E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

A frightening preview of ObamaCare's death panels

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

A so-called "hospital" in California wants to murder a little girl, over her parents' objections. The case of Jahi McMath provides a frightening preview of ObamaCare's inevitable death panels.

After little Jahi went through what should have been a routine tonsil surgery, something happened. She went into cardiac arrest and was bleeding profusely. It appears that this was simply a tragic accident, but the aftermath of this decision should be terrifying to all of us. Little Jahi has been on life support ever since, and the so-called "hospital" has been consumed with bloodlust. They want to murder her, and little Jahi's parents are trying to protect their precious daughter from bloodthirsty so-called "doctors."

Back in 2009, Sarah Palin warned of "death panels" in ObamaCare, and she was mocked, ridiculed and insulted for it. This is despite the fact that President Obama himself suggested to a woman at a town hall meeting that her elderly mother should take painkillers rather than have life-saving surgery.

No, you cannot directly blame ObamaCare for the bloodthirsty so-called "doctors" who are determined to murder a little girl made in the image of Almighty God. But as ObamaCare is fully implemented, we will see more and more occasions where people are murdered in order to "control costs." It is a frightening future we face.

There was a time when government's role was to step in and protect children who are abused by their parents. Now, as government has gotten bigger and more intrusive, it is stealing authority that rightfully belongs to the family. It should not be the so-called "hospital" or the government who decides whether this girl lives or dies. The decisions about little Jahi's care should be made by her parents, because it is her parents who have been entrusted by God with her care.

If I was one the so-called "doctors" or part of the "hospital" administration, I would be utterly terrified of the wrath of Almighty God and the prospect of judgment in eternal Hell Fire.

Monday, December 30, 2013

Perpetual male adolescence and what it means

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

"Pajama Boy" - the effeminate, hot chocolate drinking meterosexual in a recent ObamaCare promotion - has brought forth waves of derision among conservatives, but this is something we should be concerned about. What our nation needs and is sorely lacking is real men. Without boys deciding to become real men - and without fathers to train their sons to be real men - our nation will continue to spiral downward.

This is something I addressed back in October - specifically that the cases of teenage boys openly sexually assaulting teenage girls in public is a symptom of the lack of real men. Had there been teenagers at that infamous party in Steubenville who had been trained to be real men, they would have either stopped the assault or they would have taken a beating trying to stop it. They would not have allowed it to happen without intervening, and they certainly would not have laughed and took pictures.

A few years ago, the men's group in my church were instructed to leave "Guyland" behind and this became a recurring theme of David's Mighty Men. Guyland, described in an excellent book by Michael Kimmel, is an extended period of adolescence. Rather than maturing into responsible and respectable men who are fathers, husbands and productive employees, "guys" instead hang on to the trappings of adolescence - a life focused on video games, hooking up, pornography, and drinking. Many of them live with their parents, unemployed or in dead-end jobs.

(For more, see here and here and here and here.)

We should not be surprised, then, when adult men are willing to resign themselves to a lifetime of stocking shelves, avoiding marriage, and avoiding responsibility. Avoiding children is the most important thing, because the one thing that will break a man's self-centered worldview is taking care of a baby. Sharing the load of comforting a crying infant at 3:00 am, feeding that baby a bottle and changing a diaper in the middle of the night so your wife can sleep are all behaviors that cannot exist in the perpetual adolescence of "guyland." Guys can biologically reproduce, but only men can be fathers.

We should not be surprised, then, at the fact that the majority of university undergraduates are women, or that women are making significant gains in the workforce while guys are being left behind and left out. What real woman wants to marry a guy when she could be with a man instead? What woman wants to take on a mental and emotional teenager that she has to care for and clean up after? That woman would be better off by herself than taking on that kind of burden.

I do not believe we could win World War II today. The kind of sacrifice and commitment required to do something of that magnitude is not something that Generation X or Millennials are capable of doing. (Or for that matter, much of the Baby Boomers.) But that is no reason to be depressed or to give up. There is always hope of revival, but it must be a multi-pronged approach that involves, public policy, culture, family and church.

