Democrats vs. Republicans is functioning properly, there is much to recommend it. The two opposing political parties strive to offer their best ideas for governing, and the privilege of selecting between the two competing visions is bestowed upon the voters. Indeed, this is a worthy model for making decisions in society.

In recent years, however, something has gone terribly awry.

The Republican Party made the deliberate calculation that its best prospects for success lied not in abiding by the system and offering its superior ideas for governing, but instead in undermining the system by seeking to destroy its opponent. (Projecting. See racist, bigot, homophobe, misogynist in your Handbook of Democratic Talking points.)

A prime example of this assault was the Republican vow to oppose everything and anything proposed by President Obama’s administration. (It's very nearly astounding for the author to assert that the opposition party should not oppose, isn't it? But that's exactly what the opposition SHOULD do is oppose!)

The Liberty Mutual App with Coverage Compass - Encouraging customers to not read their policies

The Liberty Mutual commercials have been irritating. This latest one really caught my attention:

Why We Should Tax Conspicuous Consumption - BY KATHY KIELY

Found here. My Comments in bold.
------------------------------------

Economist Robert H. Frank says the rich would be better off — and so would the rest of us.

As part of our election series focusing on the issues that aren’t getting the attention they deserve in campaign 2016, we talked with Cornell University economist Robert H. Frank about how to address growing income inequality in the United States. (Is there any doubt that increasing taxes will be the answer?)

Economist Robert Frank is arguably the country’s leading expert on wretched excess.

Over the course of a four-decade career as a distinguished academic (he has written several college textbooks, including one with former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke), the Cornell University professor has developed a curious subspeciality: Studying the lifestyles of the filthy rich and spectacularly successful.

His anthropological field guides to life among the extremely affluent, including Luxury Fever and his recently published Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy, have led him to one conclusion: The 1 percent are a problem. But not necessarily for the reasons you might think.

The reason the nation’s wealthiest have become a menace to the commonweal, Frank has concluded, is not because of how much more they make than the rest of us. It’s how much more they spend. (This is an incredible statement. How many times have we heard about the greedy rich hoarding their money? How many times has the Left declared that the rich  don't create jobs? How many times have we heard that the rich need to be punished for not doing the right thing with their money?

But now we discover that none of these leftist talking points are true. That in fact the rich DO spend their money. They DO buy stuff, which has to be made by someone. They DO spread their money around. And this all is somehow a menace to society. I can't wait to find out why.)

The Antipoverty President of My Dreams - BY GREG KAUFMANN

Found here. My comments in bold.
------------------------

It's hard to know where to start with this article. The author invents a preferred president (ostensibly Hillary, but his president bears no resemblance to Hillary) who cares so much about the poor, who so perfectly toes the line and flawlessly spouts leftist rhetoric, who apparently has little regard for constitutional limits to her power, and is blissfully unaware that government is already doing all of this.

This is the president of the author's dreams, a wistful pipe dream about how an elected official needs to properly press the author's emotional buttons. Hillary is to be the feeder of the masses, the royalty who deigns to dirty herself by hugging poor children and spooning out mashed potatoes in the soup kitchen because she's so compassionate, the Deliverer into the promised land.

Oh, if only we could have this president! Poverty would no longer exist! There would be no need, no hate, no crime. It's within our grasp to have utopia, if only Hillary were president!

-----------------------

George Bush's gracious letter to successor Bill Clinton - FB conversation

A FB friend posted this, and liberal cluelessness ensued:

----------------------------------------

The way transition is supposed to work


This 1993 Letter From George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton Shows the Best of American Politics
USNEWS.COM

K.J.: The difference between now and 2000 is that Al Gore was not inciting his supporters to violence.

K.J.: http://blogs.cfr.org/.../trump-and-the-makings-of-a.../...

