Culture
Things Are Not as They Seem
Sometimes things are not as they seem. They appear to be one thing, but in reality they are something far different from how they project themselves.
The United States is currently facing two immense cultural battles that fit in this category of intended deception. What’s an “intended deception?”
That’s the dictionary meaning of a LIE. So what are some areas where we are being lied to–where things are not as they seem?
HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE
Seattle’s staunchly liberal newspaper, the Seattle Times, which is in business because it wasn’t as blatantly liberal as the now-defunct Seattle P.I., is in the forefront of pushing the acceptance of homosexual marriage in the state of Washington.
On November 3, Washingtonians will have the opportunity to REJECT Senate bill 5688 through Referendum 71 which would elevate homosexual marriages to equality with marriage through expanded domestic partnerships. On the support side, the Times has been running one-to-two articles a week for some time championing the homosexual cause. An October 4, 2009 front-page lead article on the issue was entitled “Stakes High in Fight over Gay Rights.” To their credit, the article fairly quoted people on both sides of this monumental 21st century debate.
The Times’ Opinion Page was another story. It’s lead editorial said, “The Times recommends Promote Families: Approve Referendum 71. The article went on to applaud homosexual “unions” with the following semantical posturing:
- They called homosexual-led “families” simply “ordinary people with ordinary family lives.”
- They said SB 5688 was about “equal treatment for all Washington residents going about their private lives.”
- They said their cause was about “responsible adults in committed relationships.”
- They said passage of the new law was about “loving couples–our relatives, friends, and neighbors–who own property,, operate businesses, and take care of their children.”
I think you get the idea. This is all about loving, committed, ordinary folks who, by the way, simply want to change the five thousand definition of marriage–and have the state pay for it in benefits.
But on this paramount issue of our lifetime, “things are not as they seem.”
Homosexual marriage is not about family, marriage, love, or commitment. It’s about using legal means to permanently change the moral code that undergirds our civilization. It’s about full acceptance and promotion of homosexual behaviour–which according to every religion on earth is immoral, unnatural, and destructive to people–both in this life and in the next.
For five millennia–and especially two thousand years of Western culture, wise civilizations have accepted the truthful premise that the only responsible form of sexual behavior, designed specifically by our Creator and Savior was between a man and a woman in a covenant relationship we call marriage. All other forms of sexual choice are immoral–and include fornication (sex by unmarried people), adultery (sex with some else’s spouse), homosexuality (men with men or women with women), pedophilia (adults with children), and bestiality (humans with animals).
Homosexuality is not singled out in this list. It is just one form of sexual perversion–“making crooked something that is straight”–which is where the words “pervert” and “straight” originate. The only difference in our world today is that it is the homosexuals who are demanding that civilization change its tried and tested moral code and allow them to be viewed as “normal.”
But homosexual behavior is not normal. It’s lowers your lifespan (to an average of 42 years), it is one of the most promiscuous forms of sexuality (four times that of heterosexual perversions), it doubles your chances of depression, it is often grossly ugly and vile in its forms, and in terms of a person’s relationship with God–separates them from his forgiveness and grace through a refusal to turn away from sexual sin. Never mind that homosexuals cannot produce children, and so they must get them from others–often breaking up real families when one of them comes “out of the closet.”
No, this issue is not about “loving, normal couples.” It is about permanently condoning and legalizing immoral behavior. And because I love people, I cannot accept the lies that will destroy people and our civilization in the name of tolerance.
That’s why I’m encouraging all Washingtonians to not accept this charade of fairness and decency and vote to REJECT Referendum 71.
GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE
The Obama administration is pushing radical legislation in our nation that would permanently alter the way health care is received and practiced in the United States. The progressives and their allies would have you believe that this issue is about:
- Compassionately providing health care for all American citizens.
- Cutting the costs of health care and not adding to the nation’s deficit.
- Providing better healthcare than the current system which is the best in the world.
- A right to qualitative healthcare that we all deserve and should demand.
- Not providing for abortions, giving coverage to illegal citizens, nor increasing rationing for health services.
- Not limiting benefits for Seniors via cuts in Medicare.
But again–when it comes to the truth about the health care bills now being voted on and discussed in the United States Congress, “things are not as they seem.”
Though I’m sure some well meaning people might believe the ideas listed above, the real force behind the move to government health care is the power to control–not the desire to provide. This health care debate is all about government power to squelch freedom in our beloved nation.
