One of the reasons that I am not married today is because I tried to set spiritual and moral boundaries with women I wanted marry, but those boundaries were rejected. The purpose of the boundaries was to get the woman to be suitable for a marriage designed to serve God. In every case, the relationships ended. And this is actually becoming more common, under the influence of feminism.

Here is an article from The Federalist, written by Kylee Griswold.

She writes:

Who would have thought perpetual adolescent Jonah Hill would be good at grown-up relationships? Well, he is, judging by some apparent texts his surfer ex-girlfriend Sarah Brady shared to Instagram over the weekend — despite the out-of-control media screeching to the contrary.

[…]According to Brady and the TikTokkers, self-proclaimed therapists, media, and fellow thirst-trappers who came to her defense, Hill is a controlling narcissist and misogynist — all for the crime of allegedly asking his then-girlfriend to please put on some clothes.

So, a man told a woman that he was interested in that he proposed certain rules in the relationship, rules that would allow him to get serious, and point the relationship towards commitment (as you’ll see). But the woman, and all of her supportive allies, from the secular left to the religious right, all agreed with her that a man setting boundaries on a woman to make her safe for a marriage commitment is “emotional abuse”.

More:

Specifically, Hill laid down some boundaries for his partner:

[…]Plain and simple: If you need: Surfing with men[,] Boundaryless inappropriate friendships with men[,] to model[,] to post pictures of yourself in a bathing suit[,] to post sexual pictures[,] friendships with women who are in unstable places and from your wild recent past beyond getting a lunch or coffee or something respectful[,] I am not the right partner for you. If these things bring you to a place of happiness I support it and there will be no hard feelings. These are my boundaries for romantic partnership.

Hill’s detractors say this is “emotional abuse.” But can something really be described as “abuse” if the alleged perpetrator tells you “no hard feelings” if you’d rather walk away than agree to the terms?

Feminism has made it a lot harder for men to set boundaries that will orient women towards marriage. No matter how wise the man, and how good the advice, it must all be rejected. But the demands for men to get married to rebels remain. Especially when the feminists are hitting 35, and their friends are all getting married. They feel entitled to marriage, and how dare men tell them no? Many women today don’t want to hear a man talk about the Bible or hear a man talk about right and wrong, they just want weddings, wedding rings, vacations, and things to be fixed around the house. It would be better if men were just walking ATMs that didn’t talk at all.

More:

To protect the health and integrity of his relationship, Hill established reasonable and respectable parameters for how his girlfriend was to behave toward him through how she acted toward other men. Don’t sexualize yourself for other guys or engage in other relationship-compromising behaviors. And he made clear how he would respond if she didn’t respect those limits. I’m not the right man for you.

In my cases, my boundaries were always things that were clearly good for the women, and also good for commitment. For example, I might say “stop spending money on travel, get a private sector job in your field, and pay off your student loans”. But these conditions were rejected. Later on, when the woman reached her early 30s, I would get e-mails about wanting to get back together. But the student loans had only increased, and the resumes now had huge gaps. I can only assume that the body counts had also increased from all the “traveling”. No thanks, I said. No thank you. I can do something more productive than bail women out. I especially don’t want to bail women out who have no respect for men who know how to lead.

This behavior of calling moral and spiritual leadership “emotional abuse” and “controlling” is common – even in Christian circles – because of feminism. In general, the only acceptable male roles are “protect and provide”. Men are supposed to take on all the accountability, but with none of the authority to defend the truth, or to defend morality. On any topic. For example, if you try to tell a single woman in her late 20s about infertility, it’s “emotional abuse”. No amount of evidence can ever beat “follow your heart”. And she has legions of supporters who will shame you for trying to argue from scientific studies.

If you think I am mean, then read Kylee:

Enter feminism, which loves female autonomy and sold women lots of lies about it. Feminism said love yourself. If that means wreaking all kinds of havoc, your second “X” chromosome trumps the consequences. Unrestrained sex and unintended pregnancy? Abort the baby. Not happy in your marriage? Divorce him. Unfulfilled at home? Leave the kids with an underpaid immigrant and climb that corporate ladder. No boundaries. No bonds. No bras.

But news flash: Relationships take two. And sadly, thanks to that third-wave wrecking ball, some dating women need to be told some obvious things when it comes to romantic fidelity, even if those things have to come from their partners: Seeking the approval of other men for how you look is a bad idea. Worse, it communicates lots of bad things about your priorities and desires.

