Is there anything more annoying ...

... than a guy who walks around the office whistling?

Well, maybe the gal who is always ordering everyone to Smile!

Arguing with Lewis

A very good essay from Douglas Wilson: Principalities, Powers, and Pecksniffs --

... It turns out that overweening conceit in rulers requires a strong theocratic restraint.

If there is a court of appeal past our human government, then in principle I have admitted theocracy. If there is no court of appeal past them, then I have just made them god. Having made them god, I discover that I am still in a theocracy, but instead of a loving Father, the theos of this system is corrupt and grasping, mendacious and low, and full of flatulent hubris. Requiring government to remain modest and within the bounds of sanity is therefore one of the most profound ethical requirements that has ever been promulgated among men.
...

Why are we so afraid of theocracy? What might happen? Might we go on a rampage and kill 50 million babies? Yeah, that would be bad. Better not risk it. Might we set up a surveillance state, with camera clusters pointed in every direction at all the intersections? Right — theocracies are terrible like that.

The real reason why our current rulers want us to react violently whenever we hear the word theocracy is that petty gods are always jealous of their position, and dread any talk of a Lord who rose from the dead.

There is *always* a "god of the system"; and if that god is not the Living God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, then perforce it will be something that is opposed to God ... and to human liberty.

Lydia McGrew being Lydia McGrew

... or, in other words, acting the bitch because she can get away with it.


I'm reposting this here, because I don't expect it to survive there --

^ Having seen Lydia McGrew in action, more than once, I don't believe a word of what she is asserting about what she has deleted from Mike T's posts.

For instance, consider this post which she didn't "edit" ... and her response and characterization of it --

Mike T: "The activists are mainly SJWs from what I read. Don't offer them any words of wisdom. They need to get mugged by reality. That is just as true of the women as it is the men."

Lydia McGrew: "Bag it. No gloating over evil acts on my threads, even if they happen to clueless people and _you_ think they "had it coming." Not gonna allow that kind of stuff around here."

But, of course, her characterization of what he wrote is not just incorrect, not just false, but a lie. Either that or she's too stupid to read, and we all can see for ourselves that she's not stupid. Those are the only two options in this particular circumstance -- either she's stupid, or she's intellectually dishonest. The third (and last) potential option, ignorance, does not apply in this case, as everything he said is right there.

Now, back up just one post above Mike T's post I've quoted here --

Lydia McGrew: "Actually, before those predictions [that after European nationalists have dealt with the Moslem invasion, they may well turn on Christians, because many so-called Christians are *aiding* the invasion] come true, Mike T. (if they do), I anticipate that the foolishly kind Christians may get a nasty surprise when they are harmed by the very people they are trying to help. I strongly suggest that anyone going to "migrant camps" to help the poor refugees leave the women behind, that's for sure. And go armed if possible."

She should denounce herself. But she won't; she's a hypocrite.

And I was right: she deleted that criticism-and-demonstration of her high-handedness.

Look at her hypocritical whining later in the thread --

Lydia McGrew: "I gotta love how Bedarz restates my careful references to Middle Eastern Christians' possible support for Hezbollah as "not holding to the Zionist line." ..."

edit:
To those persons (number unknown, somewhere between 1-8) who bounced over to this blog post from WWWW before Lydia McGrew deleted the two comments I'd made to her post criticizing her high-handed behavior, might I suggest refraining from commenting on her new threads for a while? Of course, for her to learn any lesson from such an action, nearly everyone who comments on her threads would need to refrain from commenting, and that's not likely to happen.

In Defense of Christendom

Bret Stephens at WSJ: In Defense of Christendom

h/t: Edgestow

Curling Up Under the Blanket

Douglas Wilson: Curling Up Under the Blanket

We live in a generation that is totalitarian in principle, having accepted all the basic totalitarian premises. Denying the Lordship of Jesus Christ drives you to those premises — for if Jesus is not Lord, then there is a vacancy that men will always want to fill. ...

We started by believing, as we ought to have done, that every man had a right to his own cabbages. We have ended by believing that every man has a right to his own truths. That ends with goons coming from the Department of Agriculture to seize the cabbages, and not one minister of the gospel in ten can explain how all such events are connected.

