You’ve probably heard about this phishing scam on the news, or you may have fallen for it. A scammer sends an innocuous looking e-mail. You open it, click on a link, and the scammer steals your password. No attachment downloading required.
The scammer pretends to be you and sends an e-mail to your contacts. You’re in a foreign country, and you’ve lost your wallet and need cash fast. Someone hacked into an LBC reader’s e-mail account and sent this to his contacts:
“My Predicament!!
Thursday, November 5, 2009 7:32 AM
From:
This sender is DomainKeys verified
REDACTED
Add sender to Contacts
To:
undisclosed-recipients
This had to come in a hurry and it has left me in a devastating state,I’m writing this with tears in my eyes,I came down here to London,England for a short vacation to visit a resort and got mugged at gun point last night at the park of the hotel where i checked in.All cash,credit cards and cell were stolen off me.My flight leaves today and i’m having problems settling the hotel bills.
The hotel manager won’t let me leave until i settle the hotel bills($1,940) now am freaked out.Please reply and let me if can you have the money wired to me through western union i promise to pay back as soon as i get back home.”
Most people are smart enough not to fall for this, but just in case…
But that doesn’t mean the fight’s over. There’s something about that “will of the people” jazz some politicians just don’t like. Fundamentally. For example, 54 percent of voting Californian’s barred their government from hiring, contracting, and admitting on the basis of race. Thirteen years later, the California legislature drafted a bill bringing back set-aside contracting for minority businesses. Last summer, Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the racial quota bill into law…although the constitution, which he swore to uphold, prohibits it.
Well done, voters of Maine. Last November, California voters (including me) said YES to adding the understood-throughout-the-ages definition of marriage to the state constitution: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. The vote in Maine will be challenged, just as it was in California.
Avoid poverty and overcome inequality by getting married before you have children.
“Although immigration and trade are often blamed, a more important reason for our lack of progress against poverty and our growing inequality is a dramatic change in American family life. Almost 30 percent of children now live in single-parent families, up from 12 percent in 1968. Since poverty rates in single-parent households are roughly five times as high as in two-parent households, this shift has helped keep the poverty rate up; it climbed to 13.2 percent last year. If we had the same fraction of single-parent families today as we had in 1970, the child poverty rate would probably be about 30 percent lower than it is today.”
Follow the path to upward mobility by getting married before you have children.
“Of course money is a factor in upward mobility, but it isn’t the only one; it may not even be the most important. Our research shows that if you want to avoid poverty and join the middle class in the United States, you need to complete high school (at a minimum), work full time and marry before you have children. If you do all three, your chances of being poor fall from 12 percent to 2 percent, and your chances of joining the middle class or above rise from 56 to 74 percent. (We define middle class as having an income of at least $50,000 a year for a family of three.)”
Building a nest first, then having children…building a nest first, then having children, protects children from a multitude of social pathologies.
A child’s risk of being poor, a high school drop-out, a juvenile delinquent, or knocked up as a teenager (or knocking up a teenager) decreases if the child’s father is married to his mother and living in the same home as the child. In other words, if you want to give your children the best foundation possible, being married to their father is a good start. Generally speaking.
…makes La Shawn a dull girl. All work and no play makes La Shawn a dull girl. All work and no play makes La Shawn a dull girl. All work and no play makes La Shawn a dull girl. All work and no play makes La Shawn a dull girl. All work and no play makes La Shawn a dull girl. All work and no play makes La Shawn a dull girl. All work and no play makes La Shawn a dull girl. All work and no play makes La Shawn a dull girl. All work and no play makes La Shawn a dull girl. All work and no play makes La Shawn a dull girl. All work and no play makes La Shawn a dull girl. All work and no play makes La Shawn a dull girl. All work and no play makes La Shawn a dull girl.
To find out if I had the discipline and stamina, I started outlining, plotting, and writing a story in long-hand in late February. Three months later, I typed it up, then let it “rest.” In mid-July, I started revising. Today, I completed the second draft, 75,000 words and 32 chapters worth. For the next couple of weeks, I’ll let it rest, then I’ll return to it with fresh eyes for draft #3.
What is the novel about? I mentioned it on the blog several months ago. I can tell you it’s written from a Christian worldview with a paranormal twist, in the vein of Christian superstars like Eric Wilson, Ted Dekker, and Frank Peretti.
Will the manuscript see the publishing light of day? I’ll have a better idea once I finish a third draft. It takes as many drafts for a novice like me to turn something of this size into a readable and coherent story.
Why did I write a novel? Partly to see if I could do it, partly because I want to see my books on a shelf in Barnes & Noble some day, but mostly to tell a redemptive, God-glorifying story taut with tension and infused with suspense, and defy negative stereotypes about Christian books…even if my family and friends are the only ones who’ll ever read it.
You know, it takes a brave person to go against the grain, something I’ve witnessed first-hand since I began writing for publication. The pressure to conform is even greater if you’re a black person who believes white racism is the least of America’s concerns and certainly plays no significant role in the lives of blacks. Fatherlessness and illegitimacy do play significant roles, however. These conditions cause more harm in the so-called black community than racism ever has or ever will.
