It is difficult to avoid, especially as we have elevated it to National (and International) Policy. Everyone and his cat is in on the game of deception and ruination.
I hasten to add that here in the Tavern it is just a matter of observation and interest rather than 'practice'. Lies would make the drink here become bitter and undrinkable and I do not permit that. Nevertheless we are always welcoming to those who would admit their frailty, apologise and buy a round.
I do not expect the staff of the Southern Poverty Law Centre coming here en-masse to offer repentance. They are on a roll. Their actions have become ridiculous, but that will not stop them, nor turn them from the road to perdition.
Under a phony “civil rights” banner, the SPLC has gotten away with murder in its hate labeling.
But this time, the Southern Poverty Law Center may have finally bitten off more than it can chew.
As if attacking everyday Christians, small towns, and national organizations like FRC (Family Research Council) weren’t enough, the group has apparently grown over confident under the Obama administration as they attempt to smear the hugely popular surgeon and neonatal pioneer, Dr. Ben Carson.
As a black man, who was raised in poverty by a single mother, Dr. Carson should be a poster child for the minority success the SPLC pretends to advocate. Instead, the organization, which has morphed into nothing but a multi-million dollar homosexual advocacy group, has made the conservative doctor a target for his mainstream marriage views.
Why? Because he rose from poverty as a minority without the aid of big government? Because of a benevolent mother with moral convictions?
Or is it because Dr. Carson is a viable candidate with a massive following who refuses to be choked back by political correctness? All of the above?
The absurdity of their hate “watch list” would be comical, if it weren’t dangerous – as FRC’s shooting and the developing story from UNC Chapel Hill prove all too well. Of course, the irony is that rather than expose extremists, SPLC only succeeds in exposing themselves as the
rabid, anti-Christian radicals they are.This is a group that cares not about helping impoverished minorities but instead helping elite homosexual activists impose their views on the country.Dr. Ben Carson may not fit their false civil rights narrative, but he is a man of character and decency, whose only crime is sharing Americans' Bible-based objections to same-sex “marriage.”
“When embracing traditional Christian values is equated to hatred, we are approaching the stage where wrong is called right and right is called wrong,” Dr. Carson fired back.
Now, a word here. Many of you reading this will skip over the video. Please, don't.
Come back to it if you just read on. Run the video.
If you cannot be bothered to read what follows here, or get bored, come back and watch Dr Carson speak. LISTEN to him.
Dr Carson is a Real Inspirational man. A Good man.
It’s a shame that SPLC’s vicious political agenda makes it impossible to practice the “tolerance” they claim to seek, especially when it comes to a man who rose above the circumstances SPLC claims to fight.
Why, you may wonder, would a supposedly 'moral crusader' organisation target Ben Carson? I laugh at my own question. Because....If you’d like to stand with Dr. Carson, sign FRC’s petition and then forward it to your family and friends.
The SPLC is an Immoral Crusader organisation.
They lie. All the time. They are not alone. Indeed, in what passes for a Political environment 'enjoyed' by so many nations these days, they are par for the course. Obama hisself knows all about 'pars' and golf courses.
Brian Williams, Dan Rather, Fareed Zakaria, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Lena Dunham etc.
Add many, many well-known names from many, many countries. The Prince - and now the Princess - of Lies have many, many followers. These people know the difference between Truth and Lies.The lies from the Left never stop.
They choose to Lie.
Victor Davis Hanson had some things to say...... http://patriotpost.us/opinion/33091
Hillary Clinton may well follow her husband’s trajectory and become president. The Rev. Al Sharpton helped perpetuate the Tawana Brawley hoax; he is now a frequent guest at the White House.Why do so many of our elites cut corners and embellish their past or steal the work of others?“NBC Nightly News” anchorman Brian Williams frequently fabricated a dramatic story that he was under enemy attack while reporting from Iraq. NBC is now investigating whether Williams also embellished events in New Orleans during his reporting on Hurricane Katrina.Williams always plays the hero in his yarns, braving natural and hostile human enemies to deliver us the truth on the evening news.Former CBS anchorman Dan Rather tried to pass off fake memos as authentic evidence about former President George W. Bush’s supposedly checkered National Guard record.CNN news host Fareed Zakaria, who recently interviewed President Obama, was caught using the written work of others as if it were his own. He joins a distinguished array of accused plagiarists, from historian Doris Kearns Goodwin to columnist Maureen Dowd.Usually, plagiarism is excused. Research assistants are blamed or clerical slips are cited – and little happens. In lieu of admitting deliberate dishonesty, our celebrities when caught prefer using the wishy-washy prefix “mis-” to downplay a supposed accident – as in misremembering, misstating or misconstruing.Politicians are often the worst offenders. Vice President Joe Biden withdrew from the presidential race of 1988 once it was revealed that he had been caught plagiarizing in law school. In that campaign, he gave a speech lifted from British Labor Party candidate Neil Kinnock.
|"Hah. Quid Me Anxious Sum? You fools keep voting for my enormous salary"|
Hillary Clinton fantasized when she melodramatically claimed she had been under sniper fire when landing in Bosnia. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, was more overt in lying under oath in the Monica Lewinsky debacle. Former Sen. John Walsh (D-Mont.) was caught plagiarizing elements of his master’s thesis.President Obama has explained that some of the characters in his autobiography, “Dreams From My Father,” were “composites” or “compressed,” which suggests that in some instances what he described did not exactly happen.
