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.)