All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/
News

Racist Joe Biden filibustered black female court of appeals nominee Janice Rogers Brown

5 Comments

Democrat Joe Biden likes to talk a lot about how tolerant he is, but according to his actions, he is a racist, white supremacist. I remember when he tried to block a well-qualified black nominee to the 2nd District Court of Appeals. Janice Rogers Brown had an amazing story of achieving the American dream through hard work. She loves the Constitution. But Joe Biden hated her.

Here’s the story from far-left Newsweek:

President Joe Biden on Thursday reiterated his campaign promise of nominating a Black woman to the Supreme Court, leading some conservative pundits to bring up his past opposition to Janice Rogers Brown.

[…]Senator Biden opposed and then filibustered the nomination of Brown to the federal bench in 2003 and 2005.

Then-President George W. Bush had nominated Brown both times for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, but many Democrats tried to block her from the position for her perceived libertarian views.

Brown was born to Alabama sharecroppers and grew up in the segregated South. During her college years, Brown was a single mother with views so left-wing that she later said they were almost Maoist.

Her views grew decidedly more conservative over the years, and she has defended using electric stun guns on criminals who act inappropriately in courtrooms. Brown also wrote opinions that opposed affirmative action and supported a state law that required girls younger than 18 to notify their parents before getting an abortion.

I believe that Biden blocked Janice Rogers Brown because he is a racist and a sexist. He wanted to keep black women down. It’s only now that he is tanking in the polls that he has to use a SCOTUS pick to try to save his poll numbers. In his heart, he’s racist.

More:

In 2005, The Washington Post reported that Brown was considered as a possible nominee to replace the retiring Sandra Day O’Connor on the United States Supreme Court. However, Bush chose Samuel Alito.

My choices for the Supreme Court at that time were my beloved Edith Hollan Jones and also Janice Rogers Brown. Either of these fine women would have been perfect nominees for those of us who love the Constitution and prefer judicial restraint. I didn’t like any of the male candidates, they were not conservative enough for me.

But that’s not the only time that racist Democrat Joe Biden went after a qualified judicial nominee for the crime of being black.

The Daily Caller explains:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas criticizes former Vice President Joe Biden’s stewardship of his 1991 confirmation hearings in a forthcoming documentary from Manifold Productions called “Created Equal: Clarence Thomas In His Own Words.”

At one juncture of the film, Thomas was asked about a colloquy with Biden over natural law philosophy and the Constitution. Though he did not cite Biden by name, Thomas lamented that lawmakers do not seem to have full command of the subject matter during judicial confirmation hearings.

[…]“I felt as though in my life I had been looking at the wrong people as the people who would be problematic toward me,” Thomas said of such statements. “We were told that ‘Oh it’s going to be the bigot in the pickup truck. It’s going be the Klansman. It’s going to be the rural sheriff.’”

“The biggest impediment was the modern day liberal,” he added.

I think we should learn about Democrats from their actions, not their words. They only like to care about race for minorities who agree with them. Conservative minirities get treated very badly.

News

Playboy bunnies shocked that their own free decisions did not make them happy

15 Comments

I’m seeing a lot of stories in the news lately about how women are unhappy after being given exactly what they asked for. Feminists who wanted to abolish sex differences are mad that biological men are in their spaces. Feminists who demanded preferential treatment in colleges and workplaces are mad that men don’t earn more than they do. And now… the Playboy bunnies are mad.

Story from the New York Post:

“He was a predator,” Hefner’s ex-girlfriend Sondra Theodore, 65, told The Post. “I watched him, I watched his game. And I watched a lot of girls go through [the Playboy Mansion] gates looking farm-fresh, and leaving looking tired and haggard.”

The former Sunday school teacher-turned-1977 Playboy magazine centerfold model began dating Hefner after meeting him at one of his many lascivious mansion parties.

Former Sunday school teacher. Got that? Former Sunday school teacher.

She says that she’s a victim:

“He groomed me and twisted my mind into thinking his way was normal,” she said of Hef… “He introduced me to drugs. I’d never had a drink or a drug before going up to the Playboy Mansion. And my first night there I was handed champagne and the drugs came later, and I was underage.”

So, I have two points about this. I think that Hugh Hefner was a big hero to the secular left, because he helped them to throw off the shackles of sobriety and chastity that were part of America’s Christian past. The secular left wanted freedom from Christianity’s “repressive” rules on dating, relationships, marriage and sexuality, and Hefner gave them what they wanted. I hope we learn a lesson about trusting atheists to tell us what is moral.

Second point is about the women. Did everyone see that post from earlier in the week about the woman who ran up hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loan debt, then demanded a bailout from taxpayers? What I would like to see is women make better decisions. It would probably help that they rely more on evidence than on feelings, and call for advisors if they don’t feel comfortable.

We’re not helping women by telling them to “follow their hearts”. People don’t make good decisions when they “follow their hearts”. Even worse is to follow the crowd. Hugh Hefner was in high demand by women when he was young. He’s tall, he’s handsome, he’s rich, and he’s morally permissive and non-judgmental. A lot of young women wanted all that he had to offer. But just because a lot of women wanted all that, doesn’t mean that Sondra Theodore was right to wish for what what many women desired.

Another thing about the women – I don’t like how they blame men for their own free will decisions. They don’t take responsibility the way that I expect them to take responsibility. They’re saying “It was the man’s fault” instead of asking “why did I choose that man?” I’d like to see women ask themselves these hard questions. Just because these questions feel bad, it doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be asked. The only way to learn is to take responsibility. If everything is someone else’s fault, then you never change yourself. And you are the one you need to fear the most.

Finally, I don’t think it’s a good message to send our young men that tall, hot, rich bad boys get all the best looking young women. When a young woman chooses a bad man, it’s a signal to all the young men about what is working – what is in demand. Women need to understand that their decisions are being watched, and they are making the world a worse place when they choose to reward secular left psychopaths like Hugh Hefner. He should have been shunned by women – that would have made sure that no men imitated him.

Polemics

How do you respond to the conquests and wars in the Old Testament?

6 Comments

John Berea has an article about it on his web site.

Here’s his overview:

In the Old Testament are the military campaigns of Israel inconsistent with being led by a just and loving God, and inconsistent with his own commands?  Here, I would like to make the case for consistency and justness.

1. The nations of Canaan were evil, harming others, and needed to be stopped.  They had carried out incest with children/grandchildren and performed child sacrifice by fire. (Lev 18:6-30, Deut 12:31, Deut 18:9-10, Psalm 106:35, 37-38)  They launched unprovoked attacks on Israel (Ex 17:8-9, Num 21:1, Num 21:2-23, 33) and even guerrilla attacks against Israel’s “stragglers in the rear of the march when you were exhausted and tired.” (Deut 25:18)

2. Warfare language was likely rhetorical.  There are five reasons to support the rhetorical nature of language such as “completely destroy” (Hebrew תחרימו, literally “ban”) in Deut 20:17.  It likely meant a destruction of armed soldiers, buildings, and religious icons.

  1.  Semitic language professor and NIV, NAB, and ESV bible translator Richard Hess argues that Hebrew “ban” is “stereotypical for describing all the inhabitants of a town or region, without predisposing the reader to assume anything further about their ages or even their genders” and “need not require that there really were children, senior citizens, or women there who were put to death” even when followed by the terms “men and women” (Joshua 8:25) or “young and old” (Joshua 8:25).
  2. In Israel’s destruction of enemies we see phrases like “left no survivor” and “utterly destroyed all who breathed” (Joshua 10:40, Judges 1:8).  But in Joshua 21:12-13 the author has no problem telling us these people were still there afterward: “if you ever turn away and make alliances with these nations that remain near you… God will no longer drive out these nations”.  In 1 Sam 15:3-4 Israel was to “strike down the Amalekites. Destroy everything that they have. Don’t spare them. Put them to death–man, woman, child, infant, ox, sheep, camel, and donkey alike.”  In 15:8 Saul “executed all Agag’s people” and Agag himself was killed in 15:33.  But later in  1 Sam 27:8 we’re told they’re still there and ” had been living in that land for a long time”.  Hundreds of years later in Esther 3:1 we’re even told Haman was an Agagite, a descendant of the Amalekite king Agag.
  3. Most verses on the subject speak of “driving out” and “dispossessing” the land rather than language suggestive of genocide.  E.g. Num 33:51-53, in “the land of Canaan, you must drive out all the inhabitants of the land before you. Destroy all their carved images, all their molten images,  and demolish their high places.  You must dispossess the inhabitants of the land and live in it, for I have given you the land to possess it.”  It’s the same story in Lev 18:25, Num 23:31-32, Deut 6:19, 9:4, 18:12, Joshua 3:10, and 23:9.
  4. Jer 4:20 suggests inhabitants fled before armies arrived:  “At the sound of the horseman and bowman every city flees; They go into the thickets and climb among the rocks”
  5. Deut 7:22 specifically says that Israel was forbidden to “destroy them all at once” and instead they would be expelled “little by little”.

So either all of these verses contradict one another, or the conquest language was rhetorical.

3. Many of the “cities” were probably military outposts.  For example with Jericho and Ai, Richard Hess argues there are no references to noncombatants (apart from Rahab), no archaeological evidence of non-military use, the term melek (Hebrew מלכי)  for “king” of the cities often meant mean a military leader in Canaan (e.g. in Joshua 2:2), they were located at defensive positions, and Jericho and Ai weren’t described as a large city as Gibeon and Hazor explicitly were.

4. A just God requires wrath.  It’s not possible to have a God who is just but not wrathful–otherwise wrongdoers continue unabated. Paranormal investigator James Randi wrote in Skeptic Magazine, “I accuse the Christian god of murder by allowing the Holocaust to take place” yet Dawkins and Hitchens condemn God for judgment against the Canaanites.  Which is it? Ultimately the the problem is we view death as the ultimate judgment, when in the theological context of the bible it’s only a graduation to what’s next with accountability for what we’ve done with what we were given.

The four points are developed with links for support. If you get this question a lot, it’s a good resource to bookmark.

Also, if you’re looking for a short video to share, here is a 6-minute one featuring Frank Turek:

That’s from commenter WorldGoneCrazy. It’s really good.