Politics, Power, and Preventive Action » Trump and the Makings of…

Me: http://www.cnn.com/.../project-veritas-action-robert.../



Dem operative 'stepping back' after video suggests group incited…

K.H.: The violence is being propagated and incited by Republican opposition that is called the 'Democrats'. They fear that the foot hold they have is slipping away so divisive social engineering is their play book.

K.J.: The democrats have immediately condemned such actions as soon as they happened. The call to violence and hatred is coming from Trump himself, not from operatives. To suggest that Democrats are playing divisive politics because they fear their foothold is slipping away is just ludicrous.

K.H.:  K.J., So many of these are available from many news sources. http://www.breitbart.com/.../exclusive-okeefe-video.../



O'Keefe Reveals 'Bird-Dogging' to Incite Violence at Trump Events

K.J.: K.H., Sorry, anything from O'Keefe is suspect. He has proved himself untrustworthy.

K.J.: My link was to a piece by the Council on Foreign Relations - hardly a left-wing partisan propaganda machine. You are linking to Breitbart.

Me: K.H., you just can't trust your own lyin' eyes...

K.H.: Rich, I know...I should just pick up a spork and take them out.

K.J.: Which completely ignores my point about operatives being removed and action condemned. But by all means, you go ahead and stick with the reality you've chosen.

Me: K.J., do try to avoid being insulting.

K.J., Such hypocrisy, Rich.

Me: As you descend into more name-calling, don't forget to call me a hater.

Why Overturning Citizens United Isn’t Enough - BY ADAM EICHEN

Found here. My comments in bold.

-----------------

You don't have to think our democracy works perfectly to be appalled at Donald Trump's attack on it. (The author is not off to a good start. In one perfunctory sentence are several howlers:

1. The article is supposed to be about Citizens United, not Trump
2. We don't have a democracy, we have a representative republic
3. The author admits our system doesn't work perfectly, yet doesn't tolerate Trump's "attack"
4. Trump did not "attack" democracy

But this is typical hyperbolic leftist rhetoric: Distract, distort, amplify, exaggerate.)

Georgia congressman fears election is ‘susceptible to corruption’ - by Alice Miranda Ollstein

Found here. My comments in bold.

----------------------------

Rep. Hank Johnson’s (D-GA) bill to protect both voting rights and voting machine security is stuck in Congress.

(Rep. Johnson is the same man who famously worried that the island of Guam would tip over due to too many people living on it. Apparently we are to nevertheless take his opinion on election integrity to be authoritative. The fact he is still in office speaks volumes about Democrats.)

Men are horrible pigs and women are wonderful

Posted by a FB friend, a man. My comments in bold.

-------------------

This is a textbook case of virtue signaling. We see this technique more and more, as if by telling men to "man up" and women how wonderful they are, it will somehow gain points for the man. 

I posted a reply, and a "conversation" ensued. You'll find that at the bottom of the page.

-----------------

Tax sugary drinks to fight obesity, WHO urges governments - By Stephanie Nebehay

Found here. My comments in bold.

------------------

There is just so much wrong with this my head is spinning. I will try to deal with the total inanity of what is written here without blowing my cool. We'll see how that goes...

-----------------

 

Governments should tax sugary drinks to fight the global epidemics of obesity and diabetes, the World Health Organization said on Tuesday, recommendations industry swiftly branded "discriminatory" and "unproven". (The first sentence begins the idiocy. First the imperative "should," as if governments ought to be obligated to control the lives of people. Second is the stated reason, to "fight the global epidemic," as if obesity was a communicable disease. Third is the idea that government tax policy is a tool to engineer outcomes.)

Feeling Awe May Be the Secret to Health and Happiness - by Paula Spencer Scott

Found here. My comments in bold.
-----------------------

I find this interesting on several fronts. 

First, that "science" always seems to find itself rediscovering old truths. Married people live longer and make more money.  Children do better with an intact marriage. Things that we have instinctively knew apparently need to be verified with science.

Second, that spirituality is documented as good for you time and again. For example, prayer is documented as being beneficial.  Religious people live longer and are happier.  