Here’s the plain and simple truth:
- Government run health care will decrease innovation and service and greatly multiply deficits.
- It will not be better than private care–it will enforce mediocrity on all.
- There is no right to healthcare–only to life (they can’t murder you), to liberty (they can’t enslave you), and to happiness or property (they can’t heavily tax you.) Everything else is a privilege and differs among human beings due to their gifts, choices, and circumstances in life.
- The bills being considered will include abortion (they say it’s just a medical procedure), provide for illegals (it’s all about votes!), and will lead to rationing (there aren’t enough doctors who will remain at their posts).
- The only way the government option (control) will work is to sqeeze $500 billion dollars out of Medicare.
The essence of this debate is not about health. It’s tyranny versus liberty, control versus choice, government further perverting its role from being rightful protector of God given rights to assuming the role of God in “providing” an all powerful Nanny State to its slaves, er, citizens.
There’s that word perversion again. Perverting marriage and perverting government’s role in our lives.
Things are not as they seem.
I pray to God that our eyes will be opened.
Why Liberals Want Moral Freedoms and Business Restraints
Or “Why Conservatives Want Moral Restraints and Business Freedoms.”
Both of these statements could be the title for today’s subject. I was tempted to put both in one long sentence, but that would have only worked two hundred years ago when titles were long. This article is also about “Freedom and Form” in human societies. That also could have been the title.
So, I rolled the dice and chose the “liberal” title to catch your attention. Now, that I’ve got you thinking, let’s discuss a possible Best Explanation of this seeming contradiction. First, let’s define the terms liberal and conservative.
Two worldviews are currently fighting for supremacy in America and other nations around the world. One is the Christian worldview upon which this nation was founded that finds its roots in the teachings of biblical revelation. Generally speaking, a conservative political and social philosophy is consistent with the Christian view of life. That’s why in 2000 a high percentage of Christians voted for George E. Bush because he was generally known as a conservative politician. Christians, or traditional values people, vote conservative if they’re consistent with the Bible’s perspective.
The other worldview that has gained ascendancy in American life in the past forty years could be described as atheist, secular, or progressive (that’s what they like to call themselves). These words are all synonyms. Generally speaking, a liberal political or social philosophy is consistent with the atheist view of life. That’s also why in 2000 a high percentage of secularists voted for John Kerry–because he was known as the liberal politician. Secularists or progressives vote liberal if they’re consistent with their worldview.
Thus conservatives share a Christian view of reality. Liberals share an atheist view of life. That’s not an opinion–it’s just a fact. Not all conservatives are Christians; Not all liberals are atheists. However, Christians tend to be conservative and secularists tend to be liberal. It can be no other way.
Now back to the seeming contradiction. Have you ever wondered why liberals always want freedom, liberty or lack of constraints in moral areas (such as sex, marriage, abortion etc.), but on the other hand they strongly favor governmental controls, restraints or regulations on business and all forms of the free enterprise system? That doesn’t appear to be consistent. Why not freedom in morals and freedom in the marketplace? Or why not restraints on morality and restraints on business?
On the other side, conservatives want restraints, controls, or regulations on personal morality in society such as sexual immorality, the sanctity of life and marriage (between a man and woman), but on the other hand seek freedom, liberty, and a lack of constraints in the realm of business and commerce. We might ask again: Why don’t conservatives want either freedom or controls in both categories?
Not only are both camps inconsistent on freedom and regulation, but also choose opposite realms for liberty and control. Conservatives want morals to be regulated and enterprise to be free. Liberals want businesses to be regulated and morality to be free. Some examples will make this point clear.
In 2008, those who supported Barack Obama cast their votes for the liberal (atheist) view of life. Barack Obama is not just a liberal–he’s a radical liberal–the most liberal senator in the US Congress form 2006-2008. As a liberal president, Obama believes in freedom in morality such as abortion and lesbian, gay, bi-sexual transgender values such as the White House LGBT “Party” that was held this week.
On the other hand, he strongly believes in controlling business and free enterprise as seen by his strong arm tactics in the “Cap & Trade” legislation passed by the House. He shows this tendency in other business areas such as the take-over of various banks, government ownership of GM, his new stable of “czars” and the coming vision of government controlled health care. Obama and his followers want moral license to do anything they want; They also work hard to place mammoth controls and regulations on the American free enterprise system.
