fox files

I know this all seems cynical, but in every industry, 5% is good and 95% is awful. Think of doctors.

There Is Right and Wrong and I Am NOT Ashamed to Say It

So I have a question. If you believe in moral relativism, how can you judge me to be a terrible person? For those that read my regular rants you may be wondering, where does this come from? Let me explain.

As we continue to listen to the cultural rot pervading our entire society, there is an incredibly focused and concerted effort to shame anyone that disagrees with anything that is leftest. If you think having a penis makes you a boy you are hateful. If you think a traditional nuclear family is best for raising children you must be a monster. If you disagree with murdering unborn babies then you dislike women. And on and on.

The shaming takes place on many levels, banning on social media, people you thought were your friends ostracizing you (that may be a good thing), and (for those in the public eye) an endless parade of media coverage regarding your “transgressions”. The shaming works and most people have simply backed down from taking any stand or any traditional morality no matter how deviant the other side is behaving.

Here’s the problem, if someone is going to shame me then that would mean that they are suggesting I did something wrong… something I should be ashamed of. How is it that people promoting deviant and absurd behavior have the audacity to tell me I should feel bad or am acting immoral? Certainly in a free nation people should have the right to behave as they choose but that is not what they are saying, rather, people with traditional values are being told that they should be ashamed of their prehistoric views. How can you tell me I should be ashamed of my beliefs while at the same time telling me that there is no right and wrong? … All while you’re telling me all morality is relative.

Today I literally read a legitimate news article from a mainstream publication about a grown adult that wears diapers and sucks a pacifier because she “identifies” as a baby. Seriously. It is absolutely this person’s right to pretend she is a baby but I am certain I would be told I am a hateful monster for stating the obvious – she needs mental help.

The problem we are facing is that the group of people that seem to have an issue with traditional values believe that traditional values are irrelevant because morality is relative. This is where their logic fails because if they believe morality to be relative then they do not have the right to judge mine. The relativist must accept my morality, and everyone else’s, because for them there can be no right or wrong.

This also leads to another issue. For the moral relativist/anti-judgement crowd that want us to accept every deviant behavior as “your truth”, there are unintended consequences. Ask your favorite ignorant (and probably leftist) relativist when racism or sexism are okay. Ask them when Hitler’s behavior or child rape are okay. Unless they are mentally disturbed the answer is never but if they are truly a relativist they have to accept the individual’s truth even if the individual really likes racism.

Let me lay this out.

1. For moral relativism to be true then there can be ZERO universal rights and wrongs. This would include discrimination, hate crimes, rape, murder, slavery, genocide, etc. If you believe that these things are ever okay please seek mental help immediately.
2. If ANYTHING is right or wrong then there are morals, and thus moral relativism is a fallacy. This means that if you believe it is “not right” for a person to be “unkind” then you do NOT believe in moral relativism so we should move on to the question of what IS right and what is wrong.
3. I refuse to be shamed over the fact that you disagree with me about what is right or wrong. My faith dictates what I believe to be right or wrong and who are you to suggest that MY faith should take a back seat to YOUR faith or beliefs? In this free country where you, a misguided relativist, believes I should accept your absurd behavior because it is based on “your truth” you have ZERO right to suggest my beliefs are wrong or something to be ashamed of.

Bottom line: if those of us with core values are expected to TOLERATE (not approve of because that will not happen) absurd behaviors, then we ABSOLUTELY and unequivocally have the right to refuse to negotiate about our faith or disapproval of your behavior. You have the freedom to act but we have the freedom to disagree with your actions.

Wash, Rinse & Repeat

Hard times create strong men.

Strong men create good times.

Good times create weak men.

And then weak men create hard times.

Woke National Teachers Union Agenda Includes Mandatory Masks, Vaccines and Banning the Words Mother and Father

The Assault Weapon Massacres of 1964

Here’s an astute observation in the wake of the anti-gun uproar of the last month or so.

Possibly you’re old enough to remember the great massacre spree of 1964? Classrooms shot up, strip malls decimated, Scout troops blown away, fast foot restaurants turned into mortuaries.

