New Blog

Welcome first time visitors from Renew America!

Saturday, December 28, 2013

LGBT is the New Black Power

Interesting, with A&E lifting the suspension on Phil Robertson and the Gay Lobby losing their bid to see him silenced--the liberal media has begun framing the aftermath, leading with: "...comments made by Robertson about AFRICAN AMERICANS and homosexuality..." 

Suddenly black folks are getting the lead emphasis, when before, the Duck Dynasty star’s comments about race in the GQ Magazine interview which sparked the controversy, where rarely mentioned, if mentioned at all, but never first. When Robertson’s ham-fisted and misguided observations on the Jim Crow South were referenced, it was an aside: "And don't forget what he said about black folks."

Racism against black folks, ever the fallback position for leftists when the more important issue to them has failed to achieve the desired result. Of the two groups, the one currently enjoying primacy on the left is obvious. Particularly when you consider President Obama, the head of the party, has spent far more time and energy addressing the LBGT agenda, than the issues plaguing the black community.

If you Google: “Obama addresses LGBT,” You will actually get an untold multitude of results with titles like: “President Obama Addresses LGBT Youth While on Higher Education Tour” – “Obama Addresses 3,000 LGBT Advocates in Video Message.” – “Days after his historic inaugural speech, Obama addresses national conference for LGBT equality.”

We even see: “Obama Addresses LGBT Community During Morehouse College Graduation.”  It seems, as pointed out by The Huffington Post; “President Barack Obama made sure that his speech during the spring 2013 commencement ceremony at Georgia's Morehouse College was inclusive.

The Atlanta-based historically black private college is exclusively for men, but Obama spontaneously referenced gay and lesbian Americans, as The Advocate notes.”

So even while delivering a commencement speech at a historically black college, the President fit the LGBT agenda into the mix—but I didn’t find references to the issues hampering the advancement of the black community peppered into his exclusive addresses to the LGBT community. Heck, you will even see: “First Lady Michelle Obama To Address LGBT DNC Luncheon.” These were all pulled from the top of the results and all just from 2013.

If you Google: “Obama addresses the black Community” You find him telling Black Enterprise Magazine: “I’m not the president of black America.” – “Obama Needs A Plan To Help Black America, Say Activists, Economists” – “President Obama to Address Frustrated Congressional Black Caucus”

At the bottom of the page I found: “Obama addresses 'crisis' of absent fathers in the black community,” an article appearing on The Grio dated 2009—But it was not a specific address, just a mention made in the midst of an address given on the importance of fatherhood in America in general, not the pandemic illegitimate birth rate that has achieved the status of "New Normal" in the black community. It’s also worth noting this web hit came ironically after one entitled: “Obama Addresses Homophobia, Anti-Semitism and Xenophobia Among Black Americans”—You can’t make this stuff up.

(Full disclosure, I Binged instead of Googled, but Binged has not yet reached the same status in the American Lexicon.)

He may not be the president of black people, but he sure does appear to be the president of LGBT people! If nothing else, they seem to represent a percentage of America he seems more interested in uplifting and advocating for than any other.

Here’s the point of this article and it is meant primarily for Black Democrats. The President is in fact not the president of black people exclusively—nor do I wish him to be. However I do not think anyone would begrudge the first black president the unique opportunity to use his influence to actually go and specifically address an audience of black folks and speak frankly about our issues. Especially our youth!

I don’t mean a sound bite in the midst of his usual soaring rhetoric on conceptual inequality and social justice delivered before the General Assembly—I mean visiting schools in the inner city from time to time, in problematical urban centers, the President vis-à-vis the youth, admonishing them to stop attacking people in the street, educate themselves, cease haphazardly making babies—Put a halt to the behavior grinding our communities into self-perpetuating misery pits.

Just the attempt would be appreciated—I’ll take the rhetoric at this point in lieu of indifference or leftist solutions, if it is targeted. The President can't offer real answers, because the only answers on a scale great enough to address and effect real and lasting “Change” in the inner city, or even the country on the whole, run counter to his ideology—The ideology incidentally most responsible for the very issues he would be confronting.

The real solutions have a spiritual and moral foundation—without which you can’t  ”Hope” to find temporal answers. That sort of thinking is anathema to Democrats and leftists in general. Hence the reason so much stress is made on advancing the LGBT agenda—it's one more brick removed from our nation’s moral foundation. The LGBT agenda represents another thumb in the eye of the Immutable Source undergirding our Republic’s values.