Providence - Unblinded Eyes, an Uncracked Head and Timely Passers-by

Malcolm the Cynic recently wrote a post he called The Hand of Providence, wherein he describes a harrowing drive during which he might reasonably have expected to get himself killed several times over, and for which a person with a spirit of gratitude (broadly lacking in this age) naturally gives thanks to God for averting all the things that might have happened.

This post is about a few such recent incidents which happened to me, for which only gratitude is appropriate --

As I may have mentioned a time or two, a have an old house that I've been restoring (for about half my life). I haven't done much work on it for the past decade, what with not having time when I had money and not having money when I had time, and not having a reliable helper.

Last July, the neighbor woman who had tackled to punks who had B&E the house the Friday before Memorial Day introduced me to a young fellow who has since been helping me on the weekends. So, just for that, I'm grateful.

On the first project we worked on, I might well have put my eyes out, which would have made it rather difficult to continue earning my living, to say nothing of finishing the project.

I have a compound miter saw, which I've had seemingly forever (and which, thankfully, was passed over in both break-ins, probably because it's so heavy). For most of its life, I've used it simply as a chop-saw; but on that particular day, I wanted to make mitered cuts. To make a long story short, due to inattention, I had the saw blade and back guide-plate set on a collision course. So, on the first cut, the blade started cutting into the piece of wood, and then hit the guide-plate .. (part of) which turned into shrapnel, several pieces of which hit me in the face. Perhaps an angel tipped off my sub-conscious, 'cause my eyes were tightly clenched shut even before the shrapnel hit me in the face. I might even have had my left hand in front of my face before the shrapnel hit, but I'm not positive whether it moved before or after I was hit (in favor of the before, there were a couple of hits on the back of the hand). Also, a couple of the blade's teeth came off, but none of those hit me; I expect that those might have cut deeper that the shavings of the guide-plate.

Then, a couple of weeks ago, I might well have broken both arms, or my neck ... and been paralyzed or killed ... but the worst of it was that an earlobe got cut.

It had been threatening to rain all day, and it finally started in the mid-afternoon. So, we put away the tools and I took my helper home. By the time I got back to the house, it had all blown over and the sun was out. It hadn't even rained all that much.

So, since there was still several hours of light left, I decided to continue with the work I could do without help. We had just started screwing down the first piece of floor decking (tongue and groove OSB; I really dislike T&G, but that was all I had found in the thickness I wanted). So, I finished that, and got the second piece done. With the third piece, it was time to engage the T&G. Man! I *wasted* a good two hours fighting with that, and never did get it properly seated. I had my accident in the middle of all that.

What happened is that I stepped on nothing and discovered, yet again, that I don't float very well. When everything came to a stop, my head was about 9 1/2 feet lower that it had been just an instant before. My hands hit the ground first, the right taking the brunt. Then my right shoulder ... and head ... hit the ground, and then it was over. I was, of course, wildly disoriented. I recall thinking something along the lines of, "Man, my head sure is heavier that you'd expect", as though my head slamming into the ground with such force were due to its weight.

After the initial pain subsided enough that I could think, I found that other than brusing, the worst of the damage to me was a gash in my right earlobe, and that my wrists were a bit sore.

There are so many horrible things that might have happened: the stick that cut my earlobe might have got the eardrum ... or an eye; one or both arms might have been broken; my shoulder might have been mangled; my back or neck might have been broken; I might have been paralyzed (and then laid there in pain upside down till my helper showed up the next morning); I might have died.

What can one do but thank God for the Hand of Providence, which seems so often to protect us from so many of the consequences of our own carelessness?

Last Saturday, I decided to rent a small backhoe for the day; and I certainly wish now that I hadn't. Besides the expense (and the rest of the tale), it really wasn't all that useful. I think it might have been cheaper, and certainly more efficient, to hire someone to come up with a real backhoe.

So, I got out to Home Depot as soon as they opened, and bought a hitch for my truck and rented the backhoe. I got it back to the house and unloaded before my helper get there. As I had an appointment in Ashland (in the next county), I unhitched the trailer, and left soon after he arrived.

Since July, the weekends have been really good with respect to the weather; however, last Saturday was an exception. Not too long after I'd left for Ashland, my helper put away the tools and went home, as the threat of rain had become all too real.