And all because, in its infinite stupidity, the U.S. Government dumped 240,000 high-capacity .30-caliber assault rifles into an otherwise innocent America.

Remember when that happened? No? Me neither, despite being a historian. That’s because it didn’t happen, despite hundreds of thousands of M-1 Carbines being dumped on an unsuspecting public in 1963 for less than a hundred bucks apiece. NRA members could buy them for a 20-dollar bill. No background check either.

You could even have them shipped right to your door, complete with a “high capacity” 15-round magazine. Ultra-high catastrophic murder capacity 30-round mags were also available for little or nothing. .30 Carbine ammo was cheap and widely available. I’ll bet some of those bullet casings even had a shark’s mouth painted on it to make it extra scary and more able to blow lungs out of the body.

Correctly noted is that the M-1 Carbine was essentially America’s first ‘assault rifle.’ It didn’t have all the features of the M-16, but it filled that role when the US military was still trying to field a battle rifle, resulting in the less than successful M-14. The walnut stock doesn’t make gun controllers lose bladder control like Eugene Stoner’s rifle, but since that has no effect on the gun’s performance, the Carbine did just fine, thanks.

The point is that capable, concealable, inexpensive rifles were widely available in 1964 had anyone decided to shoot up schools, grocery stores, parks, or whatever. They came with 15 or 30-round detachable mags that could be changed quickly. Some had a dreaded folding stock. The ammo was light but effective. A shooter could easily carry hundreds of rounds on his person. But no one did that.  The M-1, M-1A1, and M-2 Carbines had everything a mass murderer could want. But no one took advantage of them. It’s almost like something different drives murderers these days.  Why not? After all, we’re told that it’s easier to buy a gun than to vote. And that if guns weren’t so easy to get, bad people wouldn’t do bad things. Yet, guns were far easier to buy in 1964 than they are today. There were no background checks of any kind. The mailman would drop it at your door if you wanted. No questions asked. You could literally buy guns at gas stations. I know, because I personally purchased one at a gas station in the 1970s.

There were no background checks of any kind in 1964.

In fact when I was in High School 1964 through 1968, there were school shooting clubs.

The guys would bring to high school their rifles hung on the back of their beater single cab pickup trucks as well as their pistols in order to work on them in machine shop while their buddies in leather shop were making them holsters and rifle cases.

We even had a shooting gallery right in the hallways after school with them set up using ballistic backstops.  No one EVER shot the walls, floors, ceilings or anyone else for that matter.

Does all of that mean there were no bad people around in 1964? Doubtful. But maybe, just maybe, people are bad in a different way now. Could it possibly be true that something other than access to firearms could be driving these twisted individuals to kill innocent people? Even children? Gun owners are often pilloried in the media for not offering solutions to these horrific trends. But what have the gun controllers offered? Ban “assault weapons.” Ban “high capacity” magazines. Tax ammunition. Ban all the guns. Run a microscope up your ass and wait 30 days before allowing the sale. That’s literally all they have.

But 1964 exposes the lie. This is a relatively recent trend. There are multiple causative factors at work here. For instance, those of us who pay attention are aware of what some medications do to people susceptible to their side effects. I witnessed firsthand the complete loss of inhibition in a close friend. The consequences were ugly. Does that mean that medications are solely responsible? No, but I’d bet everything I own that some of them are part of the puzzle. Not to mention how quickly they’re pumped into kids at the first sign of the latest trendy diagnosis.

One thing that didn’t exist in 1964: psychotropic medications for teenagers.

There are many possibilities and I’m not qualified to address most of them in detail. But we have a pretty good idea what they might be. How about the crippling lack of a strong father figure in the lives of many young men? Think that just might have something to do with it?

I could go on, but you get the point. I don’t hear a peep about that stuff from the gun controllers. Just watch their heads explode when a pro-gun advocate dares to bring up mental health or the destruction of the nuclear family. But it’s just more proof that the operative word in gun control is “control.”

And you can’t tell liberals any of this because they will blow their stacks and lose their minds and heads will begin exploding from the facts.  But I digress.

