What century is this?

This is State Senator Fran Millar (R) of Dunwoody GA and he is fighting a plan that would allow Sunday voting in his district. Why? Let's allow the senator to explain in his Facebook post from 9/9/14:

("AJC" refers to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, a prominent local newspaper.)

Notice the portion I highlighted? Sen. Millar is concerned that Sunday voting will be too convenient to African Americans.

But that's not all. In the comments section, Sen. Millar added this nugget:

Yes, Sen. Millar doesn't think that the African Americans who may find Sunday voting more convenient are sufficiently educated.

Man, my ears are hurting from all the dog whistles going off!

Sen. Millar is a classic example of bigotry in action... something that is all too common.

If he hasn't deleted it yet, here is a link to Millar's Facebook post: https://www.facebook.com/millar.ga/posts/718236501557052

Small government? For whose benefit?

We hear it every election cycle. There’s too much government involvement in our everyday lives. If only the government could be reduced in size and influence, all would be well with the world. Grover Norquist, the founder of American for Tax Reform, famously said of our federal government, “I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." (Why Mr. Norquist resorted to use such violent imagery in his rhetoric is unknown, other than to create a lasting impression.) Politicians and pundits make great pains to repeat the “small government” mantra in front of every camera and microphone they can find.


The message is clear: Conservatives stand for small government… and anyone who thinks otherwise is just trying to make you dependent. But have you ever taken a moment to consider the speaker’s intent? How does the message compare to the actions?


As examples of how they would reduce the size and scope of government, they push for lower tax rates and less regulations for corporations, often peppering their arguments with keywords like “job creators”. Getting government out of the way, they say, would provide a great cost-savings to these companies. In turn, they would be more willing to expand their operations, resulting in hiring more employees and bringing more prosperity to all.


These, they say, would be some of the benefits of smaller government. And this is why they continue to push the message. What’s good for those at the top is good for all, they say. On the surface, you could be persuaded if that were the end of the argument. I mean, who wouldn't want to see such happiness throughout our economy?


The reality? The Conservative movement -- at least those who make the most noise on the subject -- only want a small government when it comes to business. The noisemakers who beat the drums of small government are simultaneously seeking to expand government’s intrusion elsewhere. They want to expand or create restrictions on the everyday lives of individuals.


How could that be? If the goal is smaller government, wouldn't that mean more freedoms for each of us? Hardly.


Those same Conservatives want government to intervene in our most personal matters. They want to create a nationwide definition of marriage rather than allow each state to decide (which is ironic since another Conservative message is that the feds are trying to usurp powers that are best left to the states). In defiance of the First Amendment, they want government to prevent construction of some houses of worship while granting certain privileges to other faiths. They want to impose restrictions on what two consenting adults want to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. And they want to make it harder for people to vote. How do the small government worshippers explain their desires to grow the size of our federal system to police these matters? In truth, they don’t. Instead they avoid the question and steer the conversation back to how they are dead certain that government just needs to get out of the way of large-scale business.


I can remember when it was considered right and proper for the government to keep us safe from the devastating effects of pollution from factories that dump filth into our waters and our air. It was a Republican president, after all, who established the Environmental Protection Agency. Today, the EPA is targeted for elimination by the small government crowd.


We all want to know that the food we eat is safe, free from contaminants and within common-sense freshness guidelines. But how can we be confident with our food and drink unless suppliers are subjected to regular inspections?


We expect our hard-earned money to be safe, so we need regulators to keep a watchful eye on the banks. We want to be confident that our cars aren't built with faulty parts, so rigorous standards are in place. We need to know that the products we buy are manufactured without dangerous parts and materials, so imported goods are carefully screened and domestic manufacturing is kept under a watchful eye. All these and more are the responsibility of a strong government that is big enough to handle these tasks.


In fact, knowing that we have government agencies acting upon these regulations gives us -- you and me -- power. We can stand up and demand safety and value, knowing that the government that we created and paid for has our backs. Take away the government’s strength and you remove whatever leverage the average American may hold. British writer George Monbiot has said, “Deregulation is a transfer of power from the trodden to the treading.” To put it another way: do away with government oversight and the little guy is left vulnerable and unprotected.


Face it. We are a nation of more than 314 million individuals. Without a strong central government, we’d be facing little more than anarchy. Sure, there is waste and inefficiency within our federal government. But doesn’t it make sense to fix what’s broken rather than simply throw it away?

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald, 7/3/14)

Would Jesus preach for a Final Solution?

Dear Charisma Magazine,

Would you please tell me why you have suddenly deleted the commentary by Rev. Gary Cass? You know the one... entitled: “Why I Am Absolutely Islamophobic,” where he calls for mass sterilizations, absolute deportations, and, finally, this:

3.) Violence: The only thing that is biblical and that 1400 years of history has shown to work is overwhelming Christian just war and overwhelming self defense. Christian Generals Charles Martel in 732 and Jon Sobieski in 1672 defeated Islamic Turks and their attempts to take the West. Who will God raise up to save us this time? Will God even intervene or turn us over to the Muslims for turning against Him?

Either way, we must be prepared for the increase of terror at home and abroad. This is not irrational, but the loving thing we must do for our children and neighbors. First trust in God, then obtain a gun(s), learn to shoot, teach your kids the Christian doctrines of just war and self defense, create small cells of family and friends that you can rely on if some thing catastrophic happens and civil society suddenly melts down..