But the time I returned, it was more a misty drizzle than rain-rain; though it kept at it for the rest of the day. So, I put on an old nylon coat and hopped on the toy backhoe. I had hoped I could just use the front-loader to move the dirt-pile, but that just stalled the engine. Did I mention that this backhoe is mostly just a toy?

About 4:00, I decided I'd had enough; I was cold and soaked, and the drizzle was getting heavier. I didn't have to have the backhoe back until 8:00 the next morning, but I figured there was no point in keeping it over night. This meant I needed to get it back by 6:00, when the tool rental office at Home Depot closed.

I dragged the trailer all the way around, to make hitching it easier. Man, it was heavy! Then, the backhoe wouldn't move! It started fine, but every time I tried to move, the engine died. So, I wasted about 15 minutes between calling the rental guy at Home Depot (the main guy was already gone), and the number of the company who actually owns the equipment. No answer on that.

Turns out, the last time I'd moved the machine and then turned the seat around to use the backhoe itself, the seat had stayed up. When I then turned the seat around to drive it to the trailer, it was still up too high. I'd noticed that, but I couldn't get it to go down; it finally dropped down on its own about the fourth or fifth time I got into the seat. I suppose there is a pressure sensor under the seat to prevent it moving unless the seat is in the correct position.

So, I got the machine cleaned up, and secured onto the trailer, and set off to return it. By now, it was 5:30. No sooner had I got onto the public street (my property is on an alley, rather than a two-way street), than the hitch I'd just bought that morning came undone! I haven't been able to find the pieces, so I don't know whether the receiving pin broke, or whether it was simply that the cotter pin had fallen off, allowing the receiving pin to work its way loose.

In any event, the trailer's tongue hit the ground ... and the bumper of my truck. I haven't even made the first payment on that truck (*)!

So, it's 5:35, and I need to get across town by 6:00. I'm cold and wet, and the rain is getting more serious. And I'm utterly helpless (and in mental pain -- Oh! my new truck!) Fortunately, a guy driving by had seen it all happen, and stopped to help me. He had a spare pin which he gave me (which I'm thinking is more robust than the one that came with the hitch), and he directed me backing the truck to re-hitch the trailer.

I got back to Home Depot at 5:55. It's a long time since I've been as glad to be rid of something as I was to be rid of that machinery!

Then, on Sunday afternoon (the next day), my helper and I went out to Lowe's to get more materials. Among other things, I needed some 14-foot 2x10s. Realistically, these are too long to haul on that truck, as it doesn't have a full-length bed. But, with enough weight in the bed over the 14-footers, it's doable. This time, I didn't have enough weight in the bed.

Just as I pulled out into the street, everything fell off the truck. So, there I am, blocking half the traffic on a very busy street. A young fellow who was trying to leave the Lowe's lot right behind me stopped and helped us reload the truck. The two of us could have done it, but it sure went quicker with a third set of hands.

Two helpful strangers in two days, right when they are needful! What are the odds, these days?



(*) A couple of weeks ago, one of the tires (which I'd bought last November) on my old truck died at 65 mph. So I bought a new(er) truck. ;)

Misreading the Constitution

We Americans have a tradition of long-standing, going back at least to 1803, of misreading the Constitution ... even as we pretend to revere it. The particular misreading I wish at this time to bring to Gentle Reader's attention is the stubborn and persistent misreading of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment: for many of our current "immigration" problems -- which is to say, the fact that we are being invaded and that our rulers are aiding and abetting this invasion -- are rooted in this misreading.

Here is the text of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment -- "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Of late, in explaining how the "anchor baby" phenomenon came about and attempting to explain to Americans that the Constitution does not require us to attribute citizenship to the offspring of foreigners just because they happen to be born on American soil, several commentators have focused on the subordinate clause of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment ... all the while overlooking the verb.

I call to Gentle Reader's attention the precise wording of the first sentence as compared to the second (and subsequent, here unquoted) sentences.

The first sentence declares that a certain class of person -- previously denied to be citizens -- are citizens of the US, and of the state in which they reside. That is, the effect of this sentence was a one-time deal -- it applied only to certain persons then living, and it does not apply to anyone now living.

In contrast, the second sentence (and subsequent, unquoted sentences) is ongoing -- "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ..."

The purpose of the first sentence of the 14th Amendemtn was to explicitly overturn and repudiate the Dread Scott decision and to incorporate this repudiation into the Constiturion itself (*); it was not to redefine what 'citizen' means.

