Estimated cost of tax deductions

This was in my local paper a couple of days ago.

What Do Democrats Stand For? by ROBERT REICH

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

The Democratic Party can lead the country in a new direction, but will it? (We will discover shortly what Dr. Reich considers "new.")

Millions of Americans who are politically engaged for the first time in their lives are crying out for a bold alternative to bigoted and destructive policies. (Are they? Didn't Trump ride in on a wave of voter discontent with the existing scenario as established by Obama?)

But Democrats can’t just be anti-Trump or move to the middle. (Democrats have never, ever moved to the middle. They expect Republicans to compromise, which interpreted, means agree with them.)

To be successful Democrats must address the forces that created Trump: The toxic combination of widening inequality and racism. (Clearly Dr. Reich doesn't understand why Trump was elected. He appears to think that widening inequality is on the minds of Trump voters, which of course it is not. Indeed, widening inequality happened on Obama's watch.

As far as racism, it its inexplicable to suggest that people voted for Trump because of it. This is the very same country that elected Obama twice.

No, the reason Trump was elected was because of the old boy network of power brokers in government. Trump promised to drain the swamp. That resonated with voters. If Dr. Reich doesn't address this crucial point, he is demonstrating that he can't see past the buzzword issues of the Left.)

Progressives and Confederate statues - the progress of history

While trying to make sense of the wanton destruction of Civil war memorials, it occurred to me that there is a psychological feature of progressivism I hadn't thought about before. It has to do with their concept of "progress."

Let me explain.

Socialism doesn't sell, so Socialists sell something else. Leftists named themselves progressives decades ago in an effort to make their Marxist ideas a little more palatable to the casual observer. However, progressivism is simply socialism with a little less of the bloody revolution. Their approach is to overthrow of the systems and institutions of traditional society and representative government incrementally, rather than all at once via insurrection or revolution. Therefore progressivism is really no different from the Socialism in its desire to foment the proletariat to take down the bourgeois, except for the time frame involved and a little less appetite for blood (although we see that violence is once again getting more popular again).

Last Crusade: The View from Nowhere - John C. Wright

Found here. Another devastating assessment of the leftist mind.

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

If you were the Devil’s Advocate, you would advise the Father of Lies to silence any opposition unheard, because even a soft, still voice of truth is deadly to the hopes of the Devil’s Party.

One way to silence opposition is to claim that matters of private opinion are neither right nor wrong, true nor false, but questions of taste and personal conviction, which must be kept private. The accusation here is that any dissent from established opinion acts to impose private religious conviction on the unwilling, merely by speaking.

The accusation here is that to ask a question is to enact an inquisition.

This is a type of strawman argument, since the truth a speaker supports is always supported on the grounds that it is truth, never on the grounds that the speaker who speaks it is convinced.

Of course he is convinced: the question is whether his reasons for being convinced are sound.

And yet this, out of all weak reasons to silence debate, is the one to which the conservative movement has proven itself unable and unwilling to laugh to scorn.

Criticizing Antifa

I posted this on FB:

"Antifa activists... told CNN that their goal is peace and inclusivity... And their methods are often violent. Antifa leaders admit they're willing to physically attack anyone who employs violence against them or who condones racism -- as long as force is used in the name of eradicating hatred."

Unmasking the leftist Antifa movement

Antifa activists told CNN their goal is peace and inclusivity. But often, their methods are violent.

CNN.COM

Like

Comment

Share

Comment

Kevin: Well....hypocritical statement from...HYPOCRITES!

Manage

Like · Reply · 17 hrs

Manage

Julie: Home grown terrorism in the name of PEACE. EVIL IS THEIR GAME.

Like

 · Reply · 17 hrs

Evan: Is the headline misleading or something? I don't have time to read the article at the moment, but using the article's title quite literally (and just out of curiosity) would you not physically attack someone if s/he was employing violence against you? And follow up question.... does the right not insanely support the war machine "as long as force is used in the name of eradicating hatred"? ...aka terrorism? And in the name of creating peace? If you call these people hypocrites, should you not also be calling our government (and particularly the right) hypocrites?

Like

 · Reply · 

1

 · 16 hrs · Edited

Benjamin · 

Pretty much. These people represent a very small minority. I don't agree with being violent toward someone simply because they're racist... certainly acting in self-defense is perfectly valid. 