A strong foundation means less grievance and more personal responsibility, which means less dependency, which means less power for the left. Forgetting that strong foundation inescapably leads to more corruption and a weak nation. Most importantly for the Democrats, it means you are placing your faith in faithless men and government instead of the sustaining power of that Holy, Immutable and faithful God.

 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:

He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great. Luke 6:45-49

good man does not advocate tirelessly for behavior God calls sin, while virtually ignoring the other sins he finds too mundane, or problematical to address. Sins tearing the inner cities apart. When will the black community wake up to the realities of the soft, ever eroding ground the Democrats build on? How much more decay in our communities do you have to see? Does the house need to collapse on our heads before we realize it’s time to get out?

Digital Publius

Friday, December 20, 2013

Culture War: The Impotency of Sticks and Stones

Earlier this week, on Facebook I posted this status update:

If you are prone to using terms like Moochelle when referring to Mrs. Obama, or President Zero, Odumbo, Obummer or any other names other than President or Mr. Obama--I will thank you not to do so on my wall or in one of my threads--I am no fan of President Obama and his policies, but I strive to conduct myself in a manner above that sort of thing. I don't have time to waste explaining your ignorance whilst doing battle with the ignorance on the left.

I would remind those who would say stupid things like: "The liberals don't keep it civil so why should I?"

"Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go: Lest thou learn his ways, and get a snare to thy soul." Proverbs 22:24,25

That is a passage I find myself employing more and more these days, both for a reminder to myself and in conversations with nice people now very angry as the left’s policies wreak havoc across the American landscape. It is exceedingly difficult to maintain civility in the face of the Democrats and the left in general’s epic indifference to the concept. Later in the tread I posted:

"Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you." Luke 6:28

That IS a hard saying--but it is what the Lord called Christians to do--It doesn't mean we should not fight against our enemies--We are to “be angry, but sin not!”

The Holy Bible clearly teaches there’s “A time for war and a time for peace a time to kill and a time to heal.” The trick is in making war without hating your enemy—without becoming your enemy!

An FB friend named Keith asked this question later in the virtual conversation: “Okay, so SAY I agree with you. Where exactly does that get you in the fight to save the republic? I think we need swords not saucers. What think you?”

Those who have followed Digital Publius for a while know, that on occasion I will turn a discussion I had somewhere online into a subject I will share here—This generally occurs if I find my answer to someone’s question takes more than a couple of paragraphs in a comment section, followed by the inspiration the subject is important enough to share more broadly. Such was the case with Keith’s very good question. My response:

I am a big fan of swords Keith
, but I know I don't have to debase myself when using one when battling the enemy! I don't have to lower myself to be like them, to hate like them! I actually own swords (And in this day more importantly guns,) But my Sword of choice is the living Word of God--it is sharper than any two edged sword and as the kerfuffle with Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson proves, is far more offensive to the enemy than any insult my severely limited brain can throw at them. (Incidentally, the Scriptures as Phil paraphrased don’t merely equate homosexuality with bestiality, they also equate plain old-fashioned fornication and adultery with that repugnant act, GLAAD seemed to miss that.)

What do you think the left hates more--someone calling the President Obummer or showing them where President Obama's policies conflict with the teachings of God? The left takes your use of Obummer, laughs at you and calls you an idiot and racist--but it cuts them to their very souls and makes them blow a gasket when you tell them they are against God. Nothing provokes the left like comparing their morality with God’s truth revealed in the Holy Bible. This loses power though when you then turn and act as they do.

Jim Crow laws were ended not because those fighting against them used better insults in an attempt to demean the enemy. Let the enemy demean themselves then highlight it. As long as we act like they do, there is no way for people to discern a difference between our conflicting paradigms--as it stands right now you have people in the middle who see both sides acting and looking exactly the same. Hard to examine results coldly and logically for bystanders, when both sides are equally revolting in their behavior.

The left makes pictures of George W. Bush in the image of Adolf Hitler, so what do people on the right do in response? Make pictures of Barack Obama in the image of Adolf Hitler. At best all one can hope for is an impasse—That’s not good enough for me, I don’t care for stalemates, never have. I like winning—Call it a character flaw on my part if you must.

It wasn't Malcolm X’s "By any means necessary" that won the Civil Rights movement if I may again use it as an example. It was people highlighting the bestial cruelty of the Jim Crow laws and the hideous visage of those who maintained the institution, in strong contrast to those taking the high road that won out. It may not be as much fun or as viscerally appealing, but it damn sure takes a great deal more intelligence and courage.