So in closing I will part with this.

Either Peyton Gendron [Buffalo] or Salvador Ramos [Uvalde] could have employed it to the same results. So, in 1964, the guns were there— lots of them, everywhere, dirt cheap. But Gendron and Ramos were not. We must look elsewhere for the reason why.

Self-Spreading Vaccines: Scientists Are Creating Vaccines That Spread Like A Disease

https://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/self-spreading-vaccines-scientists-are-creating-vaccines-that-spread-like-a-disease?_kx=SwY-W9jaBdZlVw3p_bes2dp7kTfXujA2YGAAFEym7Gw%3D.NNdpPE

He’s Your Father, Like It or Not

The image of fatherhood has been under attack for several generations now. This is cause for alarm, because when we reject “Father,” we reject God.

When my wife gave birth to our first child, a girl, my world changed. Present for the labor and delivery as well as physically cutting the unbiblical cord, as I eventually did with all three, I witnessed what can only be described as a miracle, however commonplace. A new person, body and soul came into the world and the world changed. It was as I later stated, “as if the universe was pushed six inches sideways.”

We began the stressful routine of round-the-clock crying, diaper changes, and feedings. In time, as sleep deprivation set in, Mom and Dad needed a break. Arrangements were made to leave the baby with Grandma. We went to a party given by an acquaintance. Though not married, the host was expecting a baby, a decision she told us was “thought through very carefully.” She had no intention of marrying or changing her “lifestyle,” but the relentless ticking of her biological clock couldn’t be ignored. She wanted children.

I tried to disabuse her of romantic notions about baby care. “One person really can’t do everything,” I warned. “What about the baby’s father?”

She fixed me with a determined look and laughed. “A child doesn’t need a father!”

I felt as though I had been kicked in the stomach. Intentional or not, it was a shot at me personally—just a single shot in a war waging against fathers.

In the last fifty years, fatherhood has been under attack. The father has been redefined from the biblical figure of compassion and justice at the center of the family to a frivolous and expendable shadow. Television portrays fathers as self-righteous autocrats in dramas and ineffective buffoons in sitcoms. The father who is too dull-witted to do laundry or change a diaper is a staple in advertising, raised to the level of a cultural icon, a touchstone immediately understood and recognized.

When fatherhood is devalued, what reason does a young man have to rearrange his life, curtail his freedom, and shoulder a burdensome responsibility? Begetting is easy, raising a child is hard; yet sex is glorified, fathering devalued.

Ironically, society has reached this conclusion at the same moment that research has pointed to the opposite. Since the 1950s, psychology has produced studies that confirm the father’s role. Writing in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Drs. Constance Ahrons and Richard Miller state, “Frequent contact with the father is associated with positive adjustment of the children.” James Dudley, a research professor at the University of North Carolina, notes that “fathers have much to offer their adolescent children in many areas, including their career development, moral development, and sex role identification.”

In fact, the positive effects fathers have on their children are most easily seen by looking at cases where fathers are absent:

• 85 percent of all children with behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.
• 71 percent of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.
• 75 percent of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes.
• 70 percent of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes.
• 85 percent of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes.
• 70 percent of those serving long prison sentences were fatherless.
• Fatherless children average significantly higher in teen suicide, illegitimate birthrates, incarceration, and unemployment.
• Fatherless children average significantly higher in illegitimate birthrates.
• Fatherless children average significantly higher in incarceration rates.
• Fatherless children average significantly higher in unemployment rates.
• Fatherless young men are more likely to commit serious crime, including rape and murder.

Perhaps it is in recognition of these consequences that the Old Covenant ends with a warning: if we don’t turn “the hearts of fathers toward their children and the hearts of children toward their fathers,” Yahweh will “strike the land with a curse” (Mal. 3:24). Our conclusion must be that fathers are not expendable, but absolutely necessary to the developing human person.