Also, anyone who values democracy and hates Nazi's is by definition "anti-fascist." I don't hear too many Americans lamenting the "anti-fascist" violence that stormed the beaches of Normandy.

Like

 · Reply · 

2

 · 15 hrs

Objectionable hymns if you're a cessationist?

We have written at length about cessationism, looking for a coherent, solely scriptural presentation for this belief. I have not as of yet found such a thing.

We have found they take great offense at any deviation from their doctrine, and are willing to mock and denigrate people who believe differently.

So it seems there are a number of hymns that cessationists might find objectionable. These great hymns of our faith have lyrics that sound suspiciously charismatic, so we wonder if they are sung in cessationist churches.
------------------------

I Serve a risen Savior
He lives, He lives, Christ Jesus lives today!
He walks with me and talks with me along life’s narrow way

I Come to the Garden Alone

And He walks with me, and He talks with me,
And He tells me I am His own;
And the joy we share as we tarry there,
None other has ever known.

To God Be The Glory

Praise the Lord, praise the Lord,
Let the earth hear His voice

O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing

Hear Him, ye deaf; His praise, ye dumb,
Your loosened tongues employ;
Ye blind, behold your Savior come,
And leap, ye lame, for joy.

No one is born hating another person because of the colour of his skin - Mandela

A FB conversation:

Kathy shared a link.

4 hrs · 

When Should Doctrine Divide? - by Gavin Ortlund

Found here. A good explanation.

For various reasons I’ve been thinking about how Christians should relate to each other around secondary doctrines. What partnerships and alliances are appropriate among Christians of different denominations, networks, or tribes? What kind of feelings and practices should characterize our attitude to those in the body of Christ with whom we have significant theological disagreements? What does it look like to handle—with integrity and transparency—personal differences of conviction that may arise with your church, boss, or institution?

These kinds of questions have been a significant part of my own denominational and theological journey over the last decade, and it is a practical issue that will always be with us. So I thought it might be helpful to share two convictions that have been brewing in me while I’ve struggled my way through it all.

At the broadest level I see two opposite dangers: doctrinal minimalism and doctrinal separatism.

Odd. No one is in denial of America's Aug 21 total solar eclipse - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

A FB conversation with a liberal friend:

March for Science

20 hrs · 

You can't cherry-pick science.

LikeShow more reactions

CommentShare

28

Me: You can trust astrologers because physicists get amazingly accurate results.

Like

 · Reply · 26 mins

Manage

Scott: Astrology has no connection to physics beyond 400 year old history

Like

 · Reply · 10 mins

Manage

Me: Exactly. The veracity of one thing does not transfer to another thing. I'm glad you got the point, but I suspect that Dr. Tyson hasn't thought of that.

Like

 · Reply · 8 mins

A FEW THOUGHTS ON HEALING - by Paul Carter

Found here. A very good article.

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

I spent the better part of this summer studying and podcasting my way through the Gospel of Mark. It was an interesting experience. When you only permit yourself 15 minutes a chapter, a lot gets left on the cutting room floor. One of the things I felt like I didn’t have time chase down was the whole issue of healing.

There is a lot of healing in the Gospel of Mark. In fact, there is a lot more than there ought to be.

Very early on in Mark’s Gospel Jesus makes it clear that he has no intention of functioning as a travelling healer. In Mark 1 a large crowd has gathered as the news spread throughout the region that Jesus had healed Peter’s mother in law. Jesus went off to pray. The disciples come looking for him and they tell him about the huge line up of people waiting to be healed by Jesus. He says to them: “Let us go on to the next towns, that I may preach there also, for that is why I came out” (Mark 1:38 ESV).

Jesus says, “I’ve thought about it; I’ve prayed about and I’ve decided not to heal those people who are waiting for me down the hill. That’s not why I came out. I came to preach.”

I came to preach!

Jesus came to speak about the ultimate issue. The ultimate issue was mankind’s alienation from God because of human sin. That was the main thing – that was the mission – and Jesus was resolved to keep his eye on that ball.

DON'T JUST LEAD IN WORSHIP, BUT FATHER IN WORSHIP - by Rick Pino

I would like to submit something to the worship movement that has been on my heart for a while. As I go around the world leading worship from place to place, nation to nation, I have the honor of meeting many different and amazing worship leaders/teams/musicians/singers etc. It is a joy to meet so many precious worshippers in so many unique contexts!