Do you see that? "Rev." Cass is encouraging genocide of an entire population based on religion. Where have we seen such a "Final Solution" before?!?!

IS THAT HOW CHRISTIANS SHOULD BE TAUGHT BY PASTORS?

IS THIS NOT PURE EVIL?

Cass is relying on falsehoods and stereotypes to hype up his message. Referring to the terrorist organization Islamic State, Cass writes: "ISSA is doing to America (sic) journalists what every true follower of Mohammed wants to do to you and yours: subjugate or murder you." Cass, like so many others, falsely asserts that all who claim the Muslim faith are intent on exterminating Christians and Jews.

Cass is calling for just such genocide, and is doing so under the guise of Christianity. Doesn't that make him the murderous fanatic that he claims to deplore? Indeed.

Recently I listened to a pastor condemning the concept of "Coexist", as if respecting one another's diversity is wrong. Cass is ranting on the same subject, but amping up the rhetoric by encouraging anarchic violence... violence by Christians against Muslims.

Charisma magazine thought Cass's words were important enough to post on its website... but then reversed that decision, likely out of fear of the kind of backlash they deserve for taking part in promoting his message.

Fortunately (if you will), "Rev." Cass has not deleted this horrific diatribe from his organization's website. So... for now, at least... you can read it all here: http://defendchristians.org/commentary/im-islamaphobic-are-you/

A dying breed.

Common sense is an endangered species.  

In Nevada we met Cliven Bundy, a rancher who refused to pay grazing fees in order to legally range his cattle on federal lands. While Bundy actually stopped paying the fees in 1993, it wasn’t until earlier this year that the federal government chose to confiscate Bundy’s cattle following a trespassing ruling. Rather than see Bundy as the scofflaw that he was, many people chose to make Bundy into a hero, a kind of freedom symbol. A few of his supporters, armed with assault-style rifles, took sniper positions with law enforcement officers in the crosshairs. Fortunately, no shots were fired. What did these people think… that they could be justified in shooting an agent of the federal government?

Recently, one of Bundy’s sons refused to enroll his daughter in school when he learned that she would not be allowed to carry her pocket knife to class. Sure, there once was a time when pocket knives were commonplace – I carried one myself – but once a rule is established, we have to honor it. But the younger Bundy, like his father, seeks to ignore authority.

A few days ago, a young girl was treated by her parents with a vacation trip in Arizona that included a stop at an outdoor shooting range that features specialty weapons including fully automatic machine guns. Unable to control the Uzi as it fired, she lost control of the weapon and a bullet struck and killed her instructor. Now, I have no problem with providing young people with proper instruction in the responsibly use of firearms. But we should be sure that the child is mature enough to treat that weapon with respect… and we most definitely should not give a child a weapon that she is not physically capable of controlling.

And then… there’s Ferguson, Missouri.

One thing I won’t write about here is the incident that started the unrest in Ferguson, the death of Michael Brown. I won’t get into discussing Brown’s death because there’s so much we don’t know… and will never know. Without objective witnesses – and, especially, without video of the incident – we can’t possibly know what caused Officer Darren Wilson to shoot Brown to death. We also don’t know why an incident report wasn’t filed immediately.

But what we do know, and what I will discuss, is what happened after Brown died.

In the immediate aftermath, the local police department seemed unable to diffuse what quickly escalated into a tension-filled atmosphere spanning a racial divide. Of course, it didn’t help matters when the Ferguson police chose to employ military surplus equipment and to aim their weapons directly into the crowd of protesters. Sure, there were incidents of bottles and other projectiles thrown at police officers, but for law enforcement to point their rifles into a seemingly unarmed crowd caused many of us to flashback to 1970 and the National Guard’s blunder at Kent State.

It certainly hasn’t helped to have television and radio personalities rush to cast judgment. One foolish pundit even suggested that a water cannon should be used to stop the protests. Seriously? Do we really want to see white officers aiming high-pressure water hoses at black protesters… again? Did we learn nothing from America’s struggles over civil rights?

Let’s be honest: there were some bad people in Ferguson over the past few weeks. Vandalism, looting, arson… destructive behavior by a small group of people who were taking advantage of a bad situation. But let’s not confuse those wrongdoers with the peaceful protesters of Ferguson, those who simply were voicing their concerns over what they considered the unnecessary use of force by law enforcement.

I’m a strong supporter of the police, but I will admit that there are a few bad eggs. One in particular stood out in Ferguson. A police officer lost his composure and shouldered his rifle, aiming at the faces of some of the taunting protesters. In an obvious fit of rage the officer told members of the crowd, “I will [expletive] kill you.” Fortunately, a senior officer reached out and guided the policeman’s weapon downward while escorting him away from the scene. The profane language uttered by that officer in a moment when he lost control, captured on live streaming video by a member of the crowd holding an iPhone, was an embarrassment to law enforcement in general. It has been reported since that this officer has been disciplined in the past for unbecoming conduct.

These are all examples of Common Sense Deficiency Disorder.

Think about it: if you don’t pay your bills, you risk losing your property. If you carry a prohibited weapon into a school, you risk disciplinary action. If you allow a child to handle a weapon that is beyond her capabilities, someone could get hurt.

And if you react to anger and violence with more anger and violence, the situation will only get worse.

Common sense. It takes a little effort.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald, 9/4/14)