I am a firm believer in the idea of fighting fire with fire. However, your fire does not have to be the same as the fire employed by the enemy. We ought not limit our definition of equal or greater force to the same kind of force. I would argue; Godly integrity is the greatest force we can bring to bear in this battle for our nation’s soul—It’s like pitting their sticks and stones against an A-bomb.

I would much prefer losing a temporal battle that by its very definition is temporary, than to lose the spiritual battle that has eternal consequences for all involved. Whatever the outcome, I like our chances in the end standing before my God after having taken the high road.

"Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." I Peter 2:12

Digital Publius

You can like the Digital Publius FB Page by clicking here.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Knockout and the Mouths of Babes

You would be hard pressed to find a more tender hearted man of God in all the Holy Bible than the Prophet Elisha—His ministry was marked by a persistent message of God’s love and the kindness of our Savior. Nevertheless, there is a passage recorded about Elisha that skeptics delight in and incites those who would place their own morality above the morality and wisdom of God.

It seems not long after the passing of Elisha’s Master Elijah —Elisha heads for Bethel. He was confronted on the way by a group of young men, the Bible says they shouted at Elisha: “Go on up, you baldhead!” they taunted. “Go on up, you baldhead!”

Elisha then does something out of character, he turns and curses the youth in the name of the Lord and two bears come out of the forest and maul forty-two of the youths. The Bible doesn’t say whether they were killed, but it does say they were mauled.

It’s worth noting this had to be a very large gathering of young men if the bears managed to get forty-two of them. This may seem harsh to those who do not understand the context and the culture of the near East at this time in history.

You see, young men had the responsibility of contributing to their families’ welfare and survival—they didn’t have idle time enough to hang out in huge packs on roads between towns doing nothing other than taunting travellers. These youths were on their own and likely assaulting and robbing travellers —The East did not take kindly to idlers and took robbery very seriously, much more so than we do today.

That they were a gang not unlike the ones we see contemporaneously is likely but not a statement that could be dogmatically made based only on the text. It is highly likely however, given an understanding of the cultural manners and customs of the time and place, particularly when you consider they were on the road.

That being said, this was more of a spiritual attack on Elisha and therefore God than a physical one. This is apprehended when one considers the taunt employed by the young men: “Go on up, you baldhead!”

As noted earlier, this took place right after the passing of the Prophet Elijah—Baldheads were not the custom of Israelis, it was an act of morning to shave one’s head. The Bible says Elisha was so distraught at losing his Master he rent his clothing, another custom of the day. When the boys said “Go on up…” They were referring directly to the passing of Elijah. The Bible records Elijah being taken up into heaven by a chariot sent by God before Elisha’s eyes.

This was a case of rebellious youth so depraved they mocked Elisha whom everyone knew to be a Prophet and God by inferring the incident was not true.
The Holy Bible admonishes people to be mindful of the company they keep and the incident recorded in II Kings concerning the fate of this gang of youths is an abject lesson of the wisdom of heeding it.

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” Proverbs 9:10

Today we see gangs of young men no less callous than those of Elisha’s day. Yet we treat them much more gently, then wonder why these gangs persist. The “Knockout Game” newly discovered by the mainstream media, is a reminder of the effects on society disaffected, unengaged youth can bring.

And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Ephesians 6:4

These young black men preoccupied with causing misery and pain are the result of our men failing to instill Godly values in the fruit of our loins. We scatter our seed to the winds without a care as to how that seed is cultivated and then look for others to blame when what is produced is so sickeningly bitter.

I read an article chronicling a knockout attack on a Jewish boy of twelve and the subsequent arrest of a thirteen-year-old boy for the assault. I was struck by the words of wisdom the victim offered regarding his attackers: “I think this could have all been prevented,” the boy said. “The boys and teens would know that there’s always a God watching them, and they wouldn’t only be afraid of the police,”

Indeed. The mouth of a babe can bring forth wisdom instead of taunts when he receives the proper instruction. “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” Proverbs 22:6 The article states the Jewish boy attends Yeshiva where he is given spiritual learning along with his temporal education.