From a public policy standpoint, we have to pull back on welfare benefits. Helping people who genuinely need help is one thing, but welfare has destroyed the family (and not just the black family) while enabling irresponsible behavior by boys who never become men. Our culture needs to be less tolerant of irresponsible guys and hold manhood in higher regard. Our families need to train their sons, grandsons and nephews to be men and not guys. Our churches need to preach the value of Biblical manhood and the God-given commandments to be responsible and to be fathers in the community.

All of this, from a human standpoint, is completely impossible. The only hope we have for all of the above to happen is for God to send a spirit of revival on our nation. We should all be praying that He does so.

Thursday, December 26, 2013

One of my favorite Christmas songs...

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 5:20 PM (#)

"Merry Christmas! Happy new year!" They're singing down the street.

While everybody's having Christmas turkey, they bring me bread and water to eat.

Christmas in jail, Christmas in jail, I wore my shoes out walking the floor.

Got rocks in my head, I wished I was dead, ain't gonna drink and drive no more.

Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Merry Christmas!

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

Monday, December 23, 2013

No blog posts this week...

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

There will be no new blog posts this week. Have a merry Christmas!

Saturday, December 21, 2013

What race is Santa Claus?

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

Santa Claus is not white, nor is he black, or Asian, or Martian, or Klingon, or Romulan. He doesn't actually exist.

Jesus Christ, however, was almost certainly dark-skinned.

Friday, December 20, 2013

Should the NBA eliminate divisions?

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

There is some interesting talk about eliminating divisions in the NBA (here and here and here) in part due to the terrible state of the Eastern Conference and in part because of the fact that the three-division system results in playoff match-ups that make no sense. The current system could give the team with sixth-best record the #3 seed in the playoffs.

Of course, if the NBA really wanted to make an improvement in the quality of the game, they would eliminate teams to reverse the effect expansion has had in diluting the talent pool.

A large part of the problem with divisions is the realignment of divisions several years ago, moving from two divisions per conference to three. Having more division championships devalues being a division champion. The realignment has placed an equal number of teams in each division, and moving back to four divisions (two per conference) would make them unequal, but the divisions were unequal before the realignment.

There is merit in eliminating the divisions entirely. Seeding the playoffs based on record alone would make the match-ups much more logical, and there is not very much focus on winning the division anyway. To make divisions really matter, the playoff bracket would need to be completely restructured, and that would create more problems than it solves.

The best solution is to eliminate the division system entirely.

Thursday, December 19, 2013

Mike Huckabee and the murder of four police officers

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

Since Mike Huckabee is considering running for President again, it is worth re-visiting this editorial from 2009.

Over the years, there have been many scandals that have destroyed political careers. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee just came upon what could be his own career-ending scandal. He was not caught in an adulterous affair or a crooked scheme to steal money, but a stupid and foolish decision he made as governor a decade ago directly led to the murder of four police officers in Seattle.

A decade ago, Huckabee commuted the sentence of Maurice Clemmons, who is currently suffering in horrible burning agony in Hell and will continue suffering in horrible burning agony for all eternity. On November 29, Clemons shot four police officers in a Seattle coffee shop. It was a targeted killing, an assassination by a man who hated law enforcement. Soon, it was revealed that Huckabee had fallen for a song and dance about how Clemons had converted to Christianity and turned his life around. Huckabee commuted Clemons' sentence and he was paroled. Clemons slipped through the system for the next decade before his violent rampage on November 29 and arrival in his ultimate destination of eternal torment in Hell fire.

Huckabee released a statement on this atrocity, where he said: "Should he be found to be responsible for this horrible tragedy, it will be the result of a series of failures in the criminal justice system in both Arkansas and Washington state."

No, Governor Huckabee. This was not the result of "a series of failures." This is your failure. This monster was going to be behind bars for 95 years, until you commuted his sentence. You need to man up, admit that this is your fault and apologize profusely. You need to stand up, be a man, and admit your responsibility in this atrocity. Huckabee's pathetic, weasel blame shifting may well have destroyed any hope he has of being President. Huckabee's later statements have been more accepting of his role, but accepting responsibility now looks a lot like political damage control when he realized that he made a fool out of himself.

Instead, it is Huckabee's initial reaction that reveals his true character and the state of his heart. Instead of standing up like a man and admitting his role, he passed the buck and blamed everyone else. He behaved exactly like the previous governor of Arkansas, disgraced ex-President Clinton. Huckabee behaved like a coward and a weasel, certainly not like a man. I lost every shred of respect I had for Huckabee with his wimpy, weasel denials.

