Monday, March 30, 2015

Liberal Fit Over Ted Cruz Demonstrates Their Fear

Last week, Senator Ted Cruz, a Presidential Candidate, announced that he was signing up for Obamacare after his wife left her job at Goldman Sachs (likely to work on his campaign).

In response, the Left has had a massive hissy fit. They're calling Cruz a hypocrite, they're snidely laughing about it, they're calling it a passive endorsement of the law by it's greatest critic.

Add to that we get the usual hypocrisy from the Left in questioning Cruz's citizenship because he was physically born outside the United States. (1) It's yet another example of the Liberal motto: "It's cute when *we* do it!" When conservatives questioned President Obama's citizenship it was "unpatriotic" and "racist" and any other ad hominem that liberals could find to discredit anyone who dared to question the President's citizenship, which was at least more questionable that Cruz's, but ultimately his citizenship was proven (and could've been a much smaller issue if the Narcissist-in-Chief had gotten past his inability to understand anyone questioning him in any way much faster).  Now that the situations are reversed, liberals break out that motto..."It's cute when *we* do it!" and do exactly what they complained about Republicans doing about Obama.

Then of course there's my personal favorite claim: "Senator Cruz isn't experienced enough to be President!" (I nearly spit coffee on my computer when I read THAT.) Considering Senator Cruz has served in the United States Senate exactly the same length as President Obama served when he announced his candidacy. Prior to that, Senator Cruz spent five years as the Texas Solicitor General and previous to that spent eight years as Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush.

(Somehow, liberals believe that 4 years in the U.S. Senate plus seven years of voting "present" in the Illinois State Senate equates more experience than eight years in the U.S. Attorney General's office, five years as Texas Solicitor General and 4 years in the U.S. Senate. Because reasons.)
We also get the usual Left-Wing false arrogance. A conservative comes out and Activist Liberals start the narrative of "I hope they do run (insert conservative here)! They'll be so easy to beat! Now if they were smart they'd run (insert wimpy RINO here)...that person is a "serious candidate" who would really frighten us."

Friends, please remember that the last two "serious candidates" that Democrats claimed to be "genuinely concerned by" lost. Believe it or not, Activist Liberals are not known to be the most honest people out there. The people they pretend to laugh at are the individuals they would really be worried about -- the people they call "serious candidates" are the Democrat Lite RINOs.

Remember your history -- 35 years ago liberals said that Ronald Reagan wasn't a "serious candidate." How'd that work out, again? Pretty well? Yeah, that's how I remembered it as well.

2016 is a year absolutely packed with strong conservatives. Yes, we've got Florida Governor Jeb Bush trying to get in on the race -- but we can do better. Let the Democrats go backwards with Hillary, we're moving forward. We have far better choices. We've got Senator Cruz along with Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and several other conservative rock stars.

When the Left tells you that they're afraid of Jeb Bush or whatever other bland moderate Republican whose turn it is and who is supposedly a "serious candidate" -- I beg you, don't listen. They told us that about John McCain and Mitt Romney -- and then proceeded to do everything in their power to discredit those two as soon as they were the nominee.

So let's put up a real conservative then sit back and watch (a Republican in the White House).
----------------------------------------------------------------

(1) It has been long established that physical location of birth does not effect a person's citizenship or their qualification to be President. George Romney was born while traveling abroad in Mexico with his missionary parents (who were both citizens). John McCain was born at Coco Solo Naval Base in Panama. The bottom line is this: as long as you would have otherwise been an American citizen by birth, it doesn't matter if that birth happens on American soil.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Coming Back

Hello again my friends! It's been quite a long time...

When last we spoke, I was taking a hiatus for my wedding in November of 2013. I spent the following year and a half enjoying married life, changing jobs, and most happily, preparing to become a father this summer.

Yet as the 2016 election approaches and liberals begin to go bat-poop crazy over any sign of conservatism out of one side of their mouths and try to convince Republicans that (insert wimpy, unexciting moderate Republican here) would be a more "serious" candidate and would "really concern Democrats" (which, as we learned three years ago means "someone who can be beaten by the Democratic nominee) out of the other; I find myself missing blogging.

So, I will happily announce my return to the blogosphere. I'm not going to commit to a specific frequency although I'm going to aim for weekly.

Let's get back to it and have some fun!

Monday, August 12, 2013

Pre-Marital Hiatus

As I posted a couple of months ago, I am getting married! Because we're crazy (in love) we have set our wedding date as November 23, 2013. That being said, I am now left without much free time and one thing that must necessarily be cut -- to make room for tasting cakes, meeting with DJs, and general planning -- is blogging.

For this reason, I am putting Biblical Conservatism on break until after my nuptials. I hope to return sometime in December or January, but until then I will be taking a break from blogging.

If you are wondering, the Biblical Conservatism Facebook Page will remain active as best I can manage, so please feel free to interact with me there!