|"Am I bovvered?"|
What are the consequences of lying about or exaggerating one’s past or stealing the written work of others? It depends.Punishment is calibrated by the stature of the perpetrator. If the offender is powerful, then misremembering, misstating and misconstruing are considered minor and aberrant transgressions. If not, the sins are called lying and plagiarizing, and deemed a window into a bad soul. Thus a career can be derailed.Young, upcoming lying reporters like onetime New York Times fabulist Jayson Blair and The New Republic’s past stable of fantasy writers – Stephen Glass, Scott Beauchamp and Ruth Shalit – had their work finally disowned by their publications. Former Washington Post reporter Janet Cooke got her Pulitzer Prize revoked for fabricating a story.Obscure Sen. Walsh was forced out of his re-election race. Biden, on the other hand, became vice president. It did not matter much that the Obama biography by Pulitzer Prize-winning author David Maraniss contradicted many of the details from Obama’s autobiography.Hillary Clinton may well follow her husband’s trajectory and become president. The Rev. Al Sharpton helped perpetuate the Tawana Brawley hoax; he is now a frequent guest at the White House.
|"Do I really have to look at these people?"|
Why do so many of our elites cut corners and embellish their past or steal the work of others?
|"Is she wearing the same push-up bra as me? Bitch"|
For them, such deception may be a small gamble worth taking, with mild consequences if caught. Plagiarism is a shortcut to publishing without all the work of creating new ideas or doing laborious research. Padding a resume or mixing truth with half-truths and composites creates more dramatic personal histories that enhance careers.Our culture itself has redefined the truth into a relative idea without fault.
Some academics suggested that Brian Williams may have lied because of “memory distortion” rather than a character defect.Contemporary postmodern thought sees the “truth” as a construct.
The social aim of these fantasy narratives is what counts.
If they serve progressive race, class and gender issues, then why follow the quaint rules of evidence that were established by an ossified and reactionary establishment?Feminist actress and screenwriter Lena Dunham in her memoir described her alleged rapist as a campus conservative named Barry. After suspicion was cast on one particular man fitting Dunham’s book description, Dunham clarified that she meant to refer to someone else as the perpetrator.Surely the exonerated Duke University men’s lacrosse players who were accused of sexual assault or the University of Virginia frat boys accused of rape in a magazine article in theory could have been guilty – even if they were proven not to be.Michael Brown was suspected of committing a strong-arm robbery right before his death. He then walked down the middle of a street, blocking traffic, and rushed a policeman. Autopsy and toxicology reports of gunpowder residuals and the presence of THC suggest that Brown had marijuana in his system and was in close contact to the officer who fired. Do those details matter, if a “gentle giant” can become emblematic of an alleged epidemic of racist, trigger-happy cops who recklessly shoot unarmed youth?The Greek word for truth was “aletheia” – literally “not forgetting.”
If only that were true. We MUST NOT lose it.Yet that ancient idea of eternal differences between truth and myth is now lost in the modern age.Our lies become accepted as true, but only depending on how powerful and influential we are – or how supposedly noble the cause for which we lie.
I would contend that even at the more common-o-garden end of the social and influential spectrum - you and I - can wreak as much havok in our own arenas as those more 'elavated' persons who occupy the seats of Power and Entertainment Industry.
We must be careful. One lie leads to another. We ditch eternal truths at our peril. We take the 'Good' that God declared 'In the Beginning', water it down, change it, transmorgrify it, dismantle it, slowly, piecemeal.... and what do we get?
Peter Mullen gives it straight.
The (potted) self-destruction of the Church of England.
The Times has reported that the Church of England is to rewrite the Catechism “for a secular age.” Impossible. The church leaders have already emptied English Christianity of all Christian content. You think I exaggerate? Well, please read on…First they ditched all the ancient dogmas which were good enough for St Augustine ....... The Virgin Birth, they said, was based on a misunderstanding of a verse in Isaiah. Besides, for thoroughly paid up scientistic modern types such as Robinson, the Virgin Birth was just one of those things “I can’t believe.”Same with the Resurrection: it’s a made up story to express the disciples’ “experience of new life” after Our Lord’s crucifixion. Never mind that there’s no possible accounting for new life if Jesus remained dead.
Then the miracles went as well. Only “acted parables,” that’s all. The feeding of the five thousand was a lesson on – wait for that drippy, churchy word – “sharing.” A socialist picnic provided by Jesus who was not the Son of God but, as Malcolm Muggeridge once said, only “the Labour party member for Galilee South.”Are you looking forward to your reward in heaven? Don’t bother: eternal life is not a continuation of Christian life after death but only “a superior quality of life in the here and now.”......Doctrine cast aside. The real Bible and the real Prayer Book discarded and dismissed in a protracted fit of contempt for beauty and truth. What remained then for them to destroy?
Christian morality, that’s what.
The Ten Commandments were simply “too judgemental” and so they had to be replaced by act utilitarianism, situation ethics, which means that you decide what’s good on the hoof, on the spur of the moment.This was excitedly described as “the new morality” when it first appeared in the 1960s.
It was no new morality, but only the old immorality in a miniskirt.
So there’s no sin, no devil, nothing to acknowledge, nothing to bewail. There really was no need for the Son of God to come and redeem us then, was there – except to transform us into sentimental egalitarians and diversity mongers?
You cannot lie for a good end. All lies enable evil.