But there is more to the story that needs to be explored, especially if Huckabee is serious about running for President again. Huckabee's foolishness in his treatment of Clemons raises serious questions about his ability to lead this nation in the War on Terror. President George W. Bush, for all of his many failings, had a moral clarity about terrorists and knew how to deal with them. He called them "evildoers." Ronald Reagan also had a moral clarity about the genocidal Soviet Union, calling it an "evil empire." Mike Huckabee does not have the moral clarity of President Bush and President Reagan.

This scandal reveals much more about Huckabee than the fact that he is soft on crime. This scandal has exposed the fact that Huckabee simply does not understand evil, and that is incredibly dangerous in a post 9/11 world. Huckabee is dangerously lacking in discernment - a quality that makes him unfit to be President, and especially unfit to be a pastor. If Huckabee is to repair his shattered reputation, much less present himself as a viable choice for President, he must prove to the American people that he understands evil and possesses the discernment that is critical for a President who is facing down our enemies. I cannot imagine he has enough time to do that prior to the Republican primaries in 2012.

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

MCCSC records request is just plain creepy

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 5:00 AM (#)

Check out my latest post on Hoosier Access -- MCCSC records request is just plain creepy.

The purpose of courts is not to make law!

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Last week, the supreme court of India issued a controversial decision upholding the country's ban on sodomy, and the debate surrounding this decision has been downright disturbing in that it shows a fundamental misunderstanding in the role of courts. Many of the arguments that have been written have focused on public policy instead of legality.

Our understanding of this in America has been broken down by decades of judicial activism, but the purpose of any court is not to make policy. The purpose of the court is to interpret the law. Did the anti-sodomy law violate the literal text of the Indian constitution? Did the law violate other laws that superseded it? If not, then it is not the business of the Indian supreme court to throw it out. That should be done by the legislative branch.

A similar decision in the United States is the Supreme Court's decision last summer that the Defense of Marriage Act (passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton) is "unconstitutional" - despite the fact that the Constitution had never been interpreted to prohibit the federal government from recognizing marriage as only the union of one man and one woman for 220 years since the document was ratified, and that this "interpretation" of the Constitution would have been shocking to the men who actually wrote the document.

The United States is supposed to be a nation of laws, not the whims of men. To my understanding, the same is true in India. By making arguments about the "constitutionality" of DOMA or anti-sodomy laws based on public policy preferences instead of the text of the Constitution itself, the news media, political pundits and activists on both sides continue to undermine this basic principle. It is a dangerous path that leads to tyranny.

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Shameless race baiting over a harmless cartoon

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Note: I originally wrote this in February of 2009, and decided to re-post it after some hysterical screeching that it is "racist." This is what I mean when I say that race-baiting demagogues have made race relations worse since Obama took office.

For the past eight years, we have seen a steady stream of jokes comparing President George W. Bush to a chimpanzee, and web sites such as smirkingchimp.com and bushorchimp.com have been set up specifically for that comparison. A Google image search finds a huge number of Bush/chimp comparisons. Both childish and humorous, the Bush/chimp jokes have never spawned a huge controversy.

Nonetheless, the New York Post punched a hornet's nest when they published a political cartoon playing on the shooting of a pet chimpanzee that went on a rampage in Connecticut. In the cartoon, police officers standing over the dead chimp said "they'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill." This brought howls of protest from shameless race-baiter Al Sharpton, saying that the cartoon was a "racist" attack on President Barack Obama.

In fairness, there is a long and shameful history of comparing blacks to monkeys and apes in order to demean them. This is a tactic still used by white supremacist hate groups. The Bush/chimp comparisons do not have this type of history behind them. The Bush/chimp comparisons are directed at an individual for the purposes of mocking him, while comparisons between blacks and chimps are designed to demean and slander an entire race based on nothing but skin pigmentation.

However, this cartoon was clearly not meant to be a racist slap at President Obama. It was meant to poke fun at the stimulus itself. In an editorial, the Post wrote that it was "meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill." The thought I had when I saw the cartoon was that the message was that a chimp with a typewriter could have put together a better economic stimulus package than the leaders in Congress who drafted and passed the legislation. To make a racial issue out of this is simply laughable.