Should anything of particularly pressing need come up, I'll come back with a post. Otherwise, I'll see you in six months or so!

Thursday, July 25, 2013

Guest Post - How Being Anti-Abortion Is Like Being Anti-Slavery: An appeal to the Pro-Life movement

As I mentioned Tuesday, I was going to be the day I announced a hiatus from blogging to give more time to preparing for my upcoming wedding...then my good friend and fellow blogger The JC_Freak posted two great articles for his blog on the subject of abortion.  Today I am happy to feature the second.

As a strongly pro-life individual, I am always pleased to pass along a simple, well articulated statement of how to properly debate with a Pro-Choicer.


I am not the kind of person who is frustrated when my opponent makes a point that I am not prepared for. My reaction is usually, "Huh. I should research that." But what really grinds my gears is when an ally makes a really bad point.

I'm sure as fellow pro-lifers you can empathize with that. Here we are, trying to stop people from killing babies, and somehow we are treated as horrible people. With a vast majority of the media on one side, all they have to do is quote any pro-life advocate that misspeaks, or when a stupid person who happens to be pro-life... well speaks. This is why it is incredibly important for us to really focus on messaging, because there are millions of lives that count on us communicating our message well.

So I propose a two piece plan. First of all, we need to associate ourselves with a historical movement which was not only successful, but recognized as a good thing by the general public, as well as one that we have a legitimate association with. And lo and behold this isn't that difficult: slavery.

So similarities between Pro-Life and Abolitionism:
  • Both have to do with human rights. At the end of the day, that is all that we are fighting for: that the rights of a particular group of humans is recognized and respected. And not just the right to speak or anything like that, but the right to be treated as human beings.

  • Both have to confront dehumanization. I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not think that being Pro-Choice is anything like being Pro-Slavery. Abortion and slavery are very different institutions, and thus the defences for them are very different. That said, since both abolition and Pro-life are based on recognizing a group's humanity, opposition to us must include why that group isn't fully human. This means that we can look to how such dehumanization was combated in the 19th century, and see if any of it is translatable. And of course maintain the campaign of showing people how these children really are children through pictures and other such means.
  • Both are religiously motivated. I am not ashamed of this, but it is important to point out how religion plays a role in this debate. It is because the issue which really divides the two sides is whether or not an unborn child is human, and defining what a human is outside of religious circles is difficult. Indeed, the very notion of human rights was founded by religious circles, and it is questionable whether the concept can really survive when societies shift to secularism. But philosophy aside, when we are accused about being overly religious, we can look back and point out how important religion was to the abolitionists.

  • Both are driven by an uncompromising ethic. It is as difficult to compromise on the killing of children as it is to compromise on men, women, and children living in chains. Which means that we should be the first who are appalled by sex-trafficking, bigotry, and all denials of humanity that exist around the world. Don't let the liberals own those issues. Those should be our issues.

  • Both are movements championed by the Republican Party. Just saying. 
Right now the Pro-Choice movement gets a lot of distance by connecting itself to the feminist movement. We really should be using the same kind of rhetoric since we are really grounded in the same tradition as the abolitionists. So let us celebrate that heritage and proclaim it. 
The second piece of the plan is to stay on message. We are about human rights. The unborn child has rights. That's it. Any objection, and I mean "any", can and should be answered from that basic viewpoint. 
PC: What about in the case of rape?
PL: Does that justify killing the offspring?
PC: What if the mother's life were in danger?
PL: Yes, she also has the right to life. We don't ignore the women, and therefore there is not simple answer, but such a question should recognize that both lives are equally precious.
PC: It is the woman's body?
PL: There are two person's bodies in question here. Both should be respected
Just this simple rule would prevent us from saying anything dumb. Nothing more needs to be said. The argument stands for itself. If the conversation shifts to why is the child human, than that is exactly where we want it to go! Focus all of our energy on that one point. The Pro-Life movement stands or falls on that point. Therefore let it!

Thank you.

The JC_Freak's blog can be read at http://jcfreak73.blogspot.com/ each week.

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Guest Post - Abortion Is Not About Equality: An appeal to the Pro-Choice movement

Today was going to be the day I announced a hiatus from blogging to give more time to preparing for my upcoming wedding...then my good friend and fellow blogger The JC_Freak posted two great articles for his blog on the subject of abortion.  Today I am happy to feature the first.


As a strongly pro-life individual, I am always pleased to pass along a simple, well articulated statement of what the Pro-Life movement really believes.

OK, a couple of caveats. I don't want to be deceitful, so I'll come right out and say that I am Pro-Life and I am sure that affects how I view Pro-Choice rhetoric. But, to any Pro-Choice person out there, please don't reject my point here until I have actually stated it, because I may not be saying what you think I will be saying.