However, I have recently sensed a consistent pattern that does concern me... I would call this pattern a "brother against brother/Cain vs. Able/Jacob vs. Esau culture" in the worship movement. What I mean is that Cain is still jealous of Able's offering (jealousy/comparison/competition) and Jacob is still dressing up like Esau trying to earn the Father's favor (everyone trying to sound like everyone else so they can be cool and accepted instead of daring to step out in authenticity).

What Does the New Testament Really Say About the Gift of Prophecy? - by EDDIE HYATT

Found here. A good explanation.

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

New Testament prophecy has its roots in Old Testament prophetic ministry. In the Old Testament, God raised up certain individuals to be His mouthpiece and speak His heart and mind to the people of Israel. These individuals were known by the Hebrew word nabi, which the Greek Septuagint translated as prophetes, and our English Bibles translates as "prophet."

They were not fortunetellers. Their purpose was not to satisfy human curiosity to know the future. Their purpose was to speak the heart and mind of God to the people. In carrying out their assignments of speaking God's word, their prophecies at times revealed future events, but that was not their purpose.

The nabi did not choose this prophetic vocation, but it was given to them by God. This is obvious in the answer of Amos to King Amaziah, who had ordered him out of Bethel and commanded him to never prophesy there again. To emphasize that his prophetic calling was not of his own choosing, Amos replied: "I am no prophet, and I am no prophet's disciple. Rather, I am a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore trees. But the Lord took me away from the flock, and the Lord said to me, 'Go, prophesy to My people Israel'" (Amos 7:14-15).

Not only did the prophet or prophetess not choose their calling or vocation, neither did they choose the messages they were to deliver. The messages came to them spontaneously according to God's determination. This is obvious from statements such as "the Spirit of the Lord came upon " (2 Chron. 15:1; Isa. 61:1), "the hand of the Lord was upon" (Ezek. 3:14, 22; 8:1; 33:22; 37:1) and "the word of the Lord came" (1 Sam. 15:10; 2 Sam. 24:11; Hag. 1:1), all indicating the onset of the prophetic message apart from the initiative of the person prophesying.

In the Old Testament, the prophetic vocation was very limited, but with the coming of Messiah Jesus and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the Old Testament prophetic franchise, instead of being ended, was expanded to include all of God's people. In this new and better covenant, the gift of prophecy is available, at least potentially, to all of God's people.

6 Reasons You Should Stop Listening to Joyce Meyer - Dan Long

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

The Doctrinal Police are at it again. This time it's regarding Joyce Meyer. We should say we are not writing to defend her, and in fact, we have never heard her. Our purpose is to examine some of the claims made and see if Ms. Meyer is really beyond the pale.

Part of the problem here as we see it is that we are offered sound bites of her preaching, which may or may not be in context. We don't get to hear her explanations or how she's applying these statements. As such, we should be a bit more circumspect about our judgments, shouldn't we?
-----------------------

Question: Would politicians save a drowning man? By Jay Moor

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

The author asks a question at the end. Lemme take a stab at an answer.
-----------------

Social Security Fun Facts - FB meme

FB friend Klaus shared this: The discussion that ensued is between me and a former member of the House of Representatives.

If you want the government to stop messing with social security, comment yes, share and add your name to our petition: https://actionsprout.io/095C34

Credit: Public Domain. Changes: cropped, resized, text and logo added. Original:http://maxpixel.freegreatpicture.com/Eyes-Man-Portrait-Hand…

Community leaders should stop out-of-control growth - By Steve Kirchhoff

Found here. My comments in bold.

Steve Kirchoff teaches writing at MSU, he is an author, and he was mayor of Bozeman for a couple of years. As such, one would expect a certain level of competency and considered thought process in matters that are part of his expertise, like writing and government.

Or maybe not...
----------------------

The following resolution is offered to Gallatin County leaders for their consideration. Bozeman and Gallatin County’s out-of-control growth rate can only be managed by a unified effort from all leaders, elected and un-elected. (Here we have his premises, that the growth rate is out of control, and that this can only be solved by, well, everyone. In unity, or something.

Mr. Kirchoff makes no effort to establish the veracity of these premises. Indeed, it's fairly easy to demonstrate their falseness. First, "out-of-control," which suggests that there is nothing at all in operation that guides, restricts, or dictates growth. This of course is not even close to the truth. We remind Mr. Kirchoff that there are building codes, zoning, affordable housing guidelines, density requirements, open space requirements, infrastructure requirements, impact fees, and subdivision approval processes. This in no way can be regarded as "out-of-control."

