Almost to a man, both the 58's and the non-political offenders were hardworking family people capable of manifesting valor only in lawful ways, on the orders of and the approval of the higher-ups. -Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Pages
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Titty Tats & Truth
Good stuff from Josie Outlaw...
Hope the ink is the temporary/wash-off variety. But that's just me.
Also referencing the Milgram experiments, this from Resources for Independent Thinking via WRSA: Not Everyone Obeys.
Yes, and I had slammed Josie once before and needed to show some appreciation. She's about 99 and 44/100 pure on the Liberty scale, and always stirs good, healthy introspection.
I don't know what my % purity is on the Liberty scale - I know what my mouth tells me, but my actions have to be tested some more. My area of most concern is children. Josie doesn't care who people marry, but does she mind that the State then treats all "couples" as equals and will place newborn babies with a gay couple before a heterosexual couple, "just to be fair." Does this not violate a basic need of a child to have a mom and a dad raising him/her? Emotionalism is a mighty enemy that can overwhelm one's rational thought, but I have good reasons for wanting the innocent child to be protected by the Law. Is that wrong? Is that anti-Freedom? Is there another way to accomplish the same thing without Govt. when there is such an assault on such basics of life? I do realize also that the State has totally overstepped its authority in removing children from their home (oftentimes for no legitimate reason) and place them in much worse circumstances. Oh dear!
Are you going to go to NCPatCon in October? I am flying due to time restraints, so hope to see you there and not just in the Comfort Inn parking lot ;)
Bless you, Sioux. That's the kind of critical response (and dialog) this blog of mine sorely lacks. I like your point regarding the "marriage" issue, but my qualms are with government claiming arbitration authority, more than with, or against, the perverts and their perversions. The queers, much as I dislike their lifestyle, have every right to rebel against nature as much as they like. But, calling it "marriage" attempts to perform an impossibility: legitimizing that which is inherently UNnatural. The Guvmit purports to have the authority to ordain marriage, so the perverts seek to insinuate their perversions into the State's definition. I just say it's none of the State's beeswax, and I imagine Ms. Outlaw would concur.
But then, we come back around to your innocent child. If that child is already, for whatever reason a "ward of the State", someone has to make a decision regarding the viability of that child's potential home. And there has to be, one would argue, a set of standards for judging that viability. I suspect (but cannot prove) that if we removed the Govmit's presumed business to arbitrate the definition of "marriage", solutions to foster care would gravitate back toward the community and church. But, that could just be wishful thinking.
Yes, I have sent my registration dollars, and very much look forward to it. You and I shall keep regular company then, I insist. I'd like to compare notes regarding the Spring event, so expect an email to that effect.
Glad to hear you are going to be there and that we will get to converse on a multitude of subjects (will Miss Nagasalot mind?)
I appreciate your comments back about marriage and the Govt. Unfortunately this is rapidly becoming an Acceptance and Celebrate issue, rather than live and let live. Priests and Pastors will be told what they must do even if it goes against their beliefs - we're already seeing it with the bakers and photographers who should have a 100% Constitutional right of denial of service to anyone they choose for any reason without fear of legal retribution (freedom of association).
No one said it was going to be easy on this here planet, and whatever I say I want to say it with kindness rather than my natural state of rancor - that is a serious challenge for this ol' lady. Not with you, of course, as you actually want a discussion. I can get bent out of shape on a lot of issues, but I am willing to listen and actually change or revise my POV. Like abortion- I am 100% against it, but I want that battle won through the hearts and minds of women & men , and not the heavy hand of Govt. -- through true "informed consent" shall we make our decisions. Knowledge is a powerful tool in all things.
Sioux, I thought had contact info on you, but no. You can find mine here. Drop me a note.
I 'spect the Princess will enjoy your company, too. To be determined, though, how much presence we can both have there in T'Boro. I want to camp and "network" more this time.
"Natural state of rancor"...that's me, too. The Preacher wagged his finger in a sermon on "stubbornness" last Sunday. The whole time, I was thinking, "you have no idea."
Here's my email: siouxremer@att.net - I wish I could camp, but I just need more creature comforts in my old age. Like a shower and such. Softie that I am. This time I will be by myself, so I can stay as long as I want and not have to worry about what my friend wants to do as well.