It isn’t simply a matter of holding views that diverge from the group’s; it’s expressing those views publicly that make people angry enough to send hate-mail and call you names like self-hater. “Racist” whites may use your views to bolster their own opinions, they say. In other words, stick to the script and don’t attempt to ad-lib. Words and ideas are dangerous, so pipe down and keep your opinions inside your head.
Black police officers in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who support Sgt. Crowley (arrested Henry Louis Gates) and the Cambridge police force are probably catching it right now. Then again, maybe not. Perhaps people have evolved beyond castigating those who refuse to march in lockstep, regardless of skin color.
(Of course they haven’t, but I wanted to do what Jesse said and keep hope alive!)
When I was going through an existential phase in college many years ago, I used to ask, “What’s the meaning of all this? What is the point?”
Why was I born in South Carolina, in the United States, in this skin, and with this body?
“I could have been born anywhere,” I’d say. Why here? Why now? Why a woman? Why a black person? What does it all mean? I’m still seeking answers to some of those questions, but I know this: I thank God I was born on American soil, and he must have a good reason for making it so.
My country is a land of the free, home of the brave, but I used to talk trash about it and take for granted its freedom and opportunities. I saw the error of my ways, however. America is my homeland, and I have grown to love it.
Who cares what “they” say? Envy! Let them complain and criticize and demonize. For all its faults (which are legion), America is the freest, the best, the greatest, the most benevolent and charitable country on the planet.
Barack Obama, the savior-in-chief who said he was a “fierce advocate” of homosexuals, committed the unpardonable sin of rendering a decision in accordance with the law.
Earlier this month, Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) moved to dismiss Smelt v. United States of America, a case filed by “married” homosexuals attempting to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996, DOMA allows states to refuse to recognize so-called same-sex marriages performed in other states and bars the federal government from recognizing such marriages.
A majority of states explicitly protect traditional marriage, including left-leaning California. Last month, the state’s highest court upheld an amendment that declares only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in the state. Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer married in California during the brief window in which such marriages were legal. The issue they posed was not whether they had a right to marry, but whether states that bar such marriages must recognize theirs. Obama’s Justice Department said no.
Although the U.S. Constitution provides that states must recognize “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state,” Congress validly exercised its power [through DOMA] to ensure that each state may decline to apply another state’s laws when they conflict with said state’s public policies. In defending DOMA, Obama did exactly what he swore to do: preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He has neither the duty nor the authority to declare laws unconstitutional. That power belongs to the judiciary.
Outraged homosexual bloggers claim Obama compared so-called homosexual marriages to incestuous and underage marriages (emphases added):
The courts have followed [conflict of laws] principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State’s policy…And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, “though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state”); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson’s Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages “prohibited and void”).
As you can see, the allegation is false. DOJ cited Catalano, Wilkins, and In re Mortenson’s Estate as examples of how the court decided cases in which state laws conflicted. What’s definitely outrageous is homosexuals citing Loving v. Virginia to bolster their argument for marriage between two men, a case easily distinguished from Smelt v. United States of America.
In 1958, Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving left their home state to marry in Washington, D.C., where interracial marriage was legal. After returning to Virginia, the couple was arrested in their home and charged with “unlawful cohabitation.” The court suspended sentence on the condition that they leave the state. In 1963, the Lovings filed a motion to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence. Almost a year later, the court still hadn’t ruled on the motion, and the couple filed a class action suit in federal court. The case eventually reached Virginia’s highest court, which upheld the state’s law against miscegenation and affirmed the convictions.
On June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute unconstitutional. As marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, there was no “legitimate overriding purpose” to outlaw marriage between a white man and a black woman other than blatant racial discrimination. As racial classifications are suspect, states must demonstrate a “permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate.” The court added that denying the couple “this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes…is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.”
Loving did not give people the right to marry whomever they wished; it gave them the freedom to marry without racial restrictions. The goal of interracial marriage bans and legalized segregation was to maintain a subordinate class of citizens based on race. The goal of same-sex marriage bans is to protect traditional marriage, not maintain a subordinate class based on “sexual orientation.” Anyone with only half a brain knows that homosexuals in the U.S. hardly are a subordinate class.
It’s time for homosexual “marriage” proponents to find a more apt and a less offensive argument to gain validation and acceptance of a lifestyle choice.
Oh. My. Goodness. That thing was intense (watch the video). If I’d known what I was getting myself into. Lock yourself in the seat, and they rotate you 90 degrees, with your body parallel to the ground (like you’re flying). And then boom. You’re off. Can’t ride ‘em like I used to. Good grief.
It’s not easy to read someone accusing you of being a self-hater, hater of black people, race traitor, a racist, anti-Catholic, a religious bigot, and a host of other things.
But no one ever told me living this life would be easy.