But it gets worse. NAACP president Benjamin Todd Jealous made the hysterical claim that the cartoon represents "an invitation to assassination." This is just stupid. Anyone who has followed the story of the pet chimp shot by police should be able to discern that the cartoon was a reference to that, not any sort of call to harm President Obama or anyone else. Given that actual threats against the President's life are illegal, this is a thinly-veiled and cynical attempt to criminalize dissent. There is an assassination attempt going on here, but it is Mr. Jealous who is attempting to assassinate the First Amendment.

A legitimate case could be made that the cartoon was tasteless, but this is hardly a political crisis. Cartoonists cartoon, and an editorial cartoon cannot be held to the same standard as an opinion column or staff editorial. As a visual medium built on satire, editorial cartoons have been tasteless, and sometimes highly offensive, for decades. What should have been a throwaway cartoon that relatively few people read has been completely blown out of proportion, but has become an worthwhile lesson in how some Leftists seek to stamp out dissent.

Barack Obama, like every President, is going to me mocked, lampooned and ridiculed. Grow up and get over it.

Monday, December 16, 2013

Homosexual marriage threatens religious freedom

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

The most worrying aspect of state recognition of homosexual marriage is one that few people discuss - the loss of religious liberty that is inevitable from it. Once the civil magistrate recognizes homosexual unions as a "marriage" we will see more anti-discrimination lawsuits and complaints to government agencies when homosexual couples are refused service by Christian business owners based on their Biblical commitments.

We have seen this in Colorado and New Mexico, where Christian business owners face punishment by state government for refusing to provide flowers or a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. We have seen this in the United Kingdom, where Christian owners of a bed and breakfast have been punished by the state for refusing to rent a room to a homosexual couple based on their Biblical commitments.

In a free society, business should be able to choose who they serve and customers should be able to choose which business they patronize. Freedom of association necessarily includes the freedom not to associate, and it is not the role of government to mandate business serve anyone or that customers patronize certain businesses. If anyone is forcing morality on others, it is militant homosexuals who demand government force Christian business owners to participate in the sin of homosexuality.

Some people who are ignorant of history claim this is identical to "Jim Crow" laws of the Old South. That is not the case, because this is exactly the opposite of "Jim Crow" laws. Those laws enforced racial segregation, restricting the liberty of both white and black citizens alike, though they were specifically designed to oppress blacks. Allowing people to patronize what business they choose and allowing business to serve what customers they choose is the essence of liberty.

For those unhappy with the choices businesses make, the free market provides a remedy. Customers refused by one business can patronize and give money to a different one. Word of mouth (more powerful than ever today because of social media) can publicized a business' decisions and allow people to make their own decisions. Business owners will stay in business or not depending on the choices they make.

What makes this critical is that religious freedom is also at stake. No business owner should be forced by government to choose between his faith and his livelihood. This nation was a sanctuary for oppressed Christians fleeing persecution by the state, and we should not turn our back on that heritage in order to bow to the false god of Political Correctness.

Saturday, December 14, 2013

Joe Donnelly should act on his alleged beliefs

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

My latest editorial on Hoosier Access:

If Joe Donnelly is "pro-life," as he claims to be, why has he not signed on as a co-sponsor of S.1670, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act?

Donnelly has campaigned as a "pro-life" candidate and has cast some pro-life votes during his time in Washington. At the least, he should publicly pressure Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to bring the measure to the Senate floor for a vote.

Read more at Hoosier Access.

Friday, December 13, 2013

Anti-smoking nannies targeting non-smokers

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Smokers everywhere are used to being pushed outside to use their product, even in inclement weather. In the last few years, smokers have found an alternative: Electronic cigarettes. There is no question that e-cigarettes are safer than smoking traditional cigarettes, though there is some dispute over whether "second hand vapor" is harmful. (If so, it certainly isn't nearly as harmful as second hand smoke.) There is some evidence the vapor is not harmful at all:

Rather, electronic cigarettes users exhale a vapor and a study conducted by Professor Igor Burstyn of the Drexel University School of Public Health concluded that claims regarding chemicals found in e-cigarette vapor were detected only "in trivial levels that pose no health risk" and are far below current "workplace standards for involuntary exposures."