Despite all this, in this article there is a careful avoidance of any mention of God in connection with awe.

Reworking Malachi 2:16 for our feminist era (part 2) - by Dalrock

Found here.

-----------------

In part one of this series I explained how Malachi 2:16 is being reworked from a condemnation of divorce theft to justification for divorce theft. Thus Joel and Kathy Davisson have changed the meaning of “God hates divorce” to God hates men who can’t keep their wives happy (all emphasis in this post is mine):

Men, obey the Word: Quit dealing treacherously with your wives. Why? Because if you don’t, you are going to end up divorced and God hates divorce. We are not going to applaud you as a great man of God anymore if you cannot keep one little wife happy.

Treachery is expansively defined here to mean anything that displeases a wife. A husband’s role in this new definition of Christian marriage is to follow the instruction of his wife on how to be married, since God has provided wives with all of the knowledge when it comes to marriage. Joel and Kathy explain this in their book The Man of Her Dreams The Woman of His!

God has equipped every woman with a marriage manual in her heart, designed to instruct her husband in how to meet her unique needs.
…
It is very simple. When your wife’s marriage manual points out that you have violated her in some way, your job is to hear her heart and accept what it is that your personal marriage manual is saying to you. Your wife may not have a clue as to how to handle the household checkbook. She may not have a clue as how to run a lawnmower. What she does have is that unique marriage manual in her heart for your marriage which is given to her from God. The way that a man becomes the man that God has called him to be is to become the husband his wife needs him to be. The only way to become the husband our wife needs us to be is to read our personal marriage manual. How do read that marriage manual? We listen to her heart.

While Joel and Kathy are probably the most over the top in how they present this new view of Christian marriage, what they are teaching is the mainstream conservative Christian view of marriage. I promised in the first post to include another example of this in part two, and the example I’ll share is from Pastor Sam Powell in his post God Hates Divorce, part two (see part one here).

Pastor Powell is a bit more circumspect, but he is selling the same message as Joel and Kathy. If a wife is unhappy in her marriage, it is evidence that her husband is hateful and treacherous to her. Powell explains that God created Adam and Eve to have a perfect marriage, but because men are sinful they hate their wives and treat them treacherously. Powell claims that instead of hating divorce, God is saying men need to make their wives happy or they deserve to end up divorced:

…sin entered the world and men became treacherous, violating that harmony, hating their wives and oppressing them, rather than loving them. This should not be, especially among God’s people.

And now we get to verse 16 and see that it makes perfect sense. If you hate her that much, set her free! Be open with it. You put on one front but behind closed doors you are something else entirely. Clothe yourself with the violence that defines your life and set your wife free!

So is God condoning divorce? No. That isn’t really the point of the passage. The point is the last part of the verse: “therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.”

…He hates lying and deceit. He hates the proud, treacherous heart. He hates the entitlement mentality that says “I am; and there is none like me!” God hates the hatred that a man has for his wife, causing him to rail at her, to oppress her, to take a mistress or another wife. He hates the disharmony that wicked men cause in their home.

If you insist on treating your wife like this, set her free. It will be the only decent thing you’ve ever done.

What would be far better, though, is if you took heed to your spirit and quit treating her this way. If you refuse to do that, don’t think that God doesn’t hear the voice of your wife pouring out her tears on the altar. God hears that, and will not allow those tears to go unanswered.

Why isn’t God hearing your prayers? Why doesn’t he accept your sacrifices? Because of how you treat your wife.

If you hate her that much, set her free.

Pastor Powell then anticipates the objection to his claim that marriage vows are conditional on the wife’s happiness:

But then, you say, how will we keep our wives from leaving us? First, I have to say to you that if force and intimidation are the only tools in your arsenal to keep your marriage, then you need to reevaluate your existence as a human being.

Instead of asking that question, ask instead, “How can I make my wife WANT to stay married to me?”