George W. Bush represented the polar opposite as president. He wanted restraints and controls on embryonic cell research, abortion, and did not support the homosexual liberation agenda. On the other side, he gave tax cuts to business, encouraging growth and creativity, and put his trust in the free enterprise system and liberation of the markets.
So WHY do liberals want moral freedom and business control–and conservatives desire moral controls and freedom for businesses?
I believe there are two best explanations for these differences.
First is the reality of form and freedom in human existence–the need for balance in life. Human beings have been designed by God to need both order and flexibility in their lives. We need “form” for stability and continuity, and we need “freedom” for creativity and expression. If all we have is “form,” our world is stable but robotic. If we are simply “free” then life becomes flighty and unsure. A balance of form and freedom are need to give wholeness to life.
In fact, true freedom cannot exist without wholesome constraint. For example, if everything in the room in which I’m writing was “free,” then chairs would be floating in the air, tables wouldn’t hold together, my computer would dissolve and there would be chaos. The “form” in the materials around me allow me as a human being to move “freely” through the room without being decked by a levitating table. My freedom is dependent on necessary form.
All of us live our lives in a balancing act of form and freedom. We have life habits such as homes in which to live, jobs to do, alarm clocks for wake up– i.e. patterns that are necessary for stability and security. But we also need the spontaneous and free side of life where we can call a friend, take a trip, do something crazy–i.e. acts of freedom and creativity that bring a zest and joy to life. If life has too much form, we get bored. If there’s too much freedom, we probably won’t live very long.
So these dual realities dictate our pursuit of both form and freedom in life. Liberals balance it out with freedom in morality and form in business. Conservatives strike the balance with order in morality and freedom in business and vocation.
And here’s the second reason why they choose what they do.
I believe it’s the truth of spiritual warfare. There’s a God and there’s a devil. That’s the Best Explanation.
Here’s how it works. God is the perfection of moral character. He is the standard of morality–what is right and what is wrong. He is righteously and justly for sexual purity, honoring marriage, respecting life, and moral self-control which is foundational to happiness and holiness. He knows that all immorality is both self-and-socially-destructive–and will separate a person from his holiness for eternity. God requires “form” in our moral relationships for our good.
He is also the Creator of the universe and all it contains. He wants man to take dominion over the earth–to steward and improve it. This can only be done through freedom, creativity, innovation, and few restraints on industry and enterprise. God’s “invisible hand” of freedom is the key to invention, prosperity and success. And God desires his creatures to be moral so that they can be productive.
So followers of God are for controls on morality and freedom in business.
It’s the equation for success.
But there is also a devil, impacting the hearts and minds of people who do not believe. This being–called Satan or Lucifer–influences non-believers in his direction. Satan wants to destroy people (John 10:10), and the easiest way to do this is to blind them to right and wrong. That’s why he’s for free sex, fornication, pornography, homosexuality, killing babies, altering marriage–and anything else that cripples the human spirit and separates them from a holy God. He also desires to bring them to poverty of life and health through government controls of commerce and industry. Satan wants people immoral and poor.
So followers of Lucifer (either consciously or unconsciously) are for freedom in morals and controls on business.
It’s the recipe for destruction.
Thus, the Best Explanation for this contradiction is that there are two primary spiritual forces in the world shaping people’s thoughts and positions. There is a God and there is a devil.
That explains it best.
Now you know what conservative and liberal mean. You know where each idea comes from. The genius of America was the power of morality producing freedom and prosperity–through faith in God. The downfall of America will be achieved through the decay of immorality that produces poverty–through faith in men (devil-inspired).
As we -approach the 4th of July–I pray that we will choose faith, morality and liberty–for our good and God’s glory.
49 Million to 5
The following article is brilliant both for its exposure of the hypocrisy of the pro-abortion movement (and relatively free pass given to Muslim terrorists) as well as its detailing of the evil practices of George Tiller, the late, late-term abortionist and his political accomplices. Though I wrote recently that “Murder is Always a Wrong Moral Choice,” Ann puts in perspective who has committed the most murders over the past forty years. The mind-boggling answer is in the title. After you read the article, read the title again and let it sink in.
This insightful column reminds me of the same lies and hypocrisy that surround the treatment of the Puritans in contemporary literature. We’re led to believe that the Puritans (those bigoted Bible-believing Christians) were cruel and evil. They killed witches in Salem in 1692. Well, I researched that subject a few years ago and found that that exactly seventeen persons were killed during the witch trials. That was wrong. It was too harsh a punishment for the crime. But it was seventeen people.