Source: CSPnet.com.

But that lack of evidence is not good enough, because even non-smokers using a product that looks like a cigarette are being targeted. It is not surprising that New York City, with the most obnoxious nanny-state mayor in the country, is considering jumping on this bandwagon and banning use of e-cigarettes in "public places." Erika Sward of the American Lung Association sums up the attitude perfectly: "We don't want to have people now exposed to e-cigarette second-hand emissions until we know more about them."

That is great. We have no idea if second-hand water vapor from e-cigarettes is dangerous or not, but let's go ahead and ban it because cigarettes are icky. Never mind that these are not cigarettes and there is no smoking going on. Rush Limbaugh had a hilarious reaction to running into these wannabe nannies when he was in Hawaii.

Enter the Indiana University trustees, who are considering banning the use of e-cigarettes on campus. Electronic cigarettes have been a way for some employees to stop using cigarettes completely, which is what the university wants and encourages. The problem with things like patches and gum is that it doesn't replicate the motion that smokers are used to using. Treating electronic cigarettes exactly like traditional cigarettes is absurd.

Is it really too much to ask that we treat adults like adults, and made policy decisions based on facts instead of emotions? Do we really need Nanny Government managing our lives for us?

Thursday, December 12, 2013

ObamaCare, birth control and our entitlement society

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

There was a time in this nation where being expected to pay your own way was normal. These days, telling someone to pay for something herself is "oppressive" and violates her "constitutional rights," according to the Left and the chief socialist, Barack Obama. This mutilation of the Constitution would have shocked the men who wrote the document to protect Americans from government abuse of power. We have officially become insane.

Enter Hobby Lobby and the battle over ObamaCare's birth control mandate. Hobby Lobby's owners do not want to be forced to provide birth control that can act as an abortifacient, because of their Christian beliefs.

Before the 60's radicals began transforming this nation into something it was never intended to be, this would have been unthinkable. If you want birth control, then you can pay for it yourself. As I have pointed out in the past, birth control is inexpensive, easily affordable to even those earning fairly low wages.

But see, that's not good enough for the radical feminists. The employer must be forced to pay for drugs that act as abortifacients, because not doing so would constitute the employer denying birth control to their female employees. In this twisted world, saying that the employee should pay for something out of the wages paid to her by her employer places her boss in between her and her doctor.

Where are we going to stop? Should employers be required to buy their employees food or gasoline? Should the employer make sure to provide a house, a cell phone and an Internet connection? What about cable television? Is it really too much to ask that the employee buy what he or she wants with the wages paid by the employer?

This whole debate is absurd. No one is trying to deny any prescription drugs to anyone. The fact that we are even having a debate over whether government should mandate this demonstrates how far we have moved away from the principles of limited government and individual liberty that this nation was founded to protect.

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Movie Review - "White House Down"

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Warning: I am going to spoil this movie. If you plan on watching it (which I do not recommend) watch it before you read this.

When I watch a movie, whether streaming, on DVD or in the theater, I just want to be entertained. Movies are a way for me to enjoy myself for a couple hours. Unless the movie is a political satire (such as the parody of Sarah Palin that was obvious in the trailer for Iron Sky) I do not need to get a sermon. This is where White House Down falls flat.

To be fair, White House Down is the movie that Olympus Has Fallen was trying to be. OHF sets the stage for a grand political conspiracy and then falls into becoming a Die Hard clone. WHD at least provides an explanation for how all of this is happening that is plausible enough to suspend disbelief if you do not think about it too much. The problem is that the movie is ridiculously partisan.

I knew from the trailer that this movie would be a love letter to Barack Obama, with the energetic young black President (James Sawyer) showing how awesome he is by using a rocket launcher and so forth. I did not expect it to be so openly partisan. I was surprised this was PG-13 and not R, because of the level of violence and the language, including Sawyer/Obama dropping the F-Bomb.

The villains, of course, are a who's who of boogeymen to the Left. Evil corporations that do not want to lose defense contracts (think Halliburton) are angry with Obama/Sawyer for an unprecedented peace deal in the Middle East that results in pulling U.S. troops out of the region. A secret service agent bitter over the death of his son in a raid on terrorists works with the evil corporations and some white supremacists (naturally) to take down the President.