Paul answers this in Ephesians 5. Love your wives, as Christ loved the church.

This is the same message as the one I quoted at the top of the post from Joel and Kathy. Make your wife happy or God says you will deserve it when she divorces you. This is likewise built on the claim that a wife will be happy if her husband loves her. Powell repeats this claim that a wife who is loved will be happy frequently in his writings on marriage. In Headship is not Hierarchy Powell writes:

…you can see a woman who is loved by her husband. She is alive, fully human, confident, and joyfully doing whatever work God has called her to with spirit and life.

Note that you could easily reword this into the language that Joel and Kathy use; the wife is a responder.

Powell explains this in more detail in his post To the Newly Married. The key to a Christian marriage, he tells us, is for the husband to learn how to make his wife happy:

This is where it gets endlessly wonderful. Women are fascinating creatures; each one created just a little different. They are almost like a puzzle to be solved… If you want a blessed and beneficial marriage, learn how to make your wife exult. What makes her tick? What does she fear? What does she dream of?

…Guys, do away with the jokes about not understanding women. You are commanded to do just that. But to do that you have to put off your own self-absorption, and figure out how to listen. Listen with your ears, with your eyes, even with your finger-tips. She’ll let you know what causes her to exult, but you have to tune in.

…Don’t try to learn about your wife from stereotypes, books (especially of the “women’s place is in the home” variety) or locker room gossip. This is your wife you are learning about and she is the only one who can show you what causes her to exult. You are on a wonderful journey of discovery together.

As Joel and Kathy say, every wife has a marriage manual written in her heart, from God.

Powell closes his advice to newly married couples by explaining that if their marriage ever becomes “stagnant”, this is a sign that the husband isn’t loving his wife enough and isn’t listening to the marriage manual in her heart. He needs to repent and learn to make her happy before she decides to divorce him:

If you have been married for a while and find your love growing stagnant, it is probably because you didn’t heed God’s command. Repent and ask your wife’s forgiveness for failing to understand her. Then start your year now. Turn the TV off. Give up boys’ nights out, and learn how to cause your wife to rejoice. It may not be too late.

Reworking Malachi 2:16 for our feminist era (part 1) - by Dalrock

Found here. An important article about divorce.

------------------

I’ve written previously about the modern Christian cross-dressing view of marriage, where wives are in absolute headship and regularly need to give their husbands wakeup calls to establish their authority. While wives punishing disobedient husbands is a universal modern Christian fetish, there is a divergence of opinion on which method wives should use to make their husbands submit. Some favor smashing household items in an insane rage. Others favor denial of sex to control husbands, and some even go so far as to teach that God speaks to husbands through their wives vaginas.

While the above methods are (modern) Christian favorites, secular culture tends to instead prefer threats of divorce, or actual divorce, so that the family courts become the method of punishment. Economists Stevenson and Wolfers explain how the new marriage model facilitates the feminist agenda in their paper Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress (emphasis mine):

The Six Hallmarks of a NAR Church (New Apostolic Reformation)

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------

(We are frequently critical of the "doctrinal police," but we do admire their zeal for the defense of the Faith. Our objections generally center around

1. a propensity for micro analyzing the statements of their doctrinal opponents 
2. taking isolated statements without considering context or what else might have been said about the issue
3. mocking
4. focusing only on Charismatic errors
5. a tendency to label and dismiss
6. a tendency to avoid quoting Scripture

Perhaps less often we find that supposedly errant statements to be years, or even decades old. Sometimes the statement may have simply been incomplete or a simple verbal error.

The doctrinal police in question for today's post, Pirate Christian, actually does a measure of good work in pointing out some of the egregious things being done in the Christian Church. We do appreciate their zealousness in defending correct doctrine. 

Or correct doctrine as they see it.

The problem is that too often Pirate Christian will generalize about people or churches. So if you believe X, then you're part of this or that movement. If your church does this or says that, it's apostate.