Frankly, a man who’s willing to say that tough thing is probably a man worth holding onto. Thanks in part to “toxic masculinity” messaging and the militant feminization of America, a man who shoots for commitment and faithfulness, and communicates those aims in a straightforward way while proposing an amicable split as the alternative, is a rarity.

Oh, how I love those words.

Sadly, Kylee’s view is in the minority today, thanks to feminism. And if men are not allowed to lead a relationship, then the marriage rate will continue to decline. Neither shaming of men nor blaming of men will cause men to accept marriage without leadership.

For more on this topic, I recommend this excellent article by Mark McDonald, M.D., entitled “Why American Women Are Undatable” The subtitle is “No One Wants to Play with a Porcupine”. Indeed not.

I collected together a few stories that show some of the past actions of the two members of the Democrat party presidential ticket. Some of these you may already know, and some may be new to you. The appeal of the ticket is surface-level. Kamala is so brown and female, and Tim Walz is so nice. This is interesting to some people, but more interesting to me is what policies I would have to live under.

Here’s a couple of articles about the vice presidential candidate Tim Walz, who is the current governor of Minnesota.

Washington Free Beacon:

Walz… came under scrutiny over his response to both the coronavirus pandemic and riots in the wake of the death of George Floyd, who was killed by a Minneapolis police officer in May 2020.

Walz waited days after riots in Minneapolis to call in the National Guard. By then, anti-police protesters had burned down a police station in Minneapolis and caused $500 million in damage.

Walz signed a bill last year to restore voting rights to 55,000 convicted felons in Minnesota as part of an initiative to “expand the right to vote.” And Walz signed a bill last year to provide free college and health care to illegal immigrants, even as he raised taxes on gasoline, cars, retail deliveries, and other items.

We’ll find out more about his response to COVID in this article from the UK Daily Mail:

Minnesota Republicans also singled out Walz for mishandling coronavirus funds that sent $250 million to a nonprofit group Feeding Our Future, ignoring warning signs that the organization was mishandling the funds.

The organization was using the funds for luxury cars, jewelry, travel and property, according to reports, while only using a small portion of the money from the federal government for feeding children.

At the time, Republicans blamed Walz for failing basic oversight and continuing to allow the non-profit to receive funds.

The Minnesota Department of Education flagged serious concerns about the group in 2018, but failed to address them, and gave even more funding to the organization.

According to this article from The Blaze:

As thousands of BLM rioters who burned down half of Minneapolis remain out of jail, and as a record number of criminals remain on the streets, a business owner is now sitting in de facto solitary confinement for 90 days for the crime of having her restaurant open during the illegal lockdowns.

Business owners go to jail, but rioters and arsonists get released. Also during COVID, Walz set up an anonymous snitch hotline so that progressives could report their conservative neighbors for non-compliance. Is that the sort of country you want to live in?

What else has Walz accomplished?

The Federalist on his abortion legislation, which Walz signed into law:

Minnesota Democrats are poised to ignore the at least 69 percent of Americans who say they want significant limits on abortion to pass the state’s most radical abortion bill, which would legalize taxpayer-funded on-demand abortion for all.

The Protect Reproductive Options Act (PROA), the first bill Democrats introduced in both the state House and Senate this session, would repeal dozens of the state’s protections for women and babies and expand legal immunity for abortions up until the moment of birth and beyond.

Speaking of the abortion issue, lets’ move on to the Democrat presidential nominee, Kamala Harris.

Here’s an article about her from the New York Post:

Kamala Harris stands accused of “weaponizing” the California Attorney General’s office against a pro-life activist who alleges he was exposing the illegal sale of aborted fetuses.

David Daleiden, whose nine-year legal saga instigated by Harris is still ongoing, released shocking undercover videos he took of Planned Parenthood executives discussing fees and prices for fetal tissues in July 2015.

He now faces eight felony charges and possible jail time for making the videos without getting the executives’ permission to film them, as well as “manufacturing” a fake driving license.

Daleiden’s lawyers say it’s one of the first times the California AG’s office has ever undertaken a stand-alone prosecution involving the state’s video-recording law.

His lawyers, who include Steve Cooley, Los Angeles’s second-longest serving DA, contend Harris — who served as California Attorney General from 2011 to 2017 — singled him out to do the bidding of Planned Parenthood, who have contributed heavily to her campaigns for office.

“What Kamala Harris did was unconstitutional and vindictive,” Cooley told The Post. “It was a selective prosecution for huge donors.

“Kamala Harris opened this investigation at the behest of Planned Parenthood and the two AGs that followed her have kept it alive.”

That one is particularly important for me, because I already have concerns about federal law enforcement singling out Christians and social conservatives, while they let real criminals and terrorists get a free ride. This would likely get worse under a Harris presidency.

And of course there is her record as the person responsible for securing the Southern border.

Daily Signal explains:

“The fact is she has a long track record of opposing border security and immigration enforcement, whether as a senator, a presidential candidate, or as Joe Biden’s ‘border czar,’” Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, recently said on the House floor.

[…]Just over 31% of illegal aliens encountered at the nation’s borders were removed during the Trump-Pence administration, according to the National Immigration Center for Enforcement. During the Biden-Harris administration, by contrast, 4.4% of illegal aliens encountered at the borders have been removed.

Harris previously advocated “progressive” immigration policies. Most notably, during her brief run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, she expressed support for providing government health care to illegal aliens and decriminalizing border crossings by foreign nationals.

That’s what you’re going to get on border security from a Harris-Walz presidency. Is that what you want?

Rose and I interviewed Dr. Casey Luskin a while back on the Knight and Rose Show about junk DNA. (We are still making episodes, but Rose is very busy with her D. Min degree, conference speaking, and teaching kids in her church). Casey told us about is how the progress of science is finding new functions for DNA that was thought to be “junk”. And he has a new post about it.

Here’s the new post from Evolution News.

Here’s the topic:

One of the most common functions of non-coding / junk DNA is to regulate gene expression. When a given non-coding / junk element is working properly, it regulates the gene it’s supposed to be regulating; it does its job, and nobody notices it. But what happens when a mutation arises in that junk DNA genetic element? Well, one common result is that it will affect expression of the gene, and the gene will no longer be regulated in the manner that it’s supposed to be regulated. This then leads to a disease. The disease associated with some junk DNA element is evidence of some useful function gone wrong, not no function at all. Let’s consider a few examples.

So, my understanding of junk DNA is that it is parts of the DNA that does not code for proteins. People really think that the only parts of DNA that are useful are the parts that contain instructions for making more proteins. Darwinists dismiss the non-coding parts of DNA as “junk”. Just leftovers from supposed evolution that doesn’t do anything useful.

One of the studies he quotes explains it like this:

While the coding genes provide blueprints for building proteins, which direct most of the body’s functions, some of the noncoding sections of the genome, including regions previously dismissed as “junk,” seem to turn up or down the expression of those genes.

The way I understand this is by thinking of a cookbook. The coding parts of the cookbook talk about what ingredients you need and how much of each you need. For some reason, people thought that this is the best part of the cookbook, the part about the ingredients. In this cookbook analogy, the Darwinists might think that the part about what to do with the ingredients is just “junk”. Stuff like the actual recipe steps, where to cook it, what temperature to use, how long to cook it for, and so on.

So what does the non-coding part of the DNA do that gives it “function” (makes it useful). Well, he has examples, and one of them is some “junk DNA” that regulates gene expression. What happens when that junk DNA gets bad mutations, changing the instructions?

This:

This junk DNA element contains an enhancer that helps regulate the gene ETS2, but mutations in that region deleteriously affect gene regulation, potentially causing various diseases.

You can imagine if your cookbook had a recipe that said “set the oven the 350 degrees Fahrenheit, and put the chicken breasts in for 30 minutes.” But then a mutation happened, and suddenly the so-called junk part of the cookbook said: “set the oven the 350 degrees Fahrenheit, and put the chicken breasts in for 300 minutes.” You would not get a good result from that. That part of the recipe is not junk! It’s important.

He has a bunch more examples, including how mistakes in the non-coding DNA causes increased susceptibility to certain psychiatric disorders.

I thought it was an interesting add-on to our episode, because it explains what a useful non-coding function would look like.

Here is his conclusion:

In other words, once again, the “junk DNA” is functional. That is reflected by the fact that when you mess with the “junk,” the result is problems. That doesn’t sound like junk DNA to me.

If you missed the episode, you can get the MP3 here, and the YouTube episode is here.