I watched a very good movie last night 'on demand' - "God's (not) Dead" - have you heard about it? I really liked it a lot and was just the shot in the arm I needed again. There needs to be a whole lot more righteous rancor from the pulpit and out in the pews considering what is going on in this country. I don't go to church any more, but it's not for a lack of trying -- I can't find one that is all about the Gospel and understands what we are up against and treats it all seriously. It's more like a social club and I just get in trouble at places like that. At any rate, if you have seen the movie, I would love to hear what you thought about it. If not, in your spare time, check it out ;)
"I don't go to church any more, but it's not for a lack of trying -- I can't find one that is all about the Gospel and understands what we are up against and treats it all seriously."
Where we go, I do not feel the presence of the Holy Spirit. And, it's fair to assume that may well be my own fault and/or shortcomings of faith. There is nourishment there, but it's under the rocks.
That thought occurred to me, too - that was until some investigation into what goes on in seminary training for Protestants -- the conclusion was: "if that didn't kick the Christianity out of you, nothing will." The Leftist/ infiltration of both Catholic seminaries and most Prostestant ones is well documented. I grew up Episcopalian, and we all know where that Church has descended. So, should I still go there considering all the evil things that have happened in that "fold?" I have been to non-denom churches and the preaching has been Gospelly good. Still something is missing - after the Sermon, it's all about the silent auction, or bake sale, or fund-raising for a bigger church on more expensive land. Maybe that is just my jaundiced eye that doesn't know the whole story. This is not about my Sunday entertainment, I realize. My critical nature leaves me so judgmental to my own peril. Is a bad church better than no church?
I don't think so. If it's your soul, and I contend that it is, you owe it to yourself to be somewhat judgmental...or perhaps at least, critical. The "stubbornness" sermon was much like your peeves: some folks didn't toe the party line vis-à-vis the back-to-school supplies drive, and were summarily shamed by the preacher. That ain't right.
I watched the trailers for God's (not) Dead, and plan to order it. Did you watch the Carrie/Vince video below?
Well done, Josie! I needed this refresher course very much - will now send the link on to all my friends and family...
ReplyDeleteYes, and I had slammed Josie once before and needed to show some appreciation. She's about 99 and 44/100 pure on the Liberty scale, and always stirs good, healthy introspection.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the feedback, Sioux.
I don't know what my % purity is on the Liberty scale - I know what my mouth tells me, but my actions have to be tested some more. My area of most concern is children. Josie doesn't care who people marry, but does she mind that the State then treats all "couples" as equals and will place newborn babies with a gay couple before a heterosexual couple, "just to be fair." Does this not violate a basic need of a child to have a mom and a dad raising him/her? Emotionalism is a mighty enemy that can overwhelm one's rational thought, but I have good reasons for wanting the innocent child to be protected by the Law. Is that wrong? Is that anti-Freedom? Is there another way to accomplish the same thing without Govt. when there is such an assault on such basics of life? I do realize also that the State has totally overstepped its authority in removing children from their home (oftentimes for no legitimate reason) and place them in much worse circumstances. Oh dear!
ReplyDeleteAre you going to go to NCPatCon in October? I am flying due to time restraints, so hope to see you there and not just in the Comfort Inn parking lot ;)
Bless you, Sioux. That's the kind of critical response (and dialog) this blog of mine sorely lacks. I like your point regarding the "marriage" issue, but my qualms are with government claiming arbitration authority, more than with, or against, the perverts and their perversions. The queers, much as I dislike their lifestyle, have every right to rebel against nature as much as they like. But, calling it "marriage" attempts to perform an impossibility: legitimizing that which is inherently UNnatural. The Guvmit purports to have the authority to ordain marriage, so the perverts seek to insinuate their perversions into the State's definition. I just say it's none of the State's beeswax, and I imagine Ms. Outlaw would concur.