His second premise follows from the first. And since the first is false, the second necessarily is imperiled. But assuming for a moment that it is the truth that growth is out-of-control, then we would do well to ask, does it follow that it "...only be managed by a unified effort from all leaders, elected and un-elected."? 

There's a lot of mumble-speak in this short phrase. We don't know what "managed" is, especially since government is already deeply inserted into managing growth. We don't know what "unified" means, or why that's important. We can only speculate why Mr. Kirchoff expects the unified [which interpreted means "agree with government"] co-operation of non-elected leaders [i.e., crony capitalism.]

So upon this shaky platform he builds his series of "whereas" statements.)

How Did We Become A Billionaires’ Republic? BY JEDEDIAH PURDY

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

We thought at first this article would be a succinct, coherent explanation for the provocative title. We were wrong. More than 3000 words of half formed assertions, undocumented claims, and history remembered through the lens of leftist thought. 

It was a time waster.
------------------

This post first appeared at The Nation.

A new book argues that the Constitution’s framers believed that vast concentrations of wealth were the enemy of democracy — so what happened? (The author never establishes that the framers believed this.)

A constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory,” wrote Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in 1905. (Hmm. Granting for a moment that this is true, then the whole reason for Mr. Purdy's article vanishes. "A billionaire's republic" is simply another economic theory. 

Holmes, though he was a justice, is no dispassionate source. He also famously said, "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society," which of course is a nonsense statement. But more to the point, the US Constitution creates, defines, and limits government.)

 Holmes was dissenting from the Court’s majority opinion in Lochner v. New York, which held that the New York State Legislature had violated the right to freedom of contract when it passed a law setting a maximum workweek of 60 hours for bakery employees. In his dissent, Holmes insisted that there had been no violation: Because the Constitution was indifferent to economic matters, New York’s legislature was free to regulate the state’s economy as it thought best, and it was not the court’s job to second-guess it. (Assuming this is an adequate representation of the case, Holmes is incorrect. "Freedom of contract" has nothing to do with the Constitution. Contracts are agreements established and governed by law, and have been for centuries.

Does a person have a right to enter into an employment contract that exceeds 60 hours? Yes, of course. A contract only needs a legal purpose and mutual agreement.)

Last Crusade: Thought is Thought Crime - by John. C. Wright

Found here. An insightful article.
-------------------

In a previous column (here) we discussed how, if one were the Devil’s Advocate, one would dress up the Devil’s case to have the best chance of fooling the gullible. The first deception advancing the Devil’s cause is to say the Devil does not exist because no spiritual truth exists.

The second (here) follows from the first. If no spiritual truth exists, then only secular truth is true, and only science can settle it. Unfortunately, real science by definition is neutral and silent on social and philosophical issues, so the Devil’s Advocate can only advocate Junk Science, which is deadly.

The third (here) is that science has settled all issues, and no more debate is allowed, no curiosity, no thought.

A final deception follows from the first three:

For the Left, all thought is thought-crime. Thought must be abolished.

“Modest is Hottest” is not in the Bible - by Joel Michael Herbert

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

Here is a glaring example of a lack of critical thinking skills. In addition, this article drips with pop culture superficiality and feminist ideology. 
------------------------

(...)

One of the chief commonalities was this theme of modesty. Side note: in case it’s not already obvious — it really only ever applied to females. So… really, female “modesty.” Or, in other words, cover up your sexy parts, ladies, (The author implies that there is a double standard about this, which of course it a feminist argument. Feminists don't like people telling them what to do. That's one reason why there is a push for women to be able to go topless.

So we might ask the author why it's wrong for the church to ask for women to be modest, but it's okay to force a woman wear a top.)

Please, senator, save the ACA for those who need it - By Aaron Schuerr

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

Dear Sen. Daines,

We first met roughly a decade ago when you were the teaching leader for Bible study fellowship, before you launched your political career. In that role you were articulate, dynamic and thoughtful.

During that time, I was the youth group leader at our church and had guest-preached the Sunday sermon. Afterwards you were warm and encouraging, not in an offhanded, “good job” sort of way, but with genuine interest and insight. (Seems like the writer is buttering up Senator Daines so as to deliver a coup de grace.)