They also have another powerful man on the inside: Speaker of the House Eli Raphelson, an obvious stand-in for John Boehner. He warns Obama/Sawyer that he cannot support the President's brave peace plan because he needs the campaign contributions from defense contractors. Raphelson/Boehner becomes President when Obama/Sawyer and the Vice President have been presumed dead (Obama/Sawyer was not dead, though the V.P. was) and Raphelson/Boehner immediately moves to expand U.S. military presence in the Middle East.

Of course, Obama/Sawyer and Cale defeat the terrorists and Obama/Sawyer exposes Raphelson/Boehner as being behind the whole plot - something that Obama/Sawyer figured out on his own, because Obama/Sawyer is so far ahead of anyone else that we cannot comprehend his brilliance. Excuse me while I roll my eyes.

Once I saw who directed this, I was not surprised. The director is Roland Emmerich, who also brought us a two hour long sermon about protecting the environment disguised as a cool disaster movie.

The movie itself was watchable and enjoyable, but the political nonsense ruined it. Had the propaganda been removed (or at least minimized) this would have been so much better. If you want to show Obama/Sawyer is cool and can handle a rocket launcher, fine. The other stuff was completely unnecessary and comes off as more of a campaign commercial than as a popcorn movie with lots of gunfire and explosions.

Final Grade: F

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Leftists cannot handle dissent

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

The following comment was posted on Herald-Times Online in response to one of my comments last week:

You are a monstrous and disgusting liar. You have spewed your putrid bigotry enough on these pages. Go away now. There are places on the internet for people like you, but a community forum is not one of them.

This type of comment illustrates the tendency of the Left to not just disagree, but to actively try to silence those who hold an opinion Leftists dislike - especially on social issues. It is much easier to silence opposition than to engage on the field of ideas, and namecalling is much easier than logical argumentation. Anonymity encourages this behavior.

Some calls for self-censorship do not even make sense. A comment on my letter to the editor last month went like this:

Scott go away and stop try to force your beliefs on everyone else... Believe what you want but STOP trying to force it on everyone else... Get a life of your own and get out of ours!

The amusing thing here is that is exactly what I was advocating in my letter to the editor. I am taking a pro-choice position, while the Monroe Counbty Democratic Party is taking an anti-choice posiution. If someone wants to donate to Planned Parenthood, they can write a check instead of forcing everyone to do so. But rather than engage on the issues, the response is "Shut up! Stop posting! Stop writing letters to the editor!"

Sometimes, the reaction is depraved and perverted obscenity in an attempt to bully conservatives into silence. We saw this nationally with MSNBC personality Martin Bashir, who suggested that someone should urinate and defecate in Sarah Palin's mouth after a comment she made criticizing Barack Obama.

Some people compared Bashir's despicable suggestion to Rush Limbaugh's remarks about Sandra Fluke in early 2012. There are two critical distinctions here. Limbaugh called Fluke names, while Bashir suggested that someone violently assault Sarah Palin in a dehumanizing and degrading manner. Bashir's remarks were exponentially worse than what Limbaugh said. The other distinction is that Limbaugh's remarks were off the cuff, while Bashir's remarks were prepared in advance. He knew exactly what he was going to say well before he said it.

If the Left's ideas are superior, let's leave this perverted depravity behind and hear some logical argumentation.

Monday, December 9, 2013

Let's not have a national panic about the "knockout game"

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Stories about the so-called "knockout game" have lit up conservative media over the last couple months, and have led to a number of stories in the mainstream media too. While this is a very serious matter, let's all take a deep breath and not make this into something bigger than it is. We certainly do not need to use it to stir up racial animosity, as Will Wright points out.

The knockout game is real and instances of it have been well-documented. Some of the attacks, including a sub-human puddle of slime and filth who knocked out a 76 year old woman. What kind of effeminate coward does that? But this is not an epidemic and you are not in danger of being sucker-punched by every young black male you see. (And that is the pop culture's impression of what is going on here - out of control black youths.)

Where I disagree with Wright is his dishonest characterization of the Trayvon Martin shooting, painting it as "a black teenager walking where he had the right to be" and ignoring Martin's brutal beating of a neighborhood watch volunteer that could have been fatal. By bringing the Martin case into the discussion over the "knockout game" and ignoring the most critical aspect of the case, Wright discredits himself and cripples his own argument.