The first sentence does not say, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, shall be citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The first sentence is not on-going, as the second is.

(*) Congress actually has the authority to overturn most recisions of the federal courts by mere legislation -- for instance, Congress could invalidate both the Roe v Wade and the Obergefell rulings tomorrow, were the congresscritter so minded, and there is nothing the supreme Court could do except to say, "Yes, sir!"

So that people can see them

Douglas Wilson: In Which I Paint With Some Bright Yellows --

First, whenever we get to that elusive and ever-receding “hill to die on,” we will discover, upon our arrival there, that it only looked like a hill to die on from a distance. Up close, when the possible dying is also up close, it kind of looks like every other hill. All of a sudden it looks like a hill to stay alive on, covered over with topsoil that looks suspiciously like common ground.

So it turns out that surrendering hills is not the best way to train for defending the most important ones. Retreat is habit-forming.

This brings us to my second goal this morning, which is to highlight the principle. ...

...
But I am not trying [to] equate anything here — I am simply trying to illustrate how a believer’s conscience ought to work if he is employed by a government that tries to sin grievously through the instrumentality of a godly magistrate. This is just how I paint illustrations, with bright yellows and gaudy greens. I do that so that people can see them.

Douglas Wilson: Benedict and Beza Options

But that, though a nice statement of the problem, does not answer the problem. We need a solution to the impasse created by political polytheism, which is what under-girds our incoherent system of pluralism and diversity. Schizophrenia doesn’t work for cultures any more than it does for individuals.

So all these questions can be answered, I believe, by emphasizing something that all politically-engaged Christians should get tattooed on their frontal lobes — facing in, so that they can see it all the time.

Political process is not neutral. Administrative process is not neutral. Procedures are not neutral. Constitutional law is not neutral. Nothing is neutral. Everything we do corporately in the body politic is an expression of our foundational faith. That faith will either be the true faith — what I have been calling mere Christendom — or it will be an attempt to build a great skyscraper civilization on the foundation of our watered-down secular concrete.

The “rule of law” is not some “pure neutrality,” an ethereal gas that enables a bunch of members of different faiths and religions to bond together in the same society. The rule of law is actually a codified expression of certain aspects of our Christian inheritance. It is part of our legacy and heritage for a reason. It came from somewhere. It grew and developed in some countries and not in others for profound religious reasons. The rule of law has no evident authority apart from the authority of a transcendent God.

There is *always* a "god of the system", and if that god is not The Living God, then it's going to be some idol ... and there is going to be at least one demon inhabiting the idol, just waiting to feast on human souls.

Michael Egnor: Christian county clerk sent to jail for her opposition to gay marriage

Michael Egnor: What's the difference between a clerk not enforcing gay marriage law and a president not enforcing immigration law?

Michael Egnor: What's the difference between a clerk not enforcing gay marriage law and a president not enforcing IRS law?

Michael Egnor: Why are the President's myriad and persistent refusals to enforce law treated as discretionary, but a clerk's refusal to issue a marriage certificate deemed worthy of jail time.

Michael Egnor: What Judge David L. Bunning got wrong

Stupid bitch doesn't (even want to) understand men

Daily Mail: UK's National sperm bank has just NINE registered donors as boss plans to challenge men to 'prove their manhood' -- She hopes to appeal to men's vanity in order to attract sperm donations

Yeah. I'd really like to "prove my manhood" by causing a child to be conceived, so it can be aborted for being the "wrong" sex, or having the "wrong" eye color, or can have its life ruined by some lesbian if she doesn't kill it before it is born.

One thing the modern awash-in-feminism woman never seems to want to learn is that women have no power to shame men unless at least one of the following is true --
1) the man personally respects the particular woman attempting to shame him;
2) the point about which she wishes to shame him is one about which another man could shame him merely by lifting an eyebrow.

And the one thing the modern awash-in-feminism woman adamantly refuses to do is to earn the respect of men.

Karen Straughan

Karen Straughan (video): Why do MRAs bring up the draft?

I've watched of few of her videos (*) recently; she's mostly sensible ... for an 'atheist' and a pro-abortionist.


(*) And I *hate* videos; for in most cases, whatever information they may present could be presented in writing with far less expenditure of my time (to say nothing of bandwidth).