Since 1972, the pro-abortionists have killed 49 million innocent children. The score there is 49 million to 17. So who are the evil ones? Who are really the mass murderers? Do the math and make the call. Don’t let historical revisionism blur your vision.
I don’t always agree with Ann Coulter’s comments or demeanor. But I agree 100% with her piercing analysis of this issue of life and death. No one has said it better. I read this articles three times to let it sink in. I encourage you to do the same. RB
By Ann Coulter
In the wake of the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller, President Barack Obama sent out a welcome message that this nation would not tolerate attacks on pro-lifers or any other Americans because of their religion or beliefs
Ha ha! Just kidding. That was the lead sentence — with minor edits — of a New York Times editorial warning about theoretical hate crimes against Muslims published eight months after 9/11. Can pro-lifers get a hate crimes bill passed and oceans of ink devoted to assuring Americans that “most pro-lifers are peaceful”?
For years, we’ve had to hear about the grave threat that Americans might overreact to a terrorist attack committed by 19 Muslims shouting “Allahu akbar” as they flew commercial jets into American skyscrapers. That would be the equivalent of 19 pro-lifers shouting “Abortion kills a beating heart!” as they gunned down thousands of innocent citizens in Wichita, Kan. Why aren’t liberals rushing to assure us this time that “most pro-lifers are peaceful”? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful.
According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion — which is consistent with liberals’ hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade.
In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let’s recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.
Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I’m fairly certain they’ve killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number “3,000” keeps popping into my head.
So in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life — and 80 percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller — only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5 percent Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans.
But the killing of about one abortionist per decade leads liberals to condemn the entire pro-life movement as “domestic terrorists.” At least liberals have finally found some terrorists they’d like to send to Guantanamo.
Tiller bragged about performing 60,000 abortions, including abortions of viable babies, able to survive outside the mother’s womb. He made millions of dollars performing late-term abortions so gruesome that only two other abortionists — not a squeamish bunch — in the entire country would perform them.
Kansas law allows late-term abortions only to save the mother’s life or to prevent “irreversible physical damage” to the mother. But Tiller was more than happy to kill viable babies, provided the mothers: (1) forked over $5,000; and (2) mentioned “substantial and irreversible conditions,” which, in Tiller’s view, apparently included not being able to go to concerts or rodeos or being “temporarily depressed” on account of their pregnancies.
In return for blood money from Tiller’s profitable abattoir, Democrats ran a political protection racket for the late-term abortionist.
In 1997, The Washington Post reported that Tiller attended one of Bill Clinton’s White House coffees for major campaign contributors. In addition to a $25,000 donation to Clinton, Tiller wanted to thank him personally for 30 months of U.S. Marshals’ protection paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.
Kansas Democrats who received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller repeatedly intervened to block any interference with Tiller’s abortion mill.
Kathleen Sebelius, who was the governor of Kansas until Obama made her Health and Human Services Secretary, received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller. Sebelius vetoed one bill restricting late-term abortions and another one that would have required Tiller to turn over his records pertaining to “substantial and irreversible conditions” justifying his late-term abortions.
Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison also got elected with the help of Tiller’s blood money, replacing a Republican attorney general who was in the middle of an investigation of Tiller for various crimes including his failure to report statutory rapes, despite performing abortions on pregnant girls as young as 11.
But soon after Morrison replaced the Republican attorney general, the charges against Tiller were reduced and, in short order, he was acquitted of a few misdemeanors. In what is a not uncommon cost of doing business with Democrats, Morrison is now gone, having been forced to resign when his mistress charged him with sexual harassment and corruption.
Tiller was protected not only by a praetorian guard of elected Democrats, but also by the protective coloration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America — coincidentally, the same church belonged to by Tiller’s fellow Wichita executioner, the BTK killer.
The official Web page of the ELCA instructs: “A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born.” As long as we’re deciding who does and doesn’t have an “absolute right to be born,” who’s to say late-term abortionists have an “absolute right” to live?
I wouldn’t kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn’t want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?
Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don’t believe in shooting abortionists, then don’t shoot one.
Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” “Slander,” ““How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must),” “Godless,” “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans” and most recently, Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and their Assault on America.