I started trying to publish my “controversial” opinions about seven years ago. After some success on newspaper op-ed pages, I started a blog. To my great surprise, even to this very moment, people began reading my blog. I’ve been out here since late 2003. Since then, the blogosphere has gotten crowded. Early blogging opinionators paved the way for later ones. I’ve always said and continue to believe there’s room enough for all of us.
People have told me in person and via e-mail that reading my blog instigated an examination of their own beliefs, and my courage-under-fire gave them courage to speak their minds without fear. Some readers, critics among them, said I inspired them to start blogging.
This blog has been both a blessing and a curse. While it’s given me the platform to touch hearts, change minds, and share the Gospel, as I’m commissioned to do, it’s also caused me to neglect my relationship with Christ at times and to almost “lose my religion” responding to the haters. To feel the brunt of other people’s frustrations over failed plans and unrealized dreams, to realize they’re directing the anger they harbor against themselves and others toward me, to perceive the depth of their contempt against me for daring to say publicly what they may say behind closed doors – I confess – sometimes hurts.
What prompted this post, you ask? I recently quoted a “controversial” figure on Facebook, and the discussion descended into the kind of thing that hasn’t been seen on this blog in a couple of years. (From my perspective, Facebook and Twitter are extensions of my blog.) I was transported back in time, and the effect was powerful enough to dredge up memories.
I used to be passionate about politics; specifically, encouraging people to examine what they believe and to vote for politicians with similar beliefs. Sounds simple, yes? Over the years, however, I gradually started not to care. The back and forth, he-said/she-said quality of it all began to bore me. Additionally, I no longer cared enough about certain issues to put up with the inevitable ad hominem. Passion drove me in the beginning to put up with the nonsense. As the passion waned, so did my tolerance for the vitriol or willful misreadings and/or misrepresentations of my posts. All of it bored me.
I may regain the passion. I have to say, though, I’m still passionate about the protection of the unborn and marriage as God ordained it. Please, keep calling me an anti-choice extremist and a homophobe. It’s like honey.
For now, I’m doing something different, something better for me at this stage of my physical and spiritual life. It may bore everyone else, but I get up in the morning looking forward to it, and that’s important right now for my mental well-being. As always, I’ll blog about it.
Thanks again for reading my blog – for love, like, hate, curiosity, indifference, or whatever else you’ve got.
Addendum: I used to be hard on people afraid to speak their minds and share controversial opinions. It’s tough going against the grain. I empathize. But I tend to think outside the mainstream and delight in telling people so.
I think race and sex preference bake sales (for example, Asians charged $3 for a cupcake, women $2, blacks $1…) at colleges and universities illustrate extremely well the illegal and immoral nature of such preferences as practiced by colleges and universities around the country. I’ve written reams on race preferences, so I won’t go into detail. Read until your eyes bleed.
Basically, schools lower admissions standards for minority students (black and Hispanic, not Asian) in order to admit a certain percentage of them for purposes of skin deep-only diversity.
Unfair and demeaning.
In the video below, two deans at Bucknell University, Commerford and Marrara, shut down (or attempted to) a race preference bake sale demonstration, which is protected speech, by citing a price discrepancy:
I’m sick in more ways than one, readers. I’ve got to do something about my intense fears. They’re keeping me from living a normal life. I have to deal with my issues. For now, I’m shutting down this blog. This URL will no longer be valid in a couple of days. You can find me here.
There’s no limit to what humans will do to avoid accountability. They will contort themselves into all sorts of strange and horrible positions to deny the existence of a God who’ll one day judge them for what they’ve done to themselves and to others.
Darwinian evolution, the absurd theory that magnificent life is based on random chance and developed through genetic mutations (which are harmful to the organism, by the way — X-Men is only entertainment), is taught in government schools as if it were the gospel. In my opinion, it takes much more faith to believe in macroevolution than to believe a Creator designed the universe with purpose.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the Texas School Board is set to vote on a new science curriculum that challenges the theory of evolution. Good luck with that. Some people who believe in evolution are so vehemently against any alternatives, they resent others even asking questions that raise doubts about the theory or point out weaknesses. They don’t want it challenged, debated, or examined. Great way to teach young people how to think.
While I believe Christians and the like-minded should take their kids out of government schools altogether, I applaud the effort to inject real debate and common sense into the government school curriculum.
You’ve probably heard about this phishing scam on the news, or you may have fallen for it. A scammer sends an innocuous looking e-mail. You open it, click on a link, and the scammer steals your password. No attachment downloading required.
Avoid poverty and overcome inequality by getting married before you have children.
Fourth of July flashback
Liberal bloggers are barking mad. 
In 1958, Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving left their home state to marry in Washington, D.C., where interracial marriage was legal. After returning to Virginia, the couple was arrested in their home and charged with “unlawful cohabitation.” The court suspended sentence on the condition that they leave the state. In 1963, the Lovings filed a motion to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence. Almost a year later, the court still hadn’t ruled on the motion, and the couple filed a class action suit in federal court. The case eventually reached Virginia’s highest court, which upheld the state’s law against miscegenation and affirmed the convictions. 
I wish I could embed, but alas…