Further, Pirate Christian sets up the equation so that you cannot disagree with them. At the end of many of their articles is this pre-emptive strike toward anyone who might dare to take issue with them:

For those who think it's mean, judgmental and un-loving to criticize (...) (or any other popular teacher/church) here's something just for you: Shocking Stuff You're Not Supposed to Know.

If you're having a knee-jerk reaction to try and defend this kind of "worship" service, check out: Confirmation Bias: Why You Are Protecting Your False Beliefs.

Here's a very extensive documentary exposing the problems with the "Seeker-Friendly" church model: Church of Tares: Purpose Driven, Seeker Sensitive

Finally, here's an article that will help you be more discerning and a lot less gullible: Defusing Demonic Dirty Bombs.

In other words, simply expressing disagreement is Confirmation Bias, or, you are gullible. Apparently there is no other possibility.

Now for the article we wish to examine:

-------------------------

Immigrants Don’t Steal Jobs or Wages. Billionaires Do. - BY RICHARD ESKOW

Found here. My comments in bold.

--------------

Economically vulnerable populations are often told that immigrants “take our jobs” and drag down wages. Research suggests otherwise.

This post originally appeared at the Campaign for America’s Future blog.

With the advent of Donald Trump, what was once covert in the Republican message has become overt. Yesterday’s dog whistle is today’s screaming siren. Case in point: anti-immigrant bigotry, which was most recently expressed in Donald Trump Jr.’s recent Skittles-themed Twitter attack on Syrian refugees. (The "offensive tweet:"

Think about that. Don Jr. compared people who are fleeing horrific violence to … tiny candies. This emotional inability to distinguish human beings from inanimate objects, and therefore to empathize with their suffering, seems to border on the sociopathic. (It seems the author has an inability to understand the concept of analogy. Trump didn't "compare" anything. 

This smacks of the faux outrage that Leftists regularly manifest. They are quick to jump on the bandwagon at the smallest perceived slight, reading into simple statements all sorts of "dog whistles" and hidden meanings in an effort to paint their political detractors with convenient labels like racist, homophobe, hater, etc, etc, ad nauseum.)

Premium increases deserve maximum transparency - Bozeman Chronicle editorial

My comments in bold.

----------------

This editorial may take the award for Cluelessness of the Year. Almost every sentence reveals a complete lack of understanding of the issues and processes being discussed.
----------------

When Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana recently pared back its planned health insurance premium increases from 65.4 percent to 58.4 percent after a state analysis found them to be too high, it begged an important question: If the company can get by with lower rate increases now, why was it demanding so much in the first place? (When you know you are entering a situation where negotiation will happen, do you  go in with your bottom dollar offer and leave no room to negotiate, or do you come in higher so that you can compromise?)

And how much less could it gel by with and remain profitable? (BCBS of Montana is a non-profit company.)

Cessationism - Proving Charismatic Gifts have Ceased - by Dr Peter Masters

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------

Followers of this blog know that we are continually searching for someone who can explain the biblical basis for cessationism. We have simple criteria:

1) Appealing to contemporary behaviors of charismatics is not relevant to the biblical case

2) Appealing to the silence of the Bible or history is not relevant to the biblical case

3) Suppositions or inferences about what biblical words mean is not the same thing as making the biblical case

Thus it falls to the defenders of cessationism to simply show from the Bible that the "supernatural" gifts of the Spirit ceased.

Here is the next contender, a Dr. Peter Masters. We were unable to locate a biography, but apparently he pastors a church in London. We don't know what his doctorate is in. Perhaps he can bring some light to the cessationism position. We will quickly discover our search to be in vain.

This is a long article. The author makes all sorts of a-biblical assertions. They mount up to the point where by the end we must call into question his competence as a teacher of the Bible.

We simply want the biblical case for cessationism. The author does not supply us with one.

--------------------

Ministering at Burning Man 2016 - By Rob Mazza

O come, all ye faithful, joyful and triumphant!