You can be sure the Jewish student knows the story of the gang God dealt with on behalf of Elisha. The triumph of Satan through his agents on the left has been to remove as much of God from the American culture as possible, most notably from the public schools. The victim’s father says in the article the young men celebrated when they hit his son, gleefully shouting: “We got him.” The knockout game is a cold victory for secularism.

“I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them…we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible; for this Divine Book, above all others, constitutes the soul of republicanism.” “By withholding the knowledge of [the Scriptures] from children, we deprive ourselves of the best means of awakening moral sensibility in their minds.” – Benjamin Rush, Letter written (1790’s) in Defense of the Bible in all schools in America

The Founders understood then what those who make the sacrifice to send their children to Yeshiva, or Christian schools understand today, even those Founders considered “Deists” and secularists knew the importance of religion in a child’s education.

History will also afford frequent Opportunities of showing the Necessity of a Publick Religion, from its usefulness to the Publick; the Advantage of a Religious Character among private Persons; the Mischiefs of Superstition, &c. and the Excellency of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION above all others antient or modern – Benjamin Franklin, Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pensilvania Philadelphia, 1749

Morality unattached to a source you are beholden to greater than yourself, is just opinion and subject to change with fashion and circumstances.

The leftist, secularist would argue that religion in school is not allowed by the Constitution and if it were, the effects would be negligible—To that I would say; Fear of the Lord is indeed the beginning of wisdom. Look at the difference between the thinking of a little Yeshiva trained boy in Crown Heights, New York expressed above and that of these roving bands of lost Black youths expressed in their vile behavior.

Examining their respective trajectories it is entirely possible the Jewish boy may grow up to be a lawyer defending his one time assailant in their later lives. Faith in a Holy and just God guides us and brings hope even in the face of hardship. Without that faith and fear, why not knock some random stranger out?

Digital Publius

Saturday, October 19, 2013

The Unbearable Lightness of Heroes

Hollywood just doesn’t get it! Recognizing this fact has forced me into deciding not to spend my money on Superhero movies anymore. I’m just not that desperate to see these characters on the big screen if they are not in fact the characters I want to see.

If the majority of comic book fans were honest with themselves and others, they would have to admit down deep they don’t like these films and TV shows either. What the comic book fan has been reduced to is accepting what they give us in the movies because we want to see our heroes in live action.

Take a film like Iron Man 3—I don’t know a single comics fan that liked what they did to the Mandarin—Not one person! What the producers of Iron Man 3 pretty much said was: “What you’ve liked in the decades since the Mandarin was introduced was silly, so we will remake him to suit our tastes.

I’m not certain whether it was laziness, cheapness or utter contempt for the genre that lead them to realize Iron Man’s most important villain in the fashion they chose—but it well and truly sucked. That I am sure of!

The producers robbed the audience of the opportunity to see something a great deal more interesting and fun. Instead of giving us a battle between old’ Shellhead and a multi-effect, ring wielding Mandarin—Impact blasts, electric blasts… We were treated to the Mandarin as a powerless, washed up actor/dupe.

Imagine the Mandarin using his black light ring to blind Iron Man, then bombarding him with flame rays alternating with cold waves making the armor brittle—as Stark activates night vision, the Mandarin starts giving him Karate chops, shattering pieces of Iron Man’s suit. Iron Man is much stronger than the Mandarin, but the Mandarin has greater hand-to-hand fighting skill using leverage and speed against the Golden Avenger.

That would be a lot more interesting visually and thematically to watch than a bunch of exploding “Molten Man” rejects who can somehow, (inexplicably) immobilize armor by merely touching it. How many sets of Mandarin rings do you think Toys “R” Us and Wal-Mart would have sold?

Conversely, if they had put Jeremy Renner in a mask playing Hawkeye and had the Black Widow taking out aliens with her golden (not flat black) Widow’s Bite bracelets instead of a pair of mundane Glock 26s. They aren’t even cool looking guns, serviceable weapons, but lame. Or if the Widow used her widow's line and the ability she has to climb walls like Spiderman, a lot more little girls would want to be her and a lot more boys would want to be Hawkeye on Halloween.

Thematically the Avengers sucked! I liked the movie because it happened to have enough comedy, shield slinging, hammer pounding, repulsor ray blasting and Hulk smashing action to transform me back into a little boy while watching it. But it would have been a hundred times better for me if they had simply stuck to a truer interpretation of the characters.

Most of the changes they make are so silly, but each one makes the true fan wince a little—Cap’s shield is just Vibranium in the movies and not a mixture of Adamantium and Vibranium as created in the comics, the product of a unique and non-duplicatable accident. Anyone with access to Vibranium can have a shield like Cap's in the Marvel movie universe.

Why is a Viking warrior not wearing his helmet in battle? Why would you put Dr. Doom on the ship with the Fantastic Four and make his armor organic? Why imply Stark’s repulsor technology was stolen from the soviets? Why not call the “Cosmic Cube the Cosmic Cube?”

Why make the Joker a guy wearing white makeup with a bad green die job? Why make Jarvis a computer? Why make Speedy Oliver Queen’s nickname for his non-existent sister instead of Roy Harper? Why make Hal Jordan fearful?

Why is the Black Canary someone other than Dinah Lance? Why make Nick Fury black so he can’t be Sgt. Fury and the leader of the Howling Commandos on film? Why does Gwen Stacy have to be a scientist too? Why is it only one Agent of Shield on the TV show wears the Shield uniform?

None of these changes make the stories more interesting nor do they advance the narrative in any appreciably improved way, they are changes for the sake of change and useful for cutting corners. For example, putting Doom on the ship with the FF eliminates the need to give Victor Von Doom an origin story. I would rather you simply have Doom appear whole without an origin—no one needed to know what happened in Hans Gruber’s past leading to his attempted robbery of the Nakatomi Plaza.

We saw the introduction of Sebastian Blood and the Bronze Tiger in the second episode of the new season of Arrow. They made the same mistake the Agents of Shield TV show is making—they are taking the fun out of the genre and what you are left with may as well be a rerun of Knight Rider or the A Team, any 70s-80s adventure TV show.

It would have been way cooler to have the Bronze Tiger wearing a CGI Tiger mask—much more dramatic and visually interesting than Michael Jai White in a brown leather jacket wielding cestus. He could have gotten some face time talking to China White between confrontations. Why doesn’t China White wear white?

What would be more fun to see, this? 

Or this?

I can hear the Tinsel-Town besotted and bewitched fan boys saying in unison: “That would be great for the fans, but not for regular people who don’t know the characters—It’s not realistic enough.” To that I say: Stuff and nonsense!

People have no problem with talking werewolves or walking dead—No one ever complains it’s not realistic when someone crushes the skull of a zombie whose body should have atrophied to a point of immobility months earlier due to a dead metabolism. Why do comic book fans accept the Hollywood meme that people will cluck their tongues at a guy fighting crime in something other than Kevlar reinforced plate armor?

This article is not meant for regular people, it is written to the true comics fan in an attempt to detox us from the alluring Kool-Aid served up by the Hollywood elite who look down on us to begin with. They always have. And they resent the power Comicon has grown into.

The Hollywood types fall into two categories when it comes to these films—you have the pseudo fans like the Whedons who think their version of the Marvel Universe is superior and are driven by their overstuffed egos. You then have the types who do these films and make changes because they don’t like the source material. These sorts make the films because they make money and are also driven by their overstuffed egos.

Most of the changes they make in the name of realism are anything but realistic, at least no more realistic than what is already presented in the comics. Batman’s cinematic armor would be a disaster in real life. The comic’s explanation that he wears the yellow insignia to allure criminal gunfire to his center mass where he does wear protection makes much more sense.

Meanwhile a true fighter has to be able to move freely—There has not been one person in the movie armor that moves like he could defend himself in a real fight. Most of the people Batman faces are run of the mill gunsels. We see Jason Bourne or James Bond take out scores of gun and knife wielding villains while wearing street clothes.

How about the “Arrow” smearing green makeup over his eyes instead of wearing a domino mask? Which would be easier to remove if you have to make a quick change between identities? My true feelings on the subject of “Realism” in these films and shows is realism be damned! Superheroes by their very nature are not real. If you want realism go see The Hurt Locker or The Butler!

Iron Man 3 was the last of these films I will pay to see. I’ll watch them, but I won’t pay to see them. Not as long as they exhibit contempt for the genre and heroes I have always loved. The days of signaling my approval by mindlessly walking like Frankenstein’s Monster to the movie theatre and the store to buy these films the day they come out on video are over!

It may seem like I’m being petty, but each one of those insoluble changes diminishes the memories of that little boy I used to be. I’d rather pay to see a film like Pacific Rim that pays homage to monster movies in a new way, or even a bad film like Hancock, with it’s version of a superman than to see a bastardized version of well-established favorites.

Digital Publius