ReplyDeleteBut then, we come back around to your innocent child. If that child is already, for whatever reason a "ward of the State", someone has to make a decision regarding the viability of that child's potential home. And there has to be, one would argue, a set of standards for judging that viability. I suspect (but cannot prove) that if we removed the Govmit's presumed business to arbitrate the definition of "marriage", solutions to foster care would gravitate back toward the community and church. But, that could just be wishful thinking.
Yes, I have sent my registration dollars, and very much look forward to it. You and I shall keep regular company then, I insist. I'd like to compare notes regarding the Spring event, so expect an email to that effect.
Thanks again.
Glad to hear you are going to be there and that we will get to converse on a multitude of subjects (will Miss Nagasalot mind?)
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comments back about marriage and the Govt. Unfortunately this is rapidly becoming an Acceptance and Celebrate issue, rather than live and let live. Priests and Pastors will be told what they must do even if it goes against their beliefs - we're already seeing it with the bakers and photographers who should have a 100% Constitutional right of denial of service to anyone they choose for any reason without fear of legal retribution (freedom of association).
No one said it was going to be easy on this here planet, and whatever I say I want to say it with kindness rather than my natural state of rancor - that is a serious challenge for this ol' lady. Not with you, of course, as you actually want a discussion. I can get bent out of shape on a lot of issues, but I am willing to listen and actually change or revise my POV. Like abortion- I am 100% against it, but I want that battle won through the hearts and minds of women & men , and not the heavy hand of Govt. -- through true "informed consent" shall we make our decisions. Knowledge is a powerful tool in all things.
Sioux, I thought had contact info on you, but no. You can find mine here. Drop me a note.
ReplyDeleteI 'spect the Princess will enjoy your company, too. To be determined, though, how much presence we can both have there in T'Boro. I want to camp and "network" more this time.
"Natural state of rancor"...that's me, too. The Preacher wagged his finger in a sermon on "stubbornness" last Sunday. The whole time, I was thinking, "you have no idea."
Here's my email: siouxremer@att.net - I wish I could camp, but I just need more creature comforts in my old age. Like a shower and such. Softie that I am. This time I will be by myself, so I can stay as long as I want and not have to worry about what my friend wants to do as well.
ReplyDeleteI watched a very good movie last night 'on demand' - "God's (not) Dead" - have you heard about it? I really liked it a lot and was just the shot in the arm I needed again. There needs to be a whole lot more righteous rancor from the pulpit and out in the pews considering what is going on in this country. I don't go to church any more, but it's not for a lack of trying -- I can't find one that is all about the Gospel and understands what we are up against and treats it all seriously. It's more like a social club and I just get in trouble at places like that. At any rate, if you have seen the movie, I would love to hear what you thought about it. If not, in your spare time, check it out ;)
"I don't go to church any more, but it's not for a lack of trying -- I can't find one that is all about the Gospel and understands what we are up against and treats it all seriously."
ReplyDeleteWhere we go, I do not feel the presence of the Holy Spirit. And, it's fair to assume that may well be my own fault and/or shortcomings of faith. There is nourishment there, but it's under the rocks.
"it's fair to assume that it may be my own fault"
ReplyDeleteThat thought occurred to me, too - that was until some investigation into what goes on in seminary training for Protestants -- the conclusion was: "if that didn't kick the Christianity out of you, nothing will." The Leftist/ infiltration of both Catholic seminaries and most Prostestant ones is well documented. I grew up Episcopalian, and we all know where that Church has descended. So, should I still go there considering all the evil things that have happened in that "fold?" I have been to non-denom churches and the preaching has been Gospelly good. Still something is missing - after the Sermon, it's all about the silent auction, or bake sale, or fund-raising for a bigger church on more expensive land. Maybe that is just my jaundiced eye that doesn't know the whole story. This is not about my Sunday entertainment, I realize. My critical nature leaves me so judgmental to my own peril. Is a bad church better than no church?
I don't think so. If it's your soul, and I contend that it is, you owe it to yourself to be somewhat judgmental...or perhaps at least, critical. The "stubbornness" sermon was much like your peeves: some folks didn't toe the party line vis-à-vis the back-to-school supplies drive, and were summarily shamed by the preacher. That ain't right.
ReplyDeleteI watched the trailers for God's (not) Dead, and plan to order it. Did you watch the Carrie/Vince video below?