Friends,

Burning Man is a place of absurdity, abstractions, art and artful dodging of reality. Then God tells us to go there, and Samaria gets all too real with its hunger and lies all intertwined in the serpents folds. We feel both the promise and the darkness. It’s Monday morning, our first day of business. Everything has been erected - the coffee dome, the kitchen, the 100 foot encounter tent. The beautiful art is in place and the Spirit Dream signs outside shoulder the dusty playa winds. We are inside the encounter tent, doing our first day orders from the King. Intercession is at a higher level (it will increase in the next couple days). We have just welcomed and protocoled our twelve new members of the tribe of thirty eight. Their sponsors have hugged and spoke into their lives.

Suddenly the familiar first line of the Christmas song comes distinctly from the street outside our canvas walls. The distinct sound of “O come, all ye faithful…” What?

The case against pets - by Gary L Francione

Found here. My comments in bold.
----------------------

This article is replete with moral preening. The author goes on and on about the "immorality" of eating animals and keeping them as pets without bothering to establish why these are immoral or why we should accept his imposed morality for ourselves.

With all the fervor of the most rabid religionist he demands we conform to his notions of morality on the basis that animals have rights exactly like humans. He anthropomorphizes animals, imputing to them a mental capacity to ascertain their lot in life.

If animals have some sort of set of rights akin to humanity, then what about plants? Bacteria? Viruses? These also must have a right to life, and the use of antibiotics and harvesting are by his definition murder. 

His plate of bean sprouts are living, taken unjustly for his own selfish use.

Taken to a logical conclusion, we must acknowledge that animals themselves are murderers. That poor wildebeest taken by a lion to eat is a victim. Even herbivores are guilty. 

If all life has a right to life, then all life is guilty.
-------------------

Bozeman's strong-arm enforcers - Fireman!

• Three firemen, an intimidating number, walked into my office last week, and it turns out they were there to inspect my office for compliance. No notice, no warrant, no knock. 
  
  My office is private property, so one would think that agents of the government would be required to comply with the Constitution. Amendment Four: "The right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
  
  But apparently I am not secure. Why? Here's the Bozeman Municipal code:
  
  Sec. 12.02.140. - Inspections; persons authorized.

  A.

  The following persons are authorized to conduct inspections in the manner prescribed herein:

  1.

  Program administrator. The program administrator shall make all investigations reasonably necessary to the enforcement of this chapter.

  2.

  City officers. All police, fire, building inspectors, city engineers, zoning officials, and other officials designated by the city manager, shall inspect and examine businesses located within their respective jurisdictions to enforce compliance with the chapter.

  (Code 1982, § 5.04.140; Ord. No. 1273, § 13(A), 1988; Ord. No. 1948, § 10, 5-9-2016)

• Note that a whole gamut of people can be authorized by the city manager to conduct inspections. Now read the next section, which unconstitutionally empowers government to enter without a warrant or even probable cause: 

  
  

  Sec. 12.02.150. - Authority of inspectors.

  A.

  All persons authorized herein to inspect licensees and businesses shall have the authority to enter, with or without search warrant, at all reasonable times, the following premises:

  1.

  Those for which a license is required;

  2.

  Those for which a license was issued and which, at the time of inspection, are operating under such license;

  3.

  Those for which the license has been revoked or suspended.

  (Code 1982, § 5.04.150; Ord. No. 1273, § 13(B), 1988)

• The foot in the door is the city business license. Apparently the city grants permission to do business, and thus thinks it has the power to do whatever it wants as a result. 

  I suppose the city would claim that my office is a place of public accommodation, the same reasoning they use to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. However, the people who enter my property only do so by my permission. I do not accommodate the public. 

  In all cases, my customers and I are engaging in private, consensual, perfectly legal transactions. The is no public action occurring at all. Therefore the city has no authority to intervene in the private affairs of its citizens.