Then whence arise the attacks, denigrations, and dismissals of fathers? As Christians, we need to apply the biblical principle: “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matt. 7:16–20). The results of this war on fatherhood is the destruction of souls. There is something diabolical in it. Paul warns us that it “is not against human enemies that we have to struggle, but against principalities and powers who bring darkness to this world” (Eph 6:12). There is no mistaking the spiritual dimension of this attack, but it is only a reflection of a greater war, a war against the fatherhood of God.

The Catholic Church always has taught that God has no sex. The Catechism puts it in the clearest terms: “In no way is God in man’s image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective ‘perfections’ of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband” (370).

All the same, today, many feminist theologians are waging a battle against the “image” of God as Father. They wish to “depatriarchalize” the God of Scripture. In their critiques, the Father image is wedded to complaints of sexism in the Church. One such writer, Mary Daly, puts the complaint in a nutshell: “If God is male, then male is God.” This formula gets right to the marrow of the feminist’s bone of contention. Images of God as Father, they argue, imprint God with an indelible “maleness” that elevates males to some divine status unavailable to females. To correct this perceived problem, much ink has been spilled in recovering the latent feminine images of God in Scripture.

The measure of a metaphor is its usefulness, derived from what one already believes—hence the feminist call for images of God which “match our experience.” Once untethered from revelation, imaging God is an open market. But God’s Fatherhood is not a mere image. It is a transcendent truth.

Jesus himself often refers to God as “my Father.” This is not an exclusive relationship between Jesus and God, but one that God extends to all his people. In fact, this fatherhood is primary, the rule by which all other fatherly relationships are measured. Paul writes, “I pray, kneeling before the Father, from which every paternity, whether spiritual or natural, takes its name” (Eph. 3:14-15). God alone is the real Father. All other fathers are reflections or distortions.

“Father” describes a relationship. It denotes two parties joined together in a familial bond. As Thomas Aquinas notes, “The name ‘Father’ signifies relation” (ST I:33:2:1). Moreover it is a relationship which is chosen by God. He invites us to “call out to me saying, ‘My Father, my God.’” (Ps. 89:26).

Those who have suffered from their own fathers need this good news. Instead of being excused from accepting God as Father, they need to be strengthened and encouraged to enter into a healing relationship with their one true Father. For those who have been abused or abandoned by their human fathers, the image of a heavenly Father may be an obstacle, but overcoming the obstacle will bring God’s great gift for us. Because “Father” is more than image. It is the way God has chosen for us to be bound to him in love.

The name by which Jesus lays bare the nature of God is “Abba” (“Daddy” or “Father”). Jesus used it consistently. He taught it to his disciples. And we affirm it every time we say the prayer he gave us; “Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.” To hallow God’s name is to bless it. The name we bless is “Father.” When Jesus speaks God’s true name, he does not “free us to use whatever metaphor best expresses our confidence in God.” He frees us from picking and choosing among competing images that necessarily fall short. He reveals God in his essence.

Aquinas tells us that a name is given to that which “perfectly contains its whole signification, before it is applied to that which only partially contains it; for the latter bears the name by reason of a kind of similitude to that which answers perfectly to the signification of the name” (ST I:33:3). God is the only one who contains and fulfills all that the name “Father” signifies. This is why Jesus warns us, “Call no man father” (Matt. 23:9). To put other fathers before God, the true Father, is a form of idolatry. Earthly fathers are worthy of the name only when, by his grace, they reflect the true fatherhood of God.

It cannot be said too plainly. When we reject “Father,” we reject God.

The controlled demolition of FOOD and ENERGY infrastructure is now under way… prepare or get crushed

https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-06-20-controlled-demolition-of-food-and-energy-infrastructure.html

GENOCIDE: FDA officially authorizes covid vaccines for children as young as 6 months

https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-06-19-genocide-fda-authorizes-covid-vaccines-babies.html

Sudden Vaccine Deaths So Common They Have A Name: Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS)

https://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/sudden-vaccines-deaths-so-common-they-have-a-name-sudden-adult-death-syndrome-sads?_kx=SwY-W9jaBdZlVw3p_bes2dp7kTfXujA2YGAAFEym7Gw%3D.NNdpPE