First of all, I completely acknowledge that it is proper to understand the Pro-Choice movement as defending rights, specifically women's rights. What I reject is the idea that just because we are dealing with women's rights that we are therefore dealing with equality. In reality, we are dealing with a moral issue that happens to only directly affect women.

Here is where I think you (that is pro-choice people) have a point. In most contexts, a person has the right to decide what medial procedures will and will not be done to them. The government should not have the right to say that a smoker who develops lung cancer should just deal with the cancer because it is the natural consequences of their choices. In fact, I think we pro-lifers actually undercut our message when our arguments seem to ignore this.

However, there are other notable exceptions to this: suicide and drugs for instance. I would also include prostitution here, though it isn't a medical procedure. But it is still true that there are exceptions to the idea that we are allowed to do whatever we want with our own bodies. It is also important to note that the above activities are illegal for both men and for women. It is not gender specific.

And, quite frankly, neither is the illegality of abortion. The fact that it only influences woman is a consequence of biology, not patriarchy. Any Pro-Life person would equally abhor a man killing a fetus if he were pregnant; it just only happens in movies. The morality of the thing falls on our belief that the fetus is a human being and thus should have human rights. I want the full rights and privileges of the mother to be maintained in tension with the full rights and privileges of the child.

But here is the Pro-Life position, and I'll wrap it up really tight so that there is no confusion: fetuses are children. To me, the distinction between a fetus and a newborn is no different than a newborn and a toddler. Morally they are equivalent. So in a nutshell, we want human rights for fetuses. That is it. Period.

I regret that making abortion illegal will force a long term medical situation on the mother, and that is not shallow regret. I really regret it. It is a horrible thing to force on someone, especially since pregnancy shouldn't be something horrible. It is the most beautiful thing in the world, and I hate the fact that it can become something ugly in a woman's life because it was forced on her. That is appalling to me. But so is killing children.

And that is what we are against: killing children whether by men or women. This particular means is only biologically available to women, so naturally restricting it would only affect women. Thus, it is legitimately a matter of women's rights: how should the mother's rights and the child's rights be resolved when they are in direct conflict? That is a very difficult question, but it has nothing to do with mean at all, and thus has nothing to do with equality or inequality. I believe that equality is a very important thing, and tying abortion into the category of equality both waters down the word, and can hinder legislation that is truly about equality under the law between men and women. This issue is a separate issue, and should be kept separate.

Thank you for your consideration.

The JC_Freak's blog can be read at http://jcfreak73.blogspot.com/ each week.

Thursday, July 18, 2013

If Zimmerman hadn't shot...

Just hypothesizing here...
Can anyone legitimately, honestly tell me this isn't precisely what would have happened if George Zimmerman had not defended himself?

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Reactions to Zimmerman Verdict

On Saturday night, a jury in Florida pronounced George Zimmerman not guilty on all charges.

The reactions are pretty much expected from the Left -- "FLORIDA IS CLEARLY RACIST!"  Of course, the individuals in question seem to only get their news from MSNBC and CNN -- who continue to feature increasingly younger photos of Trayvon Martin to continue to promote the falsehood that Trayvon was an innocent, 13 year old boy and not a 17 year old pseudo gang-banger. (I'm still waiting for a picture of Travon in a diaper or swaddled in an infant-sized blue blanket.)

The evidence -- which has been largely ignored by the Drive-By Media -- shows a story where Zimmerman was getting the living tar beat out of him by Trayvon and then shot in self defense. The Drive-By Media also ignored the fact that innocent little Trayvon was suspended from school three times for infractions including being found with drug paraphernalia and a bag with marijuana residue, once for vandalism and being caught with presumably stolen women's jewelry, and once for truancy. He was also reported to attempted to assault a bus driver.  Not exactly the bright eyed little boy presented as having freshly outgrown playing with action figures.

Despite frequent race-baiting by the Left, it looks like George Zimmerman's story was actually true -- Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and after Trayvon had beaten Zimmerman thoroughly, Zimmerman fired his gun to save his life.  The simple fact that Zimmerman had suffered severe trauma to the back of his head and a broken nose while Trayvon Martin's only injuries were bruised and bloody knuckles and a gunshot would means that the forensics back up Zimmerman's story.

I strongly suspect that if Zimmerman was a black man and Trayvon a white boy -- despite the way the Left race-baits -- there would be no trial. The Media would have actually...oh I don't know...REPORTED the forensic evidence months ago...there would have been a very different reaction from those who claim racism. Then again, people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will always jump to claim racism to ensure their own continued relevancy.

The reality of the situation is that -- surprisingly -- a jury of George Zimmerman's peers found him not guilty on all charges and accepted that Zimmerman did act in self-defense rather than racism.  In short, justice was served.

Now the Drive-By Media is dying to make this into a race-riot in line with the Rodney King story in 1991 -- because if we don't keep the race-baiting going in a case that had no racial overtones, how will Democrats get elected?