Nonetheless, it is legitimate to be concerned that irresponsible pundits are making this "game" seem much bigger than it is encourages more distrust and outright racism. This country has a long and shameful history of casting young black men ad out of control predators. We saw this with the horrific murder of Emmett Till and the shameful fraudulent case against the men falsely accused of a demonic "wilding" attack on a Central Park jogger. The real culprit was not identified until many years later.

Let's chill out. Find the people who are doing this, aggressively prosecute them and put them away. But don't blame an entire class of people for the actions of a few, in response to a "game" that is not nearly as widespread as the media would have you believe.

We certainly do not need a bunch of busybody meddling legislators passing more laws to address the game. Assault, battery, attempted murder and murder are already illegal. We do not need more laws to criminalize things that are already against the law. Just prosecute the criminals responsible and punish them as harshly as legally possible.

Sunday, December 8, 2013

A note about mobile comments

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

I have installed Disqus for comments, but they only work on the desktop version of the blog. Disqus does not show up if you are using a mobile browser. If you want to comment, you need to use a desktop PC or a laptop, because a smartphone (or an iPod Touch) will not bring up Disqus. Sorry.

Saturday, December 7, 2013

This is going to be awesome.

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

Friday, December 6, 2013

Taxpayer subsidies in nonessential matters

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

In a December 2 letter to the editor, the author asks if I would agree that his "taxes should not be used (unconstitutionally) to subsidize school vouchers for private parochial schools."

Actually, I would agree, and I said so in a February 2011 letter to the editor. Addressing the controversy over funding Planned Parenthood in a March 2005 letter to the editor, I said "these controversies would disappear if the city council would eliminate these subsidies and let us choose for ourselves what charities we will support." There is no need for an admonition to be "consistent."

If it were up to me, there would be no social services funding program at either the city or county level. I certainly do not support vouchers, due to the danger of government meddling in the operations of private schools. Furthermore, I do not want to subsidize schools that teach false religions such as Islam, and if I support tax dollars going to Christian schools my standing to oppose vouchers for a Muslim school is shaky at best.

The best option is for tax dollars to only fund the essential functions of a limited government. For local government, this would include things such as police, fire protection and courts. If government is not involved in vouchers to religious schools or subsidizing private charities (including faith-based charities, an idea George W. Bush foolishly promoted) then we will not be having arguments about where those funds should go.

Thursday, December 5, 2013

Die Hard 5 mini-review

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

I watched Die Hard 5 on Monday night.

I had to intentionally shut off my brain and enjoy the gunfire and explosions because that movie makes NO sense. When I started thinking about it, I was going nuts. So I had to intentionally not think at all.

Bruce Willis is playing a video game with God Mode turned on, and Superboy Prime punched reality. There, that explains it. Boom. Bang bang.

For what it is, Die Hard 5 is a fun movie.

Final Grade: B+

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

The "health and wealth gospel" is still a wicked heresy

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

A common thread running through heresy is that it places man at the center of our faith, rather than the Author and Finisher of our faith, Jesus Christ. (Hebrews 12:2) The worship of the golden calf by the Israelites who had just been rescued from Egypt was little more than an excuse for rampant and obscene sexual immorality, and the heresy of works-based salvation allows us to proclaim our own righteousness rather than rely upon Jesus' sacrifice to atone for our sin.

The "health and wealth gospel" (HAWG from here on) follows this same path. While pretending to worship God, HAWG proponents actually worship their own bellies. They turn Almighty God into a genie with unlimited wishes, and we only have to ask "god" to provide us with whatever we want and he will give it to us. If we have enough faith, we will have material possessions, good health, children and more.

Now, of course God loves to give His children good things. Luke 11:11-13 is a wonderful example of that. But we are not entitled to anything simply because we have faith. The people of God have always experienced suffering, from everyday heartaches to war, famine, disease, natural disasters and so on. Jesus promised us in John 15:20 that we will be persecuted by this world for following Him. Proponents of HAWG would call Jesus Christ a liar.

Man was created to worship and glorify God. That is what we were meant to do, but HAWG reverses that. In the backwards world of HAWG, our Father in Heaven exists to please and glorify us by giving us whatever we want! Instead of obeying and serving God, we are served by a divine Santa Claus in Heaven. It is perverse and disgusting. Do not fall for the anti-Biblical heresy of HAWG and run away from preachers and churches that teach this blasphemy.

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

The "health and wealth gospel" is a wicked heresy

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Note: I originally wrote this in April 2008

If you turn on the television to a religious channel or attend certain churches, you will hear that if you pray hard enough or have enough faith, that God will grant you good health as well as financial success. This is commonly called the "health and wealth gospel" and, as with many heresies, there are scriptures one can find to support it. Matthew 7:7-11 is an example. But the idea that we can pray our way to earthly riches and good health is simply not supported by Scripture.

First, we have the example of the Apostle Paul. One of the greatest servants of Jesus Christ who has ever lived, Paul wrote 13 books of the Bible that are critical to our understanding of the Christian faith, especially justification by grace through faith. But Paul also had what he called a "thorn in the flesh", which many Bible scholars believe was a serious physical ailment. If one could be healed if he only had enough faith, wouldn't Paul be the first one to be relieved of his ailment? But The Lord told Paul, "My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness." (2 Corinthians 12:9)

Of course, Jesus Christ was poor throughout his life, noting at one point that "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." (Matthew 8:20) If all that is standing between us and earthly prosperity is simply having more faith and praying, then why was Jesus Christ Himself basically homeless? Did Jesus, the perfect Lamb of God who was without sin and whose death takes away all of the sins of the world, simply not have enough faith in His Father?

Of course, there were more examples. David, who was chased and persecuted by King Saul; the prophets who were murdered; Steven, who was stoned to death for preaching the Word; and the violent deaths of the Apostles. The list goes on and on, with the most obvious refutation of this heresy being the Book of Job. According to the "health and wealth gospel" heresy, all of these great men would have enjoyed prosperity and healing if they only had more faith. How arrogant is it to claim that earthly prosperity is ours to claim, as if the great men and women of God throughout all time who suffered in this life did not have enough faith?

In fact, in Psalm 73 the writer speaks of how he is jealous because the wicked prosper here on earth, and his faith was shaken. If earthly prosperity is the result of faith in and obedience to God, why would the wicked prosper while the righteous do not? If financial prosperity was a sign of faith and obedience, then why did Jesus say that "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24)? According to the "health and wealth gospel", being rich is evidence that someone is following God.

Both physical health and financial success can be idols to our hearts. Furthermore, we can become filled with pride (which is a form of idolatry) if we believe that earthly blessings are a result of us somehow "deserving" them by having enough faith. As if the Creator could ever owe anything to the created! Everything we have is a result of God's wise and holy will, and we do not "deserve" anything from Him. And in truth, that is the most liberating thing of all, because we know that God is in absolute control.

Monday, December 2, 2013

End the corporate welfare to Planned Parenthood

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Printed in the Herald-Times, November 27, 2013

To the Editor:

The Monroe County Council's decision to give another handout to Planned Parenthood shows a fundamental lack of seriousness about the community services grant program and a lack of respect for both taxpayers and other social service agencies.

In the application PP submitted to the council, they admitted they took in $160,000 more than they spent up to that point in their fiscal year. PP's revenue over expenses was 160% of the total the council distributed on November 12.

This is shameful. Planned Parenthood clearly does not need the money they got from the council, and that money could do much more good elsewhere. If we are going to subsidize social service agencies, the money should go to organizations that actually need it, not organizations that have a huge budget surplus.

Since PP did not need the money, why are they asking for a handout? They already get a grant every year from the city of Bloomington's social services funding program. This handout was a political endorsement, nothing more.

Finally, Planned Parenthood performs the barbaric act of abortion, and pro-life taxpayers should not be forced to fund such an organization, regardless of whether or not the grant goes to "abortion services."

Sunday, December 1, 2013

Use financial terrorism to protect women from rape

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

In the aftermath of the Steubenville rape case, several school officials have been charged with crimes.

If we want a real and meaningful punishment for criminal behavior by government school officials, then severe and draconian financial penalties for the school itself is by far the most effective way to terrorize the school into making sure no employee of the school